I am almost completely ignorant of what the Qur'an teaches, but it is my understanding that it has much more leeway regarding personal interpretation than books like the Bible. I've seen a few of the so-called "Sword Verses" (I believe that's what they're known as); is it all possible that the people caring out these violent acts simply have a differing viewpoint of what the Qur'an is telling them to do?

I am glad that I'm not the only one who believes that we're all worshipping the same God. It's a personal conclusion I came to awhile back.

I very much would like to read a few of the verses you're talking about. I find theology absolutely fascinating. On a completely different note, I've always wondered: is the western spelling of "Koran" at all offensive?

Sword Verses are utterly unconvincing.
The Christian god repeatedly calls himself a god of war and commands genocide. If Christians want to quote verses like that to slag the Koran I ask for their Bible and bust some juicy "Kill everything, men, women, suckling, and livestock, take nothing" passages. The story of Achan is a good start, then I move on to the slaughter at Midion and the cute little sunday school fable of the wall of Jericho. Then I like to work in one of "And the Lord sent the Angel of death and the angel of death killed X thousand people", especially after King David took the census of the army.

10 points to Statikk for perspicasity. As I've said before, no religion can or should be judged by the literal interpretation of their texts. You have to look at the interpretations and which sections are regarded as more important to individuals (which is a better way of looking at things anyway because it lets you analyze and compare the different sects rather than generalising about the religion as a whole).

I have heard of "the Koran" and how it can lead to bloody jihad.

I've also heard about how a jihad should not be violent at all.

Books need to be interpreted.


The image archive Incognito gave (thank you, btw) has a lot of images of Mohammad. However, a lot of them show a figure but not neccesarily a Person. We see a head on fire, not true face. In one case, sleeves too long so that hands do not appear. This is a way of getting around it, and I do not think these would be offensive (you'd need to ask someone who follows the religion. I can't judge).

Also, probably the reason half these images are allowed: "an expert in Iranian Shi'ite customs writes in to say that this particular painting is not forbidden because it depicts a young Mohammed before he was visited by the Angel Gabriel and started receiving his visions, which means that at this stage in his life he is not yet the Prophet. "

If this is widely accepted, then depicting The Prophet is BAD. Depicting Mohammad noticably before he became The Prophet is okay.

Everything based on "Dante's Inferno" I would ignore. Again, this was done to dramatise something else. The author did not portray The Prophet. He simply wrote about him. And I do not believe any of the images based on this were designed to be offensive. When you draw an iconic figure of a religion as a terrorist for no real reason exept to either see what happens or cause offence, you can hardly be justified.

I think these protesters are overreacting. It may be offensive to them, but they don't need to go up in arms about it, causing this fuss. Couldn't they do something more peaceful and constructive, like write a letter to the paper, as this method will just cause problems. I have absolutely nothing against Muslims, nothing at all, but I do think these protesters are taking it too far, offensive or not. My dad knows a guy who's a Muslim, and the Muslim friend has the cartoons on his phone, so obviously not all Muslims find it offensive. I just wish they'd go about their protests more peacefully.

Statikk and nate, are you two talking to me? Because I heard the Sword Verses from a neutral, unchristian source, stating that some sects of Islam use their interpretation of these verses to justify their radical beliefs. I mean, that's they're doing. Interpreting. If the few facts I know about Islam are true, then they have every right to take a strict interpretation like that.

I can't tell if you two are just ranting, like me, or completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

There were complaints the first time these cartoons were published. Simple "Dear Editor, WTF?! Offensive"-style complaints.

The cartoons were published multiple times in multiple papers (i.e. Complaints were ignored).

There are plenty of peaceful/legal protests against this that are "causing a fuss" but are doing it near-legally. There are also extremists who are going "bomb the infedel"-style protests... and I assume that's who you're talking about.

Searex, I was just making a comment on religion in general and those who choose to bash various religions without fully understanding them. Nothing to do with your post at all.

You know, its been my thought that all these violent protestors are just ****heads and it has nothing to do with religion. Some people are just thugs and ****heads and are just looking for an excuse to riot and loot.
Like those famous pictures showing people razing a Mickey D's.
What do the Hamburglar and Grimace have to do with crude, satirical Danish political cartoons? But if you're an oversensitive egomaniacal ****head you might think it'd be fun to loot and riot at one.
I'd love to have a positive view on the Koran and its teachings but as far as I can tell its just like Christianity circa 800 years ago: A violent, repressive perversion of a superstition that is holding back a large segment of the world.

The "sword Verses" are always quoted out of context. The chapter in which they are found (the 9th chapter) from the very outset makes it clear that it is talking about times of war. The Qur'an as a source of guidance needs to be looked at as a book consistent with itself and one verse may be explained by another verse in another chapter. It is clear after reading the entire book that war is only allowed in cases of self-defence. And if peace is sought by the enemy then muslims should also pursue peace.

Muslims should never be the aggressors. Unfortunately this is not the case that we are seeing today in reality.

Sure.


These are just a few of many verses that speak of tolerance and peace towards the disbelievers who have not harmed the muslims in any way. That last verse makes it pretty clear that forcing people to believe is the epitome of arrogance if God himself has given mankind free-will.

"Koran" is no more offensive than someone referring to Oddworld as "odwurrld". It sounds a bit silly but there is no real offence in it. But does it really hurt anyone to change the "Ko" in Koran into a "Qu"?

I disagree with you that the Qur'an is just like Christianity 800 years ago. I do however agree that Islam is in the same state that Christianity was during the middle ages. The problem is that many muslims uphold teachings not found in the Qur'an (such as stoning to death for adultery, death for apostasy, cutting of hands for theft, women covering from head to toe etc). The situation is very similar to the way Catholics upheld non-biblical teachings before the Reformation. And I blame none other than the priesthood.

(1): There is reference to this in the Bible, or something very similar. Pre-marital sex is Biblicly punishable by death.

(2): This is not a bad thing. Women are not judged by their appearance, and thus cover themselves to appear as "women", rather than "a nice hot blond".

But women should be able to choose for themselves whether they want to be objectified, not have it forced upon them. And they certainly should not be restricted on where they can go without a chaperone or banned from attending university.

Ye its the violent ones I mean. And i the complaints were ignored then well, i don't know. I suppose they can publish the cartoons elsewhere but you're right, it is ignoring those who are offended, in which case they have every right to get upset with it (In a peaceful way of course). But I have to say, if it was cartoons making fun of Christianity (such things happen in so many TV shows) I doubt there'd be violent protests, or at least as many. It seems that any poking fun of the majority, or the country's main religion isn't as noticed, yet when it's the ethnic minorties, much more notice is taken(Not being predjudiced or racist, just saying that you seem to see a lot more coverage about insults towards say Muslims than you do on insults to christians, except in the cases of the Christian zealots)

Nate... while I can't speak for them all, a lot of women DO like the idea. A lot of women who convert to Islam will defend the point that "women aren't forced to do this. It's choice and a sign of respect".

"Banned from attending university"... I haven't heard of this before, but I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I simply don't know about it. However, is this due to religion or political reasons?

Well the justification they give is religious. But you could have a field day discussing the real reasons.