call me tasteless, or insensitive, but i simply do not understand the blatant furore surrounding the cartoons issue published by the danish paper.
i know, for a fact, that it is wrong to depict the Prophet as an image, or imagery, form for the fact that the religion discourages idolatory schtuffs. or something like that.
and yes, it is wrong for the paper to publish those images in a form of that it resembles to a form of a comedic or sarcastic nature.
the extent of the demonstrations by these *radical* muslims, does the religion itself depicts its followers to condemn to such a scale? the followers itself belief that the meaning of the faith is to serve peace, and adamantly, whenever a situation that suspects muslims perpetrates, scholars will sermon that the faith believes in peace.
so how will the scholars reflect on this? are the followers too sensitive and conservative in the event of someone else trying to depict something else to them? we have been too often being condemned as groups of people who reacts like hydrogen on fire or oxygen or whatever whenever.
A newspaper editor in Jordan who was fired after publishing the cartoons in the weekly tabloid Shihan urged Muslims to be reasonable.
“Who offends Islam more?” asked Jihad Momeni. “A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet … or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere?”
from the history books, the Prophet engaged in 3 wars when there are instances of many more others but were done by by dialogues and considerations. if these demonstrators are so keen to uphold the state of the faith, why could not they trust in the form of the meaning of the religion, before they conduct these acts, which again will be manipulated by the unbelievers to conspire some more incidents to potray the faith in a different form of light?
the next time these people says peace be upon you and go for a demonstration, i’ll go and apply to work in a danish consulate.