Re post dated: Sept 19th 2012 @ 10:08am

Please note that Balan image has NOTHING to do with my post!

I don’t know how this INNOCENT man has been linked to something he has no connection to.

A definition of Civilized & its opposite savagery, hinges on the idea of the hadd (~boundaries or restricted limits).

Savages conceive of Mankind as just flesh, mere material, & that is reflected by their commonplace Deen(~ideology) of Social-Darwinism.

Civilization is the opposite, & has moral & ethical boundaries, with a sense of the sacred.

Different civilizations have different limits.

I cannot think of any major civilization today, that does not use violent force, in order to guard its most sacred values e.g. via police or army.

Many people who sanctimoniously hector sincere Muslims for defending that civilization’s most sacred heart from attack, are either hypocrites or supremacist chauvinists for their own deen.

As for the apologists who claim to be “Muslims” & thus invite the assault on the heart of Islamic values, I doubt their faith. To me, it appears that they are fair weather friends, craven, venal &/or veering on munafiqs, paying a lip-service nominal affiliation to Islam, but practically believing in something else.

The (misrepresentation of the superficial) image of Islam means nothing in comparison to the substantive content.

Who should be responsible for protecting the sense of the sacred?

In most organised civilizations, the collective responsibility is currently delegated to its representatives i.e. national governments & then put into operational effect by the military & the police.

Our self-proclaimed “leaders” appear to be exhibiting a dereliction of duty!

What normally happens (& should we expect) to someone who refuses to do their job?

Concerning the worthy comments issued by the “respected scholars” of the Ummah (of all sects), something does concern me as an ordinary relatively ignorant layman.

Do they advocate the ideology of absolute pacifism i.e. never use force in all circumstances?

Are they calling in public for the military & police forces to be removed?

Will they allow the public insults against their own personal honour, lineage, that of their families, countrymen, nations & those who pay them the King’s shilling i.e. rulers?

How does their view not conflict with considering the Prophet S.A.W. dearer to themselves than anything in Creation, & the Seerah, where under certain extreme circumstances non-Muslims were killed?

Will they condemn the instances where non-Muslims were killed without qualification?

I find their stand politically convenient, but morally/ethically incoherent. Yes, it is a difficult & confusing matter , but honest courage is vital along with sagacious Islamic leadership.

Killing non-combatants & ambassadors is however plainly wrong!

It’s magazines like this that have cheered on Geert Wilders and his supporters. Another rag magazine is National Review and then there’s Contemporary Review journal out of the UK.

Most people know, except for the illiterate, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a raving Islamophobic loon, as well as a proven liar…

@Emperor

Obviously Newsweek isn’t as responsible a news magazine as people make them out to be.