Re: Freedom of speech & Western hypocrisy.
firstly the whole basis of your essay is wrong to assume we want to shout or destroy property as has happened nobody is asking for shouting this won't achive anything, the duty of muslims is to retaliate in financial and poltical manner. This means put pressure to get sanctions against the United States and France and complete shut down of their embassies this is the correct poltical way to deal with any beliggerant state if we had sincere state that actually cared for the affairs of the muslims this would have already happened.
The director of the nasty video about prophet (saw)is neither insane or disabled according to US statements he has also been convicted of bank fraud and illegal drugs distribution. I asked you if someone insulted your mother what would you do an you said what if they disbaled or mentally disturbed you want to shift the question but never answer it.
If someone did that against your mother you would'nt do anything just admit it.
this is why muslims can never accept freedom to insult whoever you like, especially when people insult our beloved prophet(saw)
The point Rommel saab, is to illustrate the fact that there are some situations that deserve protest, others that deserve physical fights, others deserve intellectual debates, and still others that deserve no response at all.
Think of it like a general in an army. You could attack the enemy head on if the situation is in your favor, you could also commit to a strategy in which use guerrilla tactics, or perhaps you use propaganda to weaken the enemy, you may even retreat in order to fight again later. Whatever your response, it must be taken with your situation in mind. Your situation must dictate your response. A general who fights without calculating his position, is bound to fail. Similar with a situation with the video. How should we respond to such an affront?
This situation with the video is such a situation where a response is not warranted. You do not gain anything by responding. In this case, not responding is smarter tactic. Responding has actually caused MORE damage not less. And I dont mean violent response, i mean any response at all. Its useless.
The situation with the govt not boycotting or sanctioning the west.. The Govts you are speaking off are not stupid. They are mature enough to know how the world works. They know how the US works. They know that they cannot start a war over every movie some idiot in the US or somewhere else decides to make.
The person who made the video is an idiot. He is not worth responding too... When you respond to stupid people, you make yourself look as stupid as they are. And that is what has happened with the protest to the video.
As far as the mother comment, you said what if they SAY something insulting, you did not say anything about DOING... Doing means PHYSICAL harm. That is different. Then of course yuu must defend. As far as verbal abuse goes, that again depends on the situation. You cant simply attack people, that is stupidity. Try to understand this simple point. YOU MUST respond in accordance to the situation. Your situation dictates your response. So if the person who is VERBALLY attacking your mother is mentally disabled, or you know they have a weapon and you do not, you dont simply attack. Understanding this point reqires some degree of maturity which i dont think you have yet. You sound like a teenager, who hasnt gone very far in the world.
Defense of the prophet can be through many different means. Sometimes, you defend the prophet by letting barking dogs bark. In responding to this situation, Muslims have actually harmed the reputation of the prophet and harmed image of Islam, not helped it. This is very simple common sense things. Not every situations requires hitting people over the head. Just look to your beloved prophet (saw) for guidance, why listen to me. When he could have fought and argued, he choose to remain silent and not utter a word. If in his wisdom he understood that not every situation requires a response, why do you not understand that silence in this case would have been better?
