Quaequam Blog!

That book is actually quiet disturbing to Muslims. Yes I know you want your freedom, something that I respect but the thing that I am against is the fact that people read these books that take the piss out of the Holy Prophet Muhammed PBUH.

This just takes the biscuit. First they was the Cartoon’s by the Danish and now this, it really is pushing it!

Irfan, the freedom to say things that don’t offend anyone is no freedom at all. Freedom of speech is the right to offend, the right to be wrong, the right to take the biscuit, and indeed the whole barrel.

If you want the right to read the Qu’ran (which, in its denial of the resurrection is profoundly offensive to Christians) then you might want to consider the basis of that right.

I emailed the publishers after the petrol bombing and said hope all’s well, glad no one was hurt and that I’d buy the book.

Not out of any wish to offend, but because freedom to criticise ideas and historical figures (and that’s the way many of us regard Islam and Mohammed) in a free society should be defended and the people who uphold those rights supported.

Irfan, I’ve long wondered, why wasn’t there the same fuss when the same cartoons were published in Egypt?

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/02/08/boycott-egypt/

But don’t click on the link if you’re gonna be offended.

There’s nothing wrong with a faith having a view on what is or isn’t an appropriate subject for humour or satire or fiction, just as it has views on other aspects of conduct. But I’m not clear why the humour bit should be expected of non-believers any more than you would expect me to not drink or not eat pork.

See Pat Condell’s video, which was banned by YouTube:
http://www.patcondell.net/

The video had over 40,000 hits in the 24 hours that it was up on YouTube and during that time it was the top-rated video on the whole of YouTube.

Just a hunch, but I guess Irfan Ahmed won’t like it.

Simon Titley, I have seen that video and I have to agree with the guy on the video on one point.

The Saudi’s are loonies. The Largest Group of Muslim’s in the World isn’t the group in Saudi Arabia neither is it Bin Laden’s Sect of Muslim’s. Actually it is the Sunni Group which I follow and the Group that is against violence and extremist behaviour. AND Definitely Terrorism.

The offended religious person should take a leaf out of Julie Birchhill’s book. She is not offended when somebody insults her God because her God is Great and not really bothered by some jumped up prick, like me, calling him a “moral monster”, or a “twat”. Her God is above that. Ergo, so what.

The same response should apply to this book. If you believe Muhammad is the “Seal of the Prophets” (Sura 33, verse 40) then you reckon he’s pretty bloody great. So what if somebody says he was a paedophile, or a warmonger, or a woofter or anything else. Muhammad is above caring. In that belief set, he is the final Messenger of God, for goodness sakes. He’s above petty insults.

Richard Gadsen, why is denial of the Resurrection insulting to Christians? You may view my denial as wrong, foolhardy, mean-spirited etc, but offensive? Really?

As for what the Qu’ran says about the Resurrection and Jesus in general, I think you’d be hard pressed to call it offensive under any criteria. Jesus was not Resurrected in the Qu’ran because he didn’t die on the Cross, he was taken up to Heaven, so that he may reappear at the end time, when the Mehdi comes. The Qu’ran states that he was the Messiah, just as Christianity does. The Qu’ran denies that he was God, or part of God. The Gospel of Mark doesn’t appear to believe that Jesus was God, or if the Evangelist did, he didn’t think it was a suitably big deal to write about it.

Far too often people claim one thing or another is offensive to their religion. These claims are too often made in ignorance as with a total disregard for the magnitude of your Deity.

Come on, it shouldn’t take an atheist to tell you that your God is Great.