Human beings protest...against tolerance.

[Nightshade]

Tens of thousands across Afghanistan, Pakistan and Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir took to the streets on Friday for southern Asia's biggest protests yet against satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's cartoon portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.

Up to 20,000 demonstrators in the western Afghan city of Herat and 15,000 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, burned French flags and chanted slogans calling for France's downfall, while a smaller Pakistani protest saw an effigy of France's President Francois Hollande set on fire.

In Srinagar, the largest city on the Indian-controlled side of the disputed region of Kashmir, police clashed with a contingent of around 3,000 demonstrators after shops and businesses were ordered to close by a leading Muslim organisation and several separatist groups.

The clashes broke out when police fired smoke canisters and shot into the air to disperse a group of protestors who began chanting "Down with Charlie Hebdo" after emerging from mosques.

Islamist gunmen stormed the offices of French weekly Charlie Hebdo -- which has published controversial cartoons of the prophet on several occasions -- in Paris on January 7, killing 12 people.

In response, Charlie Hebdo last week published a "survivors" issue with an image of the Prophet Mohammed weeping on the cover, which has led to small, sporadic protests across Pakistan and Afghanistan.

View galleryAfghan demonstrators hold up an effigy of French President …
Afghan demonstrators hold up an effigy of French President Francois Hollande during a protest agains …
Friday's rally in Islamabad was led by the hardline Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party, and though peaceful demonstrators burned French, British and American flags, while urging Pakistan to cut ties with Paris and calling for a boycott of French products.

Carrying placards and banners, protesters in Islamabad chanted "death to France", "our prophet, our honour" and "death to the blasphemers".

Jamaat-e-Islami chief Siraj-ul-Haq called for a UN ban on blasphemy, while Khawaja Saad Rafique, a federal minister in the Pakistani cabinet, also condemned the depiction of the prophet by Charlie Hebdo as "hate speech, journalistic terrorism".

So far public displays of anger against the magazine, which is not available in Pakistan either in print or online, have largely been limited to followers of religious parties.

Around 4,000 people rallied in Karachi, while protests in Quetta -- where the Hollande effigy was burned -- as well as the northwestern city of Peshawar, the eastern city of Lahore and Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, each drew around 2,000 activists. No violence was reported from any of the Pakistani rallies.

View galleryPeople gather during a rally to protest against negative …
People gather during a rally to protest against negative coverage of Islam and French satirical week …

- 'Intolerable insult' to Islam -

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, protesters in the capital of Kabul held posters depicting a red heart and the name of the Prophet as they marched on the streets, while an AFP reporter at the scene in Herat and the provincial governor's spokesman Ehsanullah Hayat said the crowd there was at least 20,000 strong.

"No Muslim can tolerate insults to our beloved prophet Mohammed, we demand the French government apologise to all Muslims and punish those who have insulted Islam," said one protester in Herat.

A small number of demonstrators threw stones at the French embassy in Kabul, prompting guards to fire one or two warning shots.

Thousands of miles away, 800 people also took part in an anti-Charlie Hebdo protest in Sydney, Australia, carrying "Je suis Muslim" signs in what police said was a peaceful rally.

"They force their world view onto us: 'We are the arrogant West and you Muslims have to accept our world view, you have to accept our freedom... to insult your prophet'," demonstrator Sufyan Badar told the crowd. "But we rejected freedom yesterday, we reject freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow."

In Abidjan, the main city of Ivory Coast, west Africa, between 200 and 300 people protested the cartoons amid a heavy police presence Friday, a security source said. Muslims have a slender majority over Christians in Ivory Coast and the two communities live mostly in harmony.

Images of the prophet are considered blasphemous by many Muslims and the magazine's publishing of the cartoon has trigged protests in Muslim countries around the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-anti- ... UAMd_QtDMD

Many of these human beings want to kill you because you don't believe the way they do.

[woodchip]

Look at the bright side TB, they are no longer calling America The Great Satan

[callmeslick]

I have no problem with them PROTESTING in the streets. Hell, that is almost American of them. It's taking matters to violence against others that crosses the moral line. I can get that Muslims find mockery of their prophet every bit as insulting a Christians did 'Piss Christ' and similar.


we should ENCOURAGE the protests, if for no reason other that allowing the wheat to be separated from the violent chaff. What Charlie does, for a
living ISN'T tolerant, they are a hardcore satire magazine, which is NOT a beacon of tolerance. The tolerance is within the French society who holds, as we do, the right for them to express their intolerance. As in the US, it is fine for those that disagree to express disgust.

[Krom]

Most protests not organized by Islamic leadership generally call for legal solutions to their grievances, not the death and destruction of entire nations over stuff published in magazines.

[callmeslick]

Most protests not organized by Islamic leadership generally call for legal solutions to their grievances, not the death and destruction of entire nations over stuff published in magazines.

a lot of those who ARE organized by Islamic leadership probably do likewise, but you and I won't see reportage about that. Note, in TB's example above the two protests mentioned were calling for French apologies and one was described as completely peaceful, whereas the larger one had some fringe rock throwers.

[Nightshade]

Most protests not organized by Islamic leadership generally call for legal solutions to their grievances, not the death and destruction of entire nations over stuff published in magazines.

a lot of those who ARE organized by Islamic leadership probably do likewise, but you and I won't see reportage about that. Note, in TB's example above the two protests mentioned were calling for French apologies and one was described as completely peaceful, whereas the larger one had some fringe rock throwers.

"Death to France" isn't exactly asking for an apology. Many of the people in the crowds would gladly kill French citizens with their bare hands if they could.

The only acceptable "apology" for muslims in these demonstrations would be a total submission of France's laws and people to islam.

[callmeslick]

thanks for inserting your suppositions and guesswork, TB, and don't kid yourself that it is anything more than those.

[woodchip]

And your suppositions, slick, are any more useful?

[callmeslick]

no, but I'm not going to guess, or base my opinions upon suppositions from myself or anyone. I'll prefer to talk to real people, some of whom hail from the areas in question.

[callmeslick]

worth noting that in the US, human beings(presumably so) protest against tolerance, daily.


just read the comments on the DBB.

[Tunnelcat]

People need to realize that in Islam, any images of the Prophet Mohammed are considered sacrilegious. I also found out why that's the case. They consider any images of the Prophet to be pure idolatry and idolatry is an insult and a mortal sin. Maybe France, and other Western Nations, need to consider that pissing off a whole religion as part of their job description is not in their best interests, free speech or not. They really need to get a life and quit poking the tiger for the pure enjoyment of it. That tiger is fighting mad and we're making it out as if it's nothing to worry about, that it's our right to poke that tiger all we want no matter how pissed off he gets and that all that rage that tiger is displaying is just a figment of his imagination because that tiger is delusional.

But that starts up another whole question. Doesn't the Christian Bible consider idolatry evil and a sin? Does that idolatry exclude those images people worship in Christianity today, like Jesus, the Cross and the Virgin Mary? Those images are ALL imagined and created by man, not God, because we really don't know what they looked like. The God in Exodus was definitely against the idolization of any God, even Himself, but after Jesus, who is now considered the incarnation of God by modern Christians, He suddenly becomes silent on the issue? I don't get it.

[callmeslick]

interesting philosphical points, TC, especially the spin that we haven't a clue what Jesus or Mary looked like. I always find it odd that Christians in the US seem ok with worshipping a flag, and having their kids do likewise in school every morning.

[CUDA]

You're not quite correct TC. not totally wrong either

[Nightshade]

thanks for inserting your suppositions and guesswork, TB, and don't kid yourself that it is anything more than those.

Oh sure. They're total suppositions. Why don't you wear a T-shirt with the French flag visible with the phrase "I am French" and walk in the midst of those protests- find out if I'm right.

[callmeslick]

TB, if you are correct in your goofy guesswork, how come they didn't destroy the French embassy and kill the staff? A FEW people threw some rocks. A mob could have killed everyone inside, were they so inclined.

[Sergeant Thorne]

But that starts up another whole question. Doesn't the Christian Bible consider idolatry evil and a sin? Does that idolatry exclude those images people worship in Christianity today, like Jesus, the Cross and the Virgin Mary? Those images are ALL imagined and created by man, not God, because we really don't know what they looked like. The God in Exodus was definitely against the idolization of any God, even Himself, but after Jesus, who is now considered the incarnation of God by modern Christians, He suddenly becomes silent on the issue? I don't get it.

Sounds to me like you do get it.

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
...
19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

Pretty straightforward. The Old Testament has not somehow been done away with on this point either, even though Christians are not under Old Testament law.

Have you heard of Iconoclasm?

[callmeslick]

that whole idol thing is a part of the scism between Protestant churches and Catholics or Orthodox, who DO rely on, at the very least, near-worship of Saints and Icons respectively.

[CUDA]

Agreed.
the Bible points out that your "rituals" can keep you from coming to God

[Top Gun]

The Catholic/Orthodox practice has never been about "worship," but instead using symbolism as a tangible representation of the holy or divine. The real ★■◆● of iconoclasts in any era is their tendency to engage in rampant destruction of cultural artifacts, whether that be Dutch Protestants defacing church sculptures in the 16th century, or the Taliban destroying ancient Buddhist statues in the 21st.

[Sergeant Thorne]

... but instead using symbolism as a tangible representation of the holy or divine.

Worship by any other name...

[Top Gun]

So a simple visual association counts as "worship" to you?

[Sergeant Thorne]

Very possibly. More importantly the Bible never directs anyone to do this. I would say your tangible representation opens a door to idol worship in a more subtle form. I could construct a logical argument, if I were so inclined, to demonstrate that it is superfluous, if not counter-productive to the purpose which the Catholic church claims they serve, but IMO the Bible is enough for anyone who cares about the way God wants us to worship him. The Catholic church is deceived and deceiving.

[CUDA]

So a simple visual association counts as "worship" to you?

It can

[callmeslick]

before this matter goes around in circles, let's just admit what I said above to be the case: this matter is only going to be settled by God, should he/she exist, and I merely suggested that it was a point of division between branches of Christianity. At no point did I suggest which was correct, as such a call is WAY out of my pay grade.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I cringe every time I hear that, slick, and even though it sounds good it's no more true now than it was when the president-to-be used it. I can understand if some folks do not see fit to have enough of an interest at any certain point to delve into such a subject, but truth is truth and it's there for the finding. God doesn't need to come down from heaven on a mission to sort out what is already set forth clearly in scripture for those who claim authority from it. People don't miss it because it's so difficult, but because it's not what they're after and they're too blinded to know better. Understand that's the why, because the how is in no way mystical--it's very logical and very straightforward. The why is very complex, and ignorance of that is what keeps people circling.

As you were... [/separate paragraph]

[callmeslick]

sorry to disagree, Thorne,but you can have no more certainty that I, or anyone else about God's wishes, and to presume otherwise teeters between arrogance and sacrilige.

[Top Gun]

One final parting thought: it was a council (or two) of the Catholic Church that originally determined which books were to be held as part of the canonical Bible, so the whole "sola scriptura" thing kinda falls apart straight from the get-go. Or is that just not what you're after, and you're too blinded to know better?

[Sergeant Thorne]

sorry to disagree, Thorne,but you can have no more certainty that I, or anyone else about God's wishes, and to presume otherwise teeters between arrogance and sacrilige.

Which God? Not the one who said...

17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the Lord: for they shall all know me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord ...

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

But you chose to ignore the part I put in there for you when I said, "God doesn't need to come down from heaven on a mission to sort out what is already set forth clearly in scripture for those who claim authority from it."

One final parting thought: it was a council (or two) of the Catholic Church that originally determined which books were to be held as part of the canonical Bible, so the whole "sola scriptura" thing kinda falls apart straight from the get-go. Or is that just not what you're after, and you're too blinded to know better?

Falls apart? If you want to claim the Bible for the Catholic church, and I believe that's a gross glossing over of history, then it still leaves your church in the situation of having men who labored to discern which writings were inspired and which were not, and once they made the distinction and declared the one to be the word of Almighty God "with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning" (James 1:17) your church goes and does all kinds of things against it, keeps it from the people for whom it was written, and ultimately even dismisses it as the highest authority in the church.

[Tunnelcat]

You're not quite correct TC. not totally wrong either

What part CUDA?

ST, yes, I've heard of iconoclasm. I'm not challenging Chrisitan beliefs in this case, but questioning possible hypocrisy or a deliberate redefining of Biblical Law. If Chrisitans don't really follow the Old Testament Laws, what good are they, only advisory now? But doesn't Romans in the New Testament "expand" on idolotry? Why aren't the physical bodies of Jesus and the Virgin Mary that are currently being represented as art or sculpture, which were created by mortal, sinful men and being worshipped today in churches all over the world, classified as idols?