It is an irony that when an educated European said that the Holocaust did not exist , he was charged in the court by the Zionists and Christians. So where are the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech?

And now many Christians are angry because of  The Da Vinci Code and some of them spit on it etc!

So where are the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech?

Am I wrong if I say that this is the hypocrisy of the West?

AbRah2006 wrote: The Western media that is  controlled by the Christians or Zionists has slandered the prophet Muhammad by drawing some cartoon pictures to degrade him. When the Muslims become angry, the Western people says it is ok to draw the cartoons to slander Muhammad in the name of media freedom and freedom of speech. And the non-Muslim media carry on offending the Muslims by publishing more cartoons to degrade Muhammad. It is an irony that when an educated European said that the Holocaust did not exist , he was charged in the court by the Zionists and Christians. So where are the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech? And now many Christians are angry because of  The Da Vinci Code and some of them spit on it etc! Christian leaders in countries such as Thailand, Singapore, India and South Korea have been aggressive and vocal in urging censorship, bans and boycotts. In the Philippines, where the majority of citizens are Roman Catholic, the Manila City Council banned The Da Vinci Code on Thursday. It threatened to issue fines or jail time to theatres caught screening it or those selling pirated versions for personal viewing.(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/18/da-vinci-china.html - http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/18/da-vinci-ch ina.html  ) So where are the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech? Am I wrong if I say that this is the hypocrisy of the West?

Agressive and vocal, not violent.

Yes you are wrong. No one in the West denies your right to protest the cartoons, the West encourages peaceful protest, boycott and non-violent demonstration. What the west objects to and what any civilized culture would object to are the riots and killing associated with the cartoons.

For example: the Author of the Di Vinci Code is not in hiding for fear of his life. The same cannot be said for Rushdie.

Tom Hanks and Ron Howard don't live in fear of being murdered in broad daylight dead like Van Goh.

I can offer you a few dozen other examples if you like but these should illustrate point nicely.

AbRah,

Abed has a good point.

I just read and Abed provided me with the link to Thomas Jefferson's excessive trimming and editing of the New Testament. It was a fascinating read, He reduced the NT from 800 over columns down to relevant 80 only and was never killed! In fact, the US Government Published his abridged NT.

Once the body of Jesus was laid in the tomb and they rolled the stone to close the door, he closed his NT.   He just closed the entire "Resurrection" and went off.  I think I would have done  a better editing than Thomas Jefferson.

Good Night

BMZ

My response:

1) What is the meaning of hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning under, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself.

The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

AbRah2006 wrote: My response: 1) What is the meaning of hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning under, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself. The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group. Hypocrisy also refers to the act of criticizing others for behavior which one engages in as well, or in other words, not practicing what you preach. Some people believe that most, if not all people are hypocrites since we constantly criticize what we deem to be bad behavior, even though most people do bad things at some point in their lives. (2) The Western media and the Western people who are Christians claim that they believe in and practise the media freedom and freedom of speech so they think it is their rights to slander the prophet Muhammad by drawing cartoons and publish them all over the world to degrade the prophet Muhammad. When the Muslims protest or boycott the nations that slander the prophet Muhammad, the Western people claim that the Muslims do not respect the freedom of speech and the media freedom. It is an irony that  the Christians who claim that they worship and revere the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech become angry and condemn The Da Vinci Code because they think that the movie has offended them so this is the hypocrisy of the West! Please refer to the meaning of hypocrisy above! If you the Western people really believe in the media freedom and freedom of speech , why do you sue the media if you think that it has offended you? Why don't you keep your mouth shut to respect the media freedom? I quote:  copy of the book The Da Vinci Code is displayed at the High Court in London, February 27, 2006. Christians may condemn 'The Da Vinci Code' as historical rubbish but for churches that starred in the film, it is the Holy Grail of Tourism. REUTERS/Toby Melville I quote:  Christian leaders in countries such as Thailand, Singapore, India and South Korea have been aggressive and vocal in urging censorship, bans and boycotts. In the Philippines, where the majority of citizens are Roman Catholic, the Manila City Council banned The Da Vinci Code on Thursday. It threatened to issue fines or jail time to theatres caught screening it or those selling pirated versions for personal viewing.(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/18/da-vinci-china.html - http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/05/18/da-vinci-ch ina.html  ) Why must the Christians urge the censorship, bans and boycotts and take legal actions  against theatres caught screening the movie if the Christians claim that they believe in the freedom of speech and media freedom? I quote:NEW YORK (AFP) - Angry US Roman Catholics and conservative Christians declared "showtime" for nationwide protests against new religious blockbuster "The Da Vinci Code," which they say mocks their faith. American critics, meanwhile, greeted opening night for director Ron Howard's 125-million-dollar movie by adding to the mountain of scorn which greeted its preview this week at the Cannes film festival. "Never in the history of filmmaking has the memory of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the faith of all Christians been so explicitly targeted, insulted and mocked on such a worldwide scale," said Marc Balestrieri, president of De Fide, a non-profit religious group. "All Christians are morally obligated to condemn and boycott this film and hold its makers accountable for the lies depicted as historical truth." "The Da Vinci Code," starring Oscar winner Tom Hanks and French actress Audrey Tautou, was already on general release in Europe and Asia, sparking similar outrage among believers. Protests were planned for early showings in New York and Los Angeles, and other events were timed to coincide with the movie's release across the country. (Source: Yahoo! Asia News ) So where are the so-called media freedom and freedom of speech that are revered and worshipped by the Western people? If you the Western people really believe in the media freedom and freedom of speech , why do you sue or condemn the media if you think that it has offended you? Why don't you keep your mouth shut to respect the media freedom if you really believe in the media freedom and freedom of speech? Conclusion: The freedom of speech and media freedom are immoral when they are used to slander or degrade anybody!

AbRah2006,

That rationalzation is quite sophomoric.

Notice your own operative words here:

In the case of Di Vinci the protesters boycott, condemn, protest, sue.

In the case of the cartoons the remedy was threaten murder, destroy private property, publically call for the murder of those involved and precipitate the deaths of dozens by mob violence.

In the case of Van Goh the remedy was a public execution.

Lets take a look at your definition again.

The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

[QUOTE=fredifreeloader]abrah - youre right about the west - it is hypocritical.  let me give you a clear example.  2 days ago i was in a bookshop in the city centre.  the "da vinci code" (which i have read, its nothing great, and they say the film, which ive not seen,  is the pits) was on the bookshelves.  so i did a little test, i asked for a copy of the "satanic verses" - the great novel by salman rushdie, which i did not see anywhere on the shelves.  the assistant told me they had it, but they did not put it on the shelves, for fear of offending muslims - they kept it through the back -   thats the west for you, totally hypocritical.  its ok to offend the holy faith of Christ, but not islam.  they say theyre free, but theyre already in the bondage of shariah law.  needless to say, ill be taking the matter further (not that i expect to get far with the idiots in charge of this place)

________________________________________________________

I quote Fredi's statement:its ok to offend the holy faith of Christ, but not islam. 

My response: There are so many Christian websites that insult and  slander Islam, Allah, the prophet Muhammad, and Muslims on the internet and you never condemn those Christian websites for insulting and slandering Islam. So who are the hypocrites?

My response to Abednego:

Why do the Christians protest and threaten to take actions against the Da Vinci Code? Why do you protest against the Da Vinci Code?So the Christians have rights to protest against it!

What about the Muslims? Do they have rights to protest against the cartoons and the media too? Have you ever thought why the Muslims protest against the media?

How do you feel if the media slander you worldwide?

An educated European was charged in the court by a Western government for saying that Holocaust did not exist so it seems to me the West does not practise the freedom of speech.

It is an irony that the publishers and artists of the cartoons are not charged with degrading and slandering the prophet Muhammad. The West says that it does charge the publishers and artis because it believes in freedom of speech and media freedom! >>>>The hypocrisy of the West!

AbRah2006 wrote: An educated European was charged in the court by a Western government for saying that Holocaust did not exist so it seems to me the West does not practise the freedom of speech. It is an irony that the publishers and artists of the cartoons are not charged with degrading and slandering the prophet Muhammad. The West says that it does charge the publishers and artis because it believes in freedom of speech and media freedom! >>>>The hypocrisy of the West!

AbRah we were discussing the DiVinci code and Cartoons. Lol I mentioned my souse and sons are Jewish and you broad jump to Holocost denial. What are the odds? The conversation must have gotten uncomfortable for you. If I make you uncomfortable, just say so- I'll go talk to someone else.

The reason is simple. Certain European countries have legislatively (agreed among themselves) that denying the Holocaust is a crime. Here in the US it is a crime to make even joking threats against the President. It's not after the fact. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I do not see what the fuss is about the Divinci Code because as a child I asked myself did Jesus have a wife, children a family.

Even if he had a family it probably would not change things very much, just some people would figure Christianity owes them an inheritance.

Jesus lived and breathed just like us why could he not have loved someone too?

He was intitled to a family too just like all the rest of us.

amlhabibi,

From you: "I do not see what the fuss is about the Divinci Code because as a child I asked myself did Jesus have a wife, children a family.

Even if he had a family it probably would not change things very much, just some people would figure Christianity owes them an inheritance.

Jesus lived and breathed just like us why could he not have loved someone too?"

Correct observation and I am sure he must have had wife and children. It's just that no one reported that in the gospels. He was a conservative Jew. I have not heard of any celibate Jewish prophet.

BMZ

Angela's statement: And I (a Christian) participated in the boycott of Dutch Goods.  That was an appropriate response. 

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

Dear Angela,

Thank you very much for protesting against the culprits who have slandered, degraded and insulted the prophet Muhammad  the last messenger of God. I hope more Christians will protest against the publishers of the cartoons.

We Muslims believe that Jesus is a great prophet of Allah and we love and respect him very much. We will not degrade Jesus eventhough we Muslims and you Christians differ over the sonship of Jesus etc. We dislike anybody who degrade Jesus by whatever means for it is a big sin to degrade Jesus!

[QUOTE=Miriam]Abednego:  I quite agree with you.  If evangelical Christians were  insecure about their beliefs they'd be rioting in the streets over the DaVinci Code movie.  Instead, evangelical pastors are using this as an opportunity to address the issues raised by the movie from the pulpit.  When one has the truth, one needn't get all out of joint about it and act out in a negative manner that only brings insults and laughter from the world.

------------------------------------------------------------ ----

If the evangelical Christians and other Christians were secure, they will not protest against the Da Vinci Code! On the contrary they are taking some steps to stop or to protest against the Da Vinci Code verbally and orally! If they are really secure they will not give a damn to the movie!

I am exposing the double standard practised by the West in this article.

The West says proudly that it reveres and preserve democracy. It is an irony that the West rejects Hamas when Hamas has won the election in Palestine legally. The West are trying to topple Hamas government by imposing economy sanction onto Palestine so now the West become the enemy of democracy! The West had imposed the economy sanctions and food embargoes onto Iraq that starved innocent millions of Iraqi babies and children to death! The West has flushed human rights and humanity into sewer!

It was the Western people who massacred more than 55 millions of the innocent Western people during the 2nd World War  for it had already flushed human rights and humanity into sewer during the great wars of Europe!

The hypocrisy of the West is exposed again!

That rationalzation is quite sophomoric.

Notice your own operative words here:

In the case of Di Vinci the protesters boycott, condemn, protest, sue.

In the case of the cartoons the remedy was threaten murder, destroy private property, publically call for the murder of those involved and precipitate the deaths of dozens by mob violence.

In the case of Van Goh the remedy was a public execution.

Lets take a look at your definition again.

The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

By 1617, the Habsburg chosen as king of Bohemia was Ferdinand II (brother of the now deceased Philip II). Ferdinand was a pious man, attending masses at all hours and a monarch who went on pilgrimages and endured self-abasement. In 1618, Ferdinand moved against Protestantism by closing some Protestant churches in Prague. This was followed by rebellion and the rejection of Habsburg rule - as Ferdinand should have expected it would. Siding with Ferdinand was the Catholic monarch of Bavaria, Maximilian, and Philip II's heir, Philip III, King of Spain. Siding with the Protestants were some German princes. Between 1618 and 1625, Spanish armies supporting Ferdinand defeated Protestant armies, and with the help of the Jesuits and forced conversions, the area around Prague - Bohemia and Moravia - was made Catholic. In Prague, on June 21, 1621, twenty-six noblemen were executed. Other nobles who had rebelled in Bohemia and Moravia had their property confiscated and given to nobles who had demonstrated their loyalty to the Church and Ferdinand II.

[QUOTE=Cyril]Abrah

Your quote: "The West says proudly that it reveres and preserve democracy.It is an irony that the West rejects Hamas when Hamas has won the election in Palestine legally.

You seem (or pretend) not to know how international relations work. All states in the world, except probably North Korea, mutually accept the states which are defined as such.
The only reason why Hamas is rejected is not because it has democratically won elections, but because it does not recognize one of the states of the international community, and because it advocates the suppression of that state.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------

How can Hamas recognize Israel when Israel is formed by the Zionists who rob the Palestinian people of their land? Will you Cyril recognize the robbers who rob you of your home?

Cyril wrote:

"You seem (or pretend) not to know how international relations work. All states in the world, except probably North Korea, mutually accept the states which are defined as such.
The only reason why Hamas is rejected is not because it has democratically won elections, but because it does not recognize one of the states of the international community, and because it advocates the suppression of that state."

Actually, this is directly from HR4681:

(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY - It shall be the policy of the United States to promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government that:

(A) has completed the process of purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism;
(B) has dismantled the terrorist infrastructure and is confiscating unauthorized weapons, arresting and bringing terrorists to justice, destroying unauthorized arms factories, thwarting and preempting terrorist attacks, and is fully cooperating with Israel's security services;
(C) has publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state;
(D) has halted all anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled electronic and print media and in schools, mosques, and other institutions it controls, and is replacing these materials, including textbooks, with materials that promote tolerance, peace, and coexistence with Israel;
(E) has taken effective steps to ensure democracy, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and has adopted other reforms such as ensuring transparent and accountable governance; and
(F) has undertaken efforts to ensure the financial transparency and accountability of all government ministries and operations

As you can clearly see, recognising the "state of Israel" is just one part. The U.S. is basically trying to control Hamas and it's policies. They are asking Hamas to do things that the Israelis do not. It is unfair and biased legislation, anyone can see that.

I'm wondering just who they are supposed to be accountable to? Aren't they a sovereign entity? I find this ironic in the extreme considering the corruption that occurs in the U.S. government regarding financial accountability, and with the corruption regarding the Israeli Lobby. The U.S. Government isn't even accountable to their own people, yet they are demanding accountability from a foreign government.

I would say, the Palestinians may accept Israel when Israel gives back all of their land and stops the apartheid and slow genocide of the Palestinian people. These are all United Nation mandated actions, which the Israelis have NEVER followed. How many times must the Israelis be sanctioned before the U.S. finally says they are in the wrong?

Some of Christians of the West have falsely accused Muslims of persecuting non-Muslims in Muslim nations while the Christians themselves abuse the rights of Muslims to practise their beliefs in the West. Muslim girls and women cover their hairs as a part of their beliefs but the Christians use the laws to force them to expose their hairs. Some Muslim women lose their jobs for practising their beliefs and some Muslim girls are barred from schools etc for covering their hairs.

In Muslim nations non-Muslims are allowed to practise their beliefs and there are many churches, temples etc. They may go to schools to study and hold positions in Muslim government and non-government organisations.

Cyril wrote:

"The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women."

I am a woman and I am not offended by the hijab, I hold my dignity extremely high. So high in fact that I find it offensive for anyone to believe that to have equal rights and "dignity" a woman must be half naked and shameless. Strange, I find it offensive that in the "free" West, 13 year old girls run around showing most of their bodies to get attention. How strange to be offended by a covered head and not by an uncovered body.

Cyril, the Bible states:

I Corinthians: 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.

11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Have Christians fallen so far from their Word of God that they find it offensive? Did Paul, supposedly speaking for God disrespect the dignity of women in the verses of I Corinthians? Do you find Catholic women who cover to pray offensive? What of Orthodox Jewish women who wear the veil? When did it become offensive for a woman to have modesty and self-respect?

Cyril's statement: 
You are mentioning rights (in the plural) of Muslims to practise their religion that are supposedly abused by Christians. In the rest of your posts those rights become only one, the covering of the hair by Muslim women.

Answer: I will give you more examples soon.

Cyril's statement: In every country people of whatever religion are supposed to respect the laws and their fellow citizens.
The Belgian law forbids to walk around with a masked face. So the chador is forbidden.
French law forbids religious signs at school. So the Muslim veil for schoolgirls is forbidden.

Answer: Therefore the Western nations such as Belgium and French do not respect the religious freedom.

Cyril's statement: The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women.

Answer: Are you joking? 

Do you mean that Christian nuns who cover hairs are an offence to people who respect the dignity of women. What about the naked women or girls who parade to attract attention of men in a beauty contest? It seems to be like a bunch of naked cows being inspected by a bunch of men in the market. Do the cows have dignity to look after? I am not saying the Western women are animals. They are human beings!

Cyril please tell me  the professions that require women to expose their body semi-naked or fully-naked when they are on duty? Why must they do it?

We Muslims believe that you non-Muslims are free to do whatever you like as long as you do not insult Islam and Muslims by your actions. Why do the Western policemen detain the women who are fully naked in the public? Is it immoral to be naked? Then why are there some places inwhich women can be fully naked?

To me naked women is an insult to the dignity of women but I don't care about it as long as the women are the non-Muslims because I respect their rights to be semi-naked or fully-naked. Muslim women cover their hairs and bodies to preserve their dignity and they do it voluntarily because they believe in Allah and His messenger.

What does the Bible say about women who expose their hairs, bodies etc? Does the Bible allow women to expose their bodies, hairs etc?

Cyril's statement: In the West people from many religions and non-religions live together. So each religion can express itself but not infringe on the laws or on the sensibilities of others.

Answer: Cyril your statements have answered your own question and they are contradicting each other!

 Cyril's statement: The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women.

VERSUS

Cyril's statement:In the West people from many religions and non-religions live together. So each religion can express itself but not infringe on the laws or on the sensibilities of others.

It seems to me that you Cyril prefer the man-made laws to the God-made laws. However the man-made laws contains errors and loop holes so they change the laws again and again.

 Please tell me how you will do to express yourself as a Christian but not infringe on the laws or on the sensibilities of Muslims. Will you stop drinking liquor before the Muslims in the Muslim nations? Oh you will say that Muslims have oppressed you by denying your right to drink liquor and become drunk!

We Muslims don't care whether you drink liquor and become drunk as long as you are not a Muslim. I don't care if you drink so much liquor that you end up dead!

By the way there Christians who wear crucifixs in Muslim nations and we Muslims don't care about them. You can even wear a giant crucifix that you will drop dead as a resut of its heavy wight in a Muslim nation and we don't care about it.

Cyril's statement: People from African culture have also been "abused" by Western laws that forbid the mutilation of women genitals.
Such is life in the West.

Answer: Do you Cyrils realise that your are imposing your way of life onto foreigners who belong to different cultures? Do you have any rights to say yours is holier than theirs? They believe in their own cultures so they do according to their cultures voluntarily. If you Cyril were born in the Amazon jungle as an American native, I think you will behave the ways the American natives do and you will wear loin etc proudly!

Cyril's statement: You must be joking when you say that non-Muslims can freely practice their religions in Muslim countries. I wonder what Copts think of their situation in Egypt, what Christians think in Indonesia, not to mention Saudi Arabia. Even in secular Turkey Christians have difficulties in practising their religion.


I will refute your statement above soon!

"The Belgian law forbids to walk around with a masked face. So the chador is forbidden.
French law forbids religious signs at school. So the Muslim veil for schoolgirls is forbidden."

These laws were directed specifically towards Muslims. Even the governments of these countries admit it. Turkey has banned hijab in most public places, and many European countries are working on anti-hijab legislation. Even in the U.S. women in hijab are often discriminated against, as well as Muslim men with beards. 

There are many companies in the West that practice discrimination toward Muslims.

If you think Muslims have so much freedom in the West, grow a beard, put on a kufi, and go stand at any airport....

Cyril's statement: The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women.

Answer:  Do the patients feel offended by the doctors and nurses who wear veil and cover their bodies in the hospitals?  It is an irony that they do not die of the veils.  Why must the doctors and nurses wear veils during the surgical operations etc?

Cyril wrote: The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women.

What BS!

I know why the french and those others nations banned it, because they think the girls could be hiding weapons under the veil/hijab, have you seen the veils on the girls, Cyril? the scarf is wrapped tightly, well comfortable for wearing, and the hijab only covers the head to the shoulders, so you cannot be possibly be hiding any weapons  

Muslims are discriminated here because African women whether they are muslim or not wear head coverings of their tribes or culture and little old european women wear scarfs (and most they are not religious) and my great grandmother wore them, I have pictures  Tell me Cyril, why are these women not discriminated? Or even young western women who wear scarfs there are plenty of pictures, are they really an offence to the dignity of women?? there are are scarfs that are shaped in triangles, and to keep with the older children there are some for babies to wear.

So yeah, your statement The Muslim veil is an offence to people who respect the dignity of women is quite BS!

Cyril wrote: Angel Why do you avoid saying the hijab or the niqab is a religious obligation to Muslim women while Muslim men can walk around in the heat in short sleeved shirts?

Actually I never avoided anything.

The comparison with hospital gear or veils worn by old ladies is ridiculous because those are only worn for practical or fashion reasons.

I give you a practical reason, in winter it keeps you warm  and people do say that being covered up is suppose to keep you cool in summer, like you suppose to cover up in the desert  Oh and you might see that since muslim women cover up in summer they won't get skin cancer.

So there you got practical reasons  

The hijab is not only to conceal the hair but symbolizes the control that has to be imposed on women and their movements.

symbolizes control ???

Oh yeah those young muslims girls who play soccer are restricted in their movements.

They are supposed to remain at home unless they carry their home walls along with them.

I guess those few muslim girls who study at my work are in the wrong that they have stepped outside the home. on my they are bad  

carry their home walls along with them ??? what is that ?? are you insane or something

Cyril wrote: Angel You should study a little bit of Muslim culture. The home is the domain of women and the street the domain of men. Women must not be seen by strangers. That does not happen when they are secluded behind walls. When they go out in the street they remain secluded behind they veils which can be compared to the walls of their home.

Cyril,

Are you a Muslim? Don't you think as a Muslim I should know what Islam does and does not teach?

I think you are confusing the "culture" of a few majority Muslim countries with Islam, the religion.

What is it you find so offensive about hijab? That it is supposedly a form of control over women? Who is supposed to be controlling us, men? The Quran is the Word of God, as the Bible is supposed to be, so I would say that God is the One ordering women to cover themselves and be modest. No man forces me to wear hijab. I do so because God told me to cover myself.

However, as an offended Westerner should you try to control me by forcing me to remove my hijab?

I am an American, born and raised here. Used to be a Christian. I have worked most of my adult life, went to University, and travelled all over. I am not some helpless, victimized chattel of men who allows herself to be controlled. I choose what I do. I choose to wear hijab because God told me to do this. The hijab has not stopped me from doing anything that I want to do. I worked in hijab, I play in hijab, I go wherever I want, take part in charity events, play sports and games, etc...

I think that you and people like you are the ones who are controlled by ignorance and what you percieve to be "freedom" for women. If a woman chooses to be modest and covered she is oppressed. I believe the oppression of women is the mentality of the West that you have no value as a woman unless you are 25 years old, weigh 100 pounds, and dress provacatively. That is oppression and that is control. To convince women that they are nothing but sex-objects who have no worth unless they look and act in a sexual way. Why are there so many girls with anorexia and bulimia in the West? Why are there so many plastic surgeries? Why do the girls and women parade around half dressed? Even on makeover shows, the first thing they tell women is to show off their bodies. Why are breast augmentations the most popular form of elective surgery, and why has the number performed increased so dramatically? Why? Because in this "culture" that is the value women have. The size of their breasts, not the size of their IQ.

The hijab doesn't oppress women, it sets them free. Free to focus on their minds and their souls instead of what men find important: their sexuality.

The hijab is not only to conceal the hair but symbolizes the control that has to be imposed on women and their movements. They are supposed to remain at home unless they carry their home walls along with them.

Cyril: you can have your 'interpretation' of why women wear hijab and the 700 million Moslem women in the world will probably disagree with you.

YOU view it as a symbol of their home and 'carrying their walls'. They necessarily do not. Hijab is more than a scarf on the head. It is about covering oneself in a modest way.

In addition to believing Allah directed them to wear hijab. It has many other aspects to it. I am sure other people have others to add.... 

1.     I grew up in the west and never liked wearing tight and revealing clothes. I had no interest in being stared at. No one ever told me to not wear loose clothes for any reason. I just know how a certain percentage of men are. They are rude and immature and I did not want to deal with their weakness. I was not a Moslem at the time. I found it distasteful.

2.     Loose clothing is far more comfortable. Have you ever tried to wear tight jeans and tight clothes?? Darn uncomfortable.

3.     Surprising there is a large segment of population of women, who are not Moslem, agree that the tight, revealing clothes is not only demeaning to women it shows a lack of respect.  Because only the tackiest, most revealing are noticed, we tend not to see a good percentage of women will not dress that way.  They may not dress to the extent a Moslem woman, but they wear tasteful, professional and less revealing clothes.

4.     Hijab requires people to deal with me solely on a mental level, not physical. It is taking one�s looks out of the equation. Dealing with me as a full person, a woman, not a body part or type. Since some people are ignorant idiots it greatly helps them from jerks. I think it can be disconcerting cause you cannot put the woman into a box that you think you can. No �dumb blond� jokes for sure or stereotyping based upon appearance.

5.     Moslems hold sacred the marriage and family bonds. A Moslem will value this over most relationships. The sexual / physical is a private matter. It is not for the whole world to see. It is part of one of the amazing gifts Allah has given people. And it should not be trifled with. Women and men BOTH like the feeling of not having to share their partner. It makes the relationship special.

6.     Covering�s one body does protect you from the natural elements. People in hot weather countries will cover to protect from the sun. It has practical value.

7.     Considering there are more women getting science and math degrees in many Moslem countries than in the US, I would disagree with you that it is because they need to be at home so to speak. Having traveled in a Moslem country, there were plenty of women out and about. Some covered their heads, some did not. But ALL people were conservatively dressed. After being here in the states, I appreciated not having to look at all those body parts. I also appreciated going to a wedding where everyone was sober. (That is for another thread)

A humorous quote on this subject is by Dave Barry is:

Men's magazines often feature pictures of naked women. Women's magazines also feature pictures of naked women. This is because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is lumpy and hairy and should not be seen by the light of day. Men are turned on at the sight of a naked woman's body. Most naked men elicit laughter from women.

after 4 and half years here, what do I know  

women must not be seen by strangers where did you get that from?? not everyone knows each other in the mosque you know at least a large one  Or attending one that is not your own.

And there are plently women seen on the streets either shopping or going to work or school, on the train, yeah not allowed to be seen by strangers , oh and guess what some are alone now that is some trust on the husband or father

I've seen travel documentaries on a few shopping centres in the mid east, guest what plenty of women shopping amongst strangers.

I do really think you need to learn a bit more about muslims and what is allowed in islam. Sure there is some segretation but what you say is not correct.

I am sure the muslims here will help correct you.

Cyril wrote:

"No they don't when religious freedom infringes on laws and on the principles on which Western society is built."

I don't know where you live, but in the States our society was supposed to be built on the principles of religious freedom. That was the whole point, escaping religious persecution in other countries. The laws, and the very Constitution of this country are supposed to protect the religious freedom of all who live here.

If you are from Europe, then I can more readily understand your position since Europe has a rich history of persecuting, subverting, and compelling those who hold religious beliefs different than the majority. Apparently not too ancient a history.

Assalamu Alaikum:

Well, I ran some errands today, and thanks to my portable "home walls of invisibility" no strangers' eyes were set upon my person.

However, it can be difficult getting the "home walls of invisiblilty" in and out of the car, which as a Muslim woman I'm probably not supposed to be driving but since I am invisible to strangers' eyes no Muslim man notices, so they cannot oppress me by taking away my car keys.  And, there is the problem of actually paying for goods and services when I'm out and about since I must remain behind the "walls" and so no strangers can see me to accept my cash.

Ah well, just another day of oppression....

fredifreeloader wrote: abrah - youre right about the west - it is hypocritical.  let me give you a clear example.  2 days ago i was in a bookshop in the city centre.  the "da vinci code" (which i have read, its nothing great, and they say the film, which ive not seen,  is the pits) was on the bookshelves.  so i did a little test, i asked for a copy of the "satanic verses" - the great novel by salman rushdie, which i did not see anywhere on the shelves.  the assistant told me they had it, but they did not put it on the shelves, for fear of offending muslims - they kept it through the back -   thats the west for you, totally hypocritical.  its ok to offend the holy faith of Christ, but not islam.  they say theyre free, but theyre already in the bondage of shariah law.  needless to say, ill be taking the matter further (not that i expect to get far with the idiots in charge of this place)

BAH you are showing signs of bigotry and hypocrisy yourselves. If you protested more loudly, they would put Da Vinci Code on the back shelf also. You "Christians" in the US do not make enough noise to let the world know that you object to the abuse allleged to the messiah Jesus as they are in the movie, your retailer wants to make his 'big bucks" off the book! Boycott the retailer that sells the book! What is more important, the mistreatment of the meaning of the Christ or the almighty dollar? Christians are the ones that bomb abortion clinics: please get your head out of the sand! Please do not come to an Islamic forum and bash Islam! YOu have your own forums!

Cyril wrote: Angel You should study a little bit of Muslim culture. The home is the domain of women and the street the domain of men. Women must not be seen by strangers. That does not happen when they are secluded behind walls. When they go out in the street they remain secluded behind they veils which can be compared to the walls of their home.

Where do you get your information? You are writing on presumptions, not facts. Can you quote your sources of information?

The Quran, the Muslim's holy scripture, clearly enjoins Muslim men and women to dress and behave modestly. Muslim women are specifically instructed to cover their heads when in the presence of non-mahrem (potentially marriageable) men: 

 Surah Al-Nur (the Light) (24:31) in the Quran states: "They (the believing women) should draw their head coverings over their bosoms...". . Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) states: "O Prophet [PBUH] Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should put on their outer garments; that is most convenient in order that THEY MAY BE RECOGNIZED (as Muslims) and not be molested."

Both of the above Quranic references instruct the Muslim woman to cover herself with a large, loose overcoat (jilbab) and full head covering (khimar) so that no provocative part of her body will be visible. Her modest appearance would MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT SHE IS A CHASTE, BELIEVING WOMAN, and no one is to molest her or sexually exploit her.

 let us shed some light on what is considered in the west as the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? let's set the record straight.

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense."

Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman wasn't always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It, also, represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that's not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil," Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved.

If a woman doesn't cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man didn't come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (I Corinthians 11:3-10)

St Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for the man. St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote," Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that require women to cover their heads in church. Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God" : The same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament.

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam didn't invent the head cover, but Islam endorsed it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (24:30,31).

The Quran is quite clear that the veil is an essential part of a recipe designed for the purposes of modesty, but why modesty? The Quran is still clear "O prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (33:59). This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection.

Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women.The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the sole purpose of protecting women, all women.

The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better safe than sorry. In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished," And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors"(24:4).

Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible " If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?

Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: Fine but not enough. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America, dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot ? If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like ours has a 'walk home service' for female students on campus? If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States! I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women's office at Queen's University:

• In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes",
• 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives",
• 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime",
• 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
• A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught."
• SEXUAL ASSAULT in USA: Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society we live in. A radical change in the society's life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed, modesty in dress, in speech, and in manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and , unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price. Therefore, a society like France which expels young women from schools because of their modest dress is, in the end, simply harming itself.

THE BENEFITS OF HIJAB (COVERING) FOR WOMEN

For Muslim women, COVERING THE HEAD IS NOT THE SIGN OF DEGRADATION or oppression. It is a commandment from Allah, who is not male or female, and thus, would not discriminate against women, a segment of His creation.

Rather, HEAD-COVERING IS A SIGN OF PURITY AND DIGNITY. It highlights the Muslim woman as a pure, chaste woman and sets her apart from the immoral behavior associated with women who dress immodestly.

The HIJAB IS A SORT OF "SCREEN" BETWEEN THE CHASTE MUSLIM WOMAN AND THE EVIL THAT EXISTS IN THE WORLD. When a woman wears a hijab she is less likely to be harassed by men with lusty motives; SHE IS LESS LIKELY TO BE EXPLOITED FOR HER BEAUTY AND FEMINITY. 

The Hijab allows a woman to move about outside the confines of her home WITH HER ATTENTION ON THE TASKS SHE HAS SET OUT TO DO. The Muslim woman does not try to impress anyone but Allah when outside of her home. She is not concerned if men find her attractive, or if people are impressed because she has the latest fashions, or the newest hairstyle. She leaves her home as a SELF-CONFIDENT PART OF HUMAN RACE, not as a fashion-plate seeking stares and adoration in order to gain self-esteem. 

The hijab cuts down on competition among women. How many people in the West sacrifice financial savings and health in order to have plastic surgery - in a desperate attempt to meet up to an unrealistic standard of beauty. IN ISLAM, WOMEN ARE APPRECIATED FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE, PIETY AND CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY. When women wear hijab one finds that the most beautiful women are not necessarily the most popular. Rather, a woman is assessed for her mind, and not just superficial physical traits.

The Quran, the Muslim's holy scripture, clearly enjoins Muslim men and women to dress and behave modestly. Muslim women are specifically instructed to cover their heads when in the presence of non-mahrem (potentially marriageable) men: 

 Surah Al-Nur (the Light) (24:31) in the Quran states: "They (the believing women) should draw their head coverings over their bosoms...". . Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) states: "O Prophet [PBUH] Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should put on their outer garments; that is most convenient in order that THEY MAY BE RECOGNIZED (as Muslims) and not be molested."

Cyril wrote: 

"Only you are saying that a woman who chooses to be covered must be oppressed."

No, you said that a woman who is covered must be oppressed.

You also said that people find it offensive. 

I said just the opposite.

I also showed you the verses in the Bible that state women must cover. Covering is not something ordered by God in the Quran only, but in the books of all the monotheistic religions.

Ignoring the Word of God is your choice, not mine.

Cyril�s statement: You say that God orders women to cover themselves and be modest. I say that not only God orders that but most cultures even pagan ones (Romans and Greek for example).

My response: Therefore it is an acceptable practice for women to cover their hairs and bodies!

Cyril�s statement: My wife always walks around properly dressed and wears no veil. A veil is not the only requisite for modesty. Only you are saying that a woman who chooses to be covered must be oppressed. My wife does not feel oppressed.

My response: You yourself admit that veil is a requisite for modesty. I quote your statement: �A veil is not the only requisite for modesty�.

Cyril�s statement:  You say that the Quran is the Word of God. That is your belief and it is not the belief of hundreds million inhabitants of the West. They think on the contrary that the Quran is a human fabrication. So they deduct that the obligation for women to go around under a more or less large cloth is an obligation invented by men against women.

My response: There are 1.6 billions of Muslims all over the world and they say that Quran is the Word of God. They believe that Quran is not a human fabrication for Allah is the Author of the holy Quran. The Quran, the Muslim's holy scripture, clearly enjoins Muslim men and women to dress and behave modestly. Muslim women are specifically instructed to cover their heads when in the presence of non-mahrem (potentially marriageable) men: 

 Surah Al-Nur (the Light) (24:31) in the Quran states: "They (the believing women) should draw their head coverings over their bosoms...". . Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) states: "O Prophet [PBUH] Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should put on their outer garments; that is most convenient in order that THEY MAY BE RECOGNIZED (as Muslims) and not be molested."

Cyril�s statement: In Europe we do not base our ideas only on religious ones but on several principles that we think are important. One of them is the equality between human beings and especially between men and women. So we accept religions only when they do not oppose our basic rules of conduct in society.

My response:  Your basic rules are based on secularism and Secularism refers to a belief that many human activities and decisions should be free from religious interference. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and biblical righteousness. A secularist would argue that the religious issues are irrelevant to the decision.

In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular. Generally, there is near-complete freedom of religion (one may believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction). In the West, it is believed religion does not dictate political decisions, though the moral views originating in religious traditions remain important in political debate in some countries, such as Canada, France and others. (see La�cit�), religious references are considered out-of-place in mainstream politics. Religious influence is also largely minimised in the public sphere, and religion no longer holds the same importance in people's lives as it used to.

My response: Do you Cyril know the definition of secularism? Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities. For instance, eating a meal, playing a game, or bathing are examples of secular activities, because there is nothing inherently religious about them. Saying a prayer or visiting a place of worship are examples of non-secular activities. An aproximate synonym for secular is worldly.

Cyril wrote: 

"Only you are saying that a woman who chooses to be covered must be oppressed."

No, you said that a woman who is covered must be oppressed.

You also said that people find it offensive. I said just the opposite.

I also showed you the verses in the Bible that state women must cover. Covering is not something ordered by God in the Quran only, but in the books of all the monotheistic religions.

Ignoring the Word of God is your choice, not mine.

My response:

Dear Mishmish....You are right...It was Cyril who said "O woman who chooses to be covered must be oppressed." ....I have been reading Cyril's statements since the first time I come here. Now he is showing his true color by twisting his own words!

AbRah,

"Now he is showing his true color by twisting his own words!"

I think that wasn't necessary, bro.

To Cyril: You can happily deny that Qur'aan is not from God but I will not treat that as any insult, as far as I am concerned. You may continue to deny. But do visit, Singapore, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Lebanon, Turkey, Morroco, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Bangladesh and see for yourself how women are free. You amy exclude saudi Arabia for it has kept it the way they want and that place is the place of birth of Islam. Everyone must remember that. In fact, the men in the countries that I listed, listen more to their wives.  I am one of those men.  My wife does not wear a hijab gear on her head but she dresses very modestly and keeps herself vey well-covered.

Israfil wrote: To those of you here who are observant don't you guys think its a bit odd w are talking about Hijab when the subject heading is talking about the DA vinci Code? I counted only 3 people actually discussing the subject. I don't understand why we have to talk about a different subject here?

Answer: I start this article The Da Vinci Code to expose the double standard practised by the West! I am going to expose more!

Cyril,

I wrote this in response to your post:

To Cyril: You can happily deny that Qur'aan is not from God but I will not treat that as any insult, as far as I am concerned. You may continue to deny. But do visit, Singapore, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Lebanon, Turkey, Morroco, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Bangladesh and see for yourself how women are free. You amy exclude saudi Arabia for it has kept it the way they want and that place is the place of birth of Islam. Everyone must remember that. In fact, the men in the countries that I listed, listen more to their wives.  I am one of those men.  My wife does not wear a hijab gear on her head but she dresses very modestly and keeps herself vey well-covered.

Your response: "Bmzsp

I thank you for allowing me to believe that the Quran is not (or at least large parts of it) from God. I also thank you on behalf of the billions of people who think like me."

Just to clarify that I did not allow you to believe the way you wrote and likewise I do not approve or support the billions of people who think like you. Hope it is clear that I do not support and endorse your disbelief. .

The fact is the Da Vinci Code is a BIG money maker for Dan Brown.  He doesn't really care about the details of the book or the movie (which according to nearly all critiques is a big ZERO...people are actually falling asleep watching it.)  I am deeply offended by the books, but I am not going to run out and attempt to enlist fellow Catholics and Protestants to murder this man.  He has committed a very sinful act against our Lord....blasphemy!  All for money.  He will be judged (as we all will) on judgement day for what he has done, and for the harm he has caused by possibly/probably leading many individuals away from their beliefs in Jesus, Holy Scriptures, etc.  God will decide his fate...not me, you, or anyone else.  It's all up to God.

We in the West are no more, or no less, hypocritical than anyone else.  The cartoons aimed at Muhammed were very unfortuntate.  They should not have been drawn and published.  That being said, do you have any idea how many times I have seen horrible filthy cartoons drawn of Jesus Christ published in well-known magazines, on tv shows, etc.?  What do we do about it?  We write to the advertisers of these magazines and tv shows and refuse to purchase their products.  We never buy the magazine or watch the tv program again.  We DO NOT try to murder the wretched individuals who produce such blasphemous material!  We "turn the other cheek", and pray for these people....that somehow they will find the real Jesus and accept Him into their lives.

No, the West is not perfect, is hypocritical many times, and has a lot of repenting to do.  We do the best we can....and I can only speak for myself, but I do not disrespect anyone's chosen faith and/or religion.  Do you?

Dear Patty,

I quote your statements:

1) I am deeply offended by the books, but I am not going to run out and attempt to enlist fellow Catholics and Protestants to murder this man. 

2)We DO NOT try to murder the wretched individuals who produce such blasphemous material!  We "turn the other cheek", and pray for these people....

Why do you say the same thing twice? Do you mean that all Muslims are doing that eventhough you know that there are very few Muslims who fail to control their emotion try to do it? Do you know that the prophet Muhammad and Jesus are the great prophets of Allah and we love and respect them very much? If somebody degrades, insults or slanders them, he or she degrade, insult and slander us too. Insulting, degrading and slandering Allah and His prophets is a big sin ! What are the objectives of the media and people  who insult, degrade and slander Allah and Muhammad? The objectives of the devils are to pit Christians against Muslims and to promote hatred between the Christians and Muslims and to cause wars between Muslims and Christians by provoking Muslims and Christians! Therefore punishing  a Christian man or woman who try to pit Christians against Muslims is better than losing millions of innocent lives!

Lets us see whether you Christians 'turn the other cheek' or not in history:

1) Why didn't Pope Urban protest peacefully against the Muslims who controlled Palestine before the Crusade Wars? Why didn't he turn the other cheek to the Muslims? Why did he encourage the Christians to invade and plunder Muslim nations in the name of Christianity? Why did he encourage the Christians to massacre millions of innocent Jewish and Muslim babies, children, women, elderly people etc? Why did the Christian crusaders massacre the Christians of other sects on the way to Palestine?

How did the Muslims treat the beaten Christian crusaders and their families during the Crusade War? Saladin and his Muslim forces had defeated the Christian crusaders and the Muslims treated the Christians humanely and kindly by allowing them to return to Europe peacefully.

Why did the Christians of Christian Spain torture and murder millions of Muslims and Jews when the Muslims and Jews refuse to embrace Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition? Please remember that the Muslims had treated the Christians kindly and humanely in Muslim Spain. The word 'turn the other cheek' is not practised by the Christians who claimed that they believe in Jesus!

Why didn't the Catholics and Protestants 'turn the other cheek' to each other over their differences about Christianity? Why didn't they protest peacefully against each other? They tortured and killed each other in the name of Jesus during the Catholic-Protestant War. Do you remember IRA etc?

Why didn't the Americans, British and their allies who were Christians 'turn the other cheek'  to the Germans and her allies during the 1st World and 2nd World War instead of killing tens of millions of Christians in Europe? Why didn't the Christians protest peacefully against each other?

Dear Patty,

I quote your statement:'No, the West is not perfect, is hypocritical many times, and has a lot of repenting to do.  We do the best we can....and I can only speak for myself, but I do not disrespect anyone's chosen faith and/or religion.  Do you?'

Thank you for being honest by admitting the hypocrisy of the West and I appreciate your statement very much.

I tolerate Christianity as long as the Christians tolerate Islam.

However there are Christians and their media that always degrade , insult and slander Islam so that non-Muslims hate Islam. They brainwash their followers to hate Islam and Muslims.One of their objectives is to pit non-Muslims against Muslims and some Christians and Muslims take their baits! 

After reading their statements, I find that they are jealous of Islam and they feel insecure for Islam is spreading very fast in the West and their relatives, friends and some Christian missionaries are embracing Islam. Even the Church of England admits that it is losing its followers to Islam.

My posts are a reaction to the posts of the Christians who try to slander, insult and degrade Islam. They use dirty and wicked methods to discredit Islam and Muslims so I have to defend Islam. After all it is my duty as a Muslim to tell you about Islam. I have debated against them so many times and whenever they are cornered by me they begin to insult and slander me.

Dear Patty....I never hate you and the Christians who respect Islam sincerely. It is my sincere hope that Christians and Muslims may live together peacefully. To love and be loved! However it will remain as a dream if you Christians don't punish the culprits who slander, degrade and insult Islam. It is better for you Christians to punish those Christians who slander, insult and degrade the prophet Muhammad, Islam etc to show your honesty or at least you condemn them publicly so that we believe that you are not conspiring with those devils.

We Muslims love and respect Jesus very much and we never insult, degrade and slander Jesus because Jesus is a great prophet of God. It is a big sin to slander any prophets of Allah. If somebody slander, insult or degrade Jesus, he or she also offends us Muslims. However there are some differences between Islam and Christianity such as the sonship of Jesus. And we may debate on the difference between Islam and Christianity using facts not slanders etc! Why don't we expose the similarities between Islam and Christianity to overcome our differences?

Once again I hope sincerely that you Christians and we Muslims will live together happily and peacefully. It is nice to love and be loved by each other. After all you and us are the descendants of Adam so we are brothers and sisters. Is it wrong to love each other? Our life is so short so why not we love each other rather than hate each other?

It is nice to meet you Patty here and I hope we will respect each other sincerely and truly.

Welcome back, Patty.

Please let us know how your dear dad is? I hope he is better.

Best Regards

BMZ