Skip to main content

View Diary: What Would Prophet Muhammad Do? (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the 1 rating (2.40)
    The 1 rating was in response to you posting the image of the offensive cartoon. I really didn't want you to do that. As a Muslim, I'm offended by it, and I'm tempted to put a warning above the bump, because I've been avoiding the cartoon and I'm sure some of my Muslim friends are too.

    Why couldn't you just have used a link? Other diaries have put a link in with a warning next to it.

    •  If you haven't seen the cartoons, (3.20)

      how can you possibly have an opinion about them worth reading?

      If you give a 1 rating because you are offended by the cartoon, why should people not give you 1 or 0 ratings if they are offended by your views?

      My understanding is that, at Daily Kos, we don't rate people down because we disagree with their views. You may not like the cartoon, but as a community I don't think they are viewed as beyond the pale.

      It's still not too late for you to change the rating. If not, then, with regret, this is goodbye. Not because I crave a higher rating but because I vehemently object to the censorship it (to me) implies.

      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

      by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:10:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What bullshit (none)
        Your are one of the best trolls out their.  We don't rate people down because we disagree with their opinions?  Then why did you zero rate me in another post because you disagreed with my opinion?  Everything I have ever seen you post has preached "republican" hatred, except when you are throwing around random posts to increase your ratings.    

        Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

        by tri on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:13:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  you deserve a 1 rating (none)
        I don't think the diarist should down rate people in his own diary.  However you posted that cartoon to be an ass and I hope some other people do pass you out the ones you so richly deserve.  Grow up, baiting people and being intentionally offensive is not enlightening anyone or anything.
      •  I don't need to see them (none)
        I don't need to see them. If someone tells me it's a cartoon of Muhammad, peace be upon him, being raped by a dog, do I need to see them to actually get angry? I don't need to watch pornography to make up my mind on those matters either. I didn't have a problem with you putting up a link to the cartoons, but I don't want them shoved in my face every time I read the page. They're sinful, I feel I should avert my eyes out of respect. Surely you can understand that.
        •  But none of the actual cartoons is of (none)

          Mohammed, or of anyone else, being raped by a dog. Neither did I myself reproduce any such image. More to the point, the Danish newspaper did not publish any such cartoon, as you would know if you looked, for example, at Wikipedia. The dog-rape cartoon, and two others, appear to have been fabricated by a Danish-Islamist group trying to foment greater controversy and hostility. See, e.g., my diary The Cartoons: A Manufactured Controversy? (Illustrated).

          The organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, bringing 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip . . .[original emphasis]

                            * * *

          The three additional images (which as a matter of good taste I will not reproduce, but which may be seen here, here, and here) are described, respectively, as depicting Mohammed as a pedophile demon, showing Mohammed with a pig's snout, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

          Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."

          Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten.

          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

          by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:39:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I said before, (none)
            in your diary, I said that I'm skeptical, I don't think the case is proven yet, and you're jumping to a conclusion too quickly. You're getting your information from a right-wing source, who made their allegiance clear already, not someone I'd trust.
            •  Anyone who goes to Wikipedia (none)

              can see for themselves a reproduction of the original page from the newspaper. It contains only twelve cartoons, none of which shows either a dog or a rape scene, much less a dog raping Mohammed. At this point, I regret to say that a refusal to accept this easily verifiable fact amounts to wilful blindness.

              f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

              by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:06:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I give you a one (none)
      for using the ratings system as a form of censorship. Something which is most certainly "unproductive".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (73)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Elections (50)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Environment (38)
  • Climate Change (37)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Science (31)
  • Education (30)
  • Media (30)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Congress (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site