February 8th, 2006
I’ve Just received this comment from an anonyms posted in “It’s not about freedom of speech. It’s about intentions” article and I thought this could open a good discussion hopefully civilized one.. so if you want to add a comment make sure it’s a civilized one or ill remove it…
I’m in the US, and I’m an American. I have lived 25 months in Saudi Arabia, among the people. I am a practicing Catholic, a person of the Book. I came looking for a reasoned dialog with Muslims on this question, because I don’t understand this worldwide, violent reaction. I hope you do.
My question is this, and it is intended to provoke thought and reasoned dialog:
How can Muslims condone destruction of property, injury to people, attacks on police and others, half a world away from Denmark, and expect that this will alter the (agreed, blasphemous) attitudes that lead to the creation of such cartoons? What that says to us in the West is, essentially, “I as a Muslim claim the right to attack, kill, maim, or destroy anyone I get angry at, for any reason whatsoever, and it matters not at all that I do this to someone who is completely innocent of the offense that made me angry.”
Again, I intend to engage in a conversation, and I hope it can be a reasonable one.
My point of view
The answer is quiet simple.. First we should set a fact that what Muslims do in 21st century has nothing to do with Islam. More than 70% of Muslims these days are just Muslims by name.
Second make sure that sometime media, especially west media are tending to exaggerate some images and discard some. So what you see in media is not 100%. The realty of the situation.. there are other millions of Muslims who do not accept violent as an action. Where are those people in west media??
What happened in Gazza is simply because the situation there is full of violent… And what happened in Syria and Lebanon is purely politics… if you see what happened in Lebanon you can easily know that it has nothing to do with Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h).
Who did this were bunch of gangster whom I believe they don’t even know who Prophet Mohammed is. And the organizer of that demonstration denied there responsibility of what happened becuase they simply don’t agree, and if they could stop it they will..
I believe your question is based on what you see in the media and it’s not 100% true.. the only action that were taken by the majority is to boycott Danish products and this action has nothing to do with violent.. The rest are politics I believe.