Muslim Leaders Call For Day of Rage (unfucking real)
 

ABC News ^ | sept 18, ,2006 | Mike Lee


LONDON, Sept. 18, 2006 ? Three words suddenly have a lot of Westerners worried and, it must be said, likely making some wrong assumptions about modern Islam. "Yaum al Ghadab" is Arabic for "Day of Rage."

When the Qatari Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for a Day of Rage this Friday in response to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks about Muslims, it might have sounded like a call for street violence.

But if there is trouble Friday, and there could well be, it will not be because of language but because of what some people choose to do after they have answered the call for "Yaum al Ghadab."

But why do Islamic leaders use what many Westerners regard as inflammatory language?

Because it is not inflammatory, at least not in the context of Islamic culture. "We must not try to interpret Islamic terms and cultural signals by using our Western ideas," said Fawaz Gerges, a professor in the department of international affairs and Middle Eastern studies at Sarah Lawrence College, and an ABC News consultant. Gerges pointed out that in Islamic culture "ghadab" means anger or frustration. A day of rage does not mean a day of jihad (war), added Gerges.

Mimi Daher, a Muslim woman working in the ABC Jerusalem bureau, explained that the Grand Multi in Jerusalem reflected this cultural mindset today when he said, "Muslims have to express their anger. Was the pope expecting Muslims to clap their hands to him while hurting their faith and prophet? Of course not. We call on Muslims throughout the world to react in a disciplined manner, according to our Islamic faith."

"Disciplined manner" is a repeated theme among Islamic moderate leaders who encourage people to protest. As Gerges reminded me, when the cleric al-Qaradawi called for a day of rage, he stressed repeatedly that it should be civilized, urging Muslims to behave with civility and dignity. "We must show the world that we are still civilized even when we are aggrieved," he said.

Even so, shouldn't Westerners be worried about the use of words like "rage"? As an ABC News Muslim colleague of mine in Egypt, Hala Abukhatwa, put it, "'Yaum al Ghadab' means 'come to the streets,' 'protest,' maybe 'burn a flag.' But it doesn't mean hurt someone. In our culture, expressions are usually in black and white, not nuanced like in the West," she continued. "We are either happy or we are sad, glad or angry. We don't say 'come to the streets and be ambivalent.'"

She went on to say that the concept of public protest is a relatively new, and a very Western, idea. In the Islamic world, historically, autocratic rulers suppressed public protests, not because they were Islamic leaders but because they were repressive. If you took to the streets in those days, you had to be pretty darn angry, or enraged, to risk the backlash of a repressive regime.

So a day of rage, as a term, is deeply rooted. Freedom of expression, freedom to protest peacefully, has improved in parts of the Islamic world, but the old words, the old terms of reference, are so deeply rooted in the language that "Yaum al Ghadab" is still used.

And what about the brittleness of Muslims over criticism of the Prophet Mohammed? Many in the West have a hard time getting their head around the idea that any leader is above ridicule.

There are at least two important reasons why Muslims react with such passion when the Prophet is called into question. First, to Muslims, Mohammed represents an absolutism. His is the absolute prophecy. To question that is to challenge the foundation of their belief system. As for Westerners making jokes about Christ, or movies that question the teachings of the church, many devout Muslims will ask, "Why don't the Christians defend their prophet more vigorously? Just because some of you Christians don't stick up for your Christ, don't ridicule us for sticking up for Mohammed."

A second important factor is a widespread perception in the Islamic world that Muslims and, by extension, Islam, are being targeted by the West. Gerges said Muslims hear the pope's words in that broader context. "Many believe that the pope has given Christian religious cover to a Western onslaught led by the U.S. government, and President Bush in particular."

...Again?

damn the world is gonna explode

They're always on a rage...



























for no apparent reason!

Durka Durka Jihad

Boohoo, my local religious leader told me that someone said something bad about my favourite prophet, but I haven't got the goddamn common sense or decency to find out about it for myself. I know, I'll burn down an embassy then kill some Jews. Then I'll rape a white woman, then get my kids to go and throw stones at the nearest soldiers, then get them to stand infront of some terrorists to shield them, whine when they get shot and then I'll blame it all on someone else in the hope that gullible Westerners will feel sorry for me.
That'll make me feel better.

Oops sorry guys, the faith of Allah just washed over me for a minute there.

We really need to nuke em all.

so fucking raged!

Allah ach bar

Muslims are in the news a little too much.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about the stupid fucks that have no brain except to believe in one of the many stupid ass religions.

fuck sake.

No offense, but I think it's a little arrogant to say that their rage is for no apparent reason. Whether or not I believe it's justified, I'm certainly not gonna tell them how they should feel. Especially when something that they believe in so deeply has been attacked.

so the last 50 years of rage were just the warm up for the 3 days of madness?

Ehm, did anyone actually read the text that was posted, or did you all just go into a knee-jerk armageddon reaction?

For fucks sake. It's a just a term for a day of protests, people taking to the street. You know, like the French fo everyday...

Hey, look guys

Yes, a long long time ago, it may have meant literally a day of rage, but you know, the English language has many similar terms:

If you rebel against someone, are you actually declaring war on them? No, bu tit comes from the Latin rebellis....go look it up.

When people require the cliff notes to a post as long as yours, do you really think they could get through that post?

The last time a 'day of rage' was called for (after the Muhammad cartoon fiasco), several embassies were burned down and several dozen people lost their lives (on top of the several hundred who lose their lives daily through Islamic stupidity).

You really can't think that way?

here we go again

Not that I posted the news piece myself, but yeah, reading is difficult
:helpme

Just the kids trying to get up to multiple pages for a thread by kneejerking.
They'll find something else to occupy their minds shortly....

peacefull religion my ass

these people are a bunch of crybabies who can dish it out but sure as hell can't take anything.

all muslims need to be whiped off the earth, and their evil seeds, i cannot wait till america is done putting a big foot in every muslim countries ass, all of them need to be sent back also.

To be honest, I've never heard of "Yaum al Ghadab". Not even Google has it in it's databanks. If the Mohammed cartoon called for the same Yaum al Ghadab, then we'll see what Friday brings.

You've gotta admit though, when a rotweiller is really pissed off, you don't go poking it with a stick.

ok... i am declaring jihad on all muslim extremists... friday is the day of drink... saturday is the day of pussy... sunday is the day of the lord... and by monday i will have forgotten why i was pissed of in the first place...

lol, shit. I can't tell if that's humour similar to mine or a legitimate question. If it's the former, props to you, because people rarely get it.

IF it's the latter, then yes I can. I can't think of anything that I believe in as devoutly as they do their religion, so I can't imagine anything someone could say to me that would get me angry, let alone in a rage. That rage I'M talking about is their feelings btw. I'm in no way condoning their ACTIONS...if they're violent. Burning the pope in effigy I have no problem with whatsoever. That's a political statement of sorts. One that the US is fighting to spread around the world.

As an example of what I mean, start a thread talking about what a fucked up place the US is and watch the anger and hate roll off the fingertips of the folks here at GFY. They're defending the country that they believe in, albeit with the stroke of a keyboard instead of weapons. One is clearly less harmful than the other, but both are representative of the feelings of what they believe in. Should we tell the people that reply, defending the US on a messageboard that their feelings are inappropriate? No. Just like we shouldn't belittle the feelings another culture has about their god.

It's kinda amazing watching all the monkeys going nuts over one line the Pope said that was true but not a peep from anyone over the hundreds of muslims quoted in the press the last few days calling for death to the pope?

And you also cannot compare apples with oranges. Rottweiler's are nothing like Muslims. Muslims are not rightfully pissed off, and are responsible for their actions because they are humans. Rottweilers cannot be held responsible for their actions because they are just animals and cannot use their brains to tell right from wrong.

I read it as the former, but with more indepth as in, "if you could think that way, you'd actually realise that its barbaric nonsence.


Either way, I can't think that way, because I'm like you, there is nothing I feel so passionately about. Except my family. But then again, if someone took a word-slagging pop-shot agt my family, I'd slug 'em.

Violence, huh? Different sorts, different levels. All to defend what you believe in. :helpme

Yeah, right :error

"Earlier Sunday in the West Bank, two churches were set on fire as anger over the pope's comments grew throughout the Palestinian territories.

In the town of Tulkarem, a 170-year-old stone church was torched before dawn and its interior was destroyed, Christian officials said. In the village of Tubas, a small church was attacked with firebombs and partially burned, Christians said. Neither church is Catholic, the officials said.

Palestinian Muslims hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Saturday to protest the Pope's comments, sparking concerns of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...5b1216&k=58192

Don't think there's a single example of a rottweiller strapping bombs to its body and walking into a cafe. Sorry, bad analogy.

Fucking morons - didn't they hear that the call to "Yaum al Ghadab" was for this Friday.

Jeeze.

More peaceful reactions:

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda, according to the Reuters news agency.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.

http://www.brudirect.com/DailyInfo/N...90906/wn01.htm

THAT I agree with 100%. But just because I believe it, doesn't make it right.

Slugging someone is different in MY opinion than slaughtering dozens of innocent bystanders for a cause. (That doesn't necessarily make that opinion right either, but it IS my opinion)

Don't get me wrong here - I certainly DON'T advocate nor condone their methods.

I understand that, and neither do I. But while I disagree with their ACTIONS, I'm not going to tell them that what they BELIEVE in or what they FEEL is wrong. That was my original point.

This is the religion that saw red after a prophet or some crap was portrayed in a humourous cartoon. There is no denying that the reaction of this group is always way over the top. They need to learn to learn a little restraint.

They are always looking for a fight, an angry bunch of people who need death, destruction and sadness as a reason to live. So yes - I think that their rage is uncalled for and for no reason apart from their blood lust.

...or some crap :warning :( :(

Whats your deal? It seems you have your head up Muhammad's ass :2 cents:

P.S. you dont have to be arrogant and talk down about/to people to get your point across.

betcha that ain't gonna be the case :2 cents:

Well, I do agree that it would be nice if they learned some restraint. But besides the threat of physical violence, were catholics any less outraged when Sinead O'Connor tore up a picture of the pope on SNL? How many catholics called for a Sinead boycott? Different means, yes. But both over a political statement.

Typing as I think...there's also the abortion clinic bombings, all in the name of the catholic church "god". I don't see that as any less radical than some muslims. Sadly, or thankfully, just the volume.

Neither position with violence is justifable in my opinion.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...er-of-rage.jpg

ADG Webmaster

I certainly don't have my head up his ass, and I will never talk down to someone where that person has a thoughtful and constructive argument. Someone has to play Devil's advocat, but I honestly believe that 99% of all posts on this subject aimed at 'wiping muslims of the face of the earth' deserve being put in their place. They are plain and simple racist comments.

I hope you're wrong.

The MEDIA SUCKS! Who writes this shit?

hurled firebombs, opened fire...

"sparking concerns of a rift"?????

I'd say that qualifies as a full fledged rift. Maybe even a vicious disagreement. Possibly even a fucking war. Yeah - that's it. Firebombs - check! Opening fire - check!

The difference between the Sinead example you mention is violence and IMO that speaks volumes about a person/religion. Also i'd prefer to see a war of words rather than violent outbreaks.

re - abortion clinics, yes you're right. There are extreme radical idiots who are part of anything. But as you also mention, the number/volume of muslims whom take part in these violent acts is far far greater. It's actually quite scary really.

What it boils down to on my part is that I just can't get my head around being that caught up in anything to want to kill for it. Except of course if my family were threatened. Both things you've already mentioned.....

I agree, I'd rather see a war of words in virtually any scenario and the example above was certainly a stretch in regards to violence no doubt. But not to the feelings that someone's religion can hold on them.

Like you, I'm not an advocate of violence. I'm sure there are times it's necessary but I don't see it anywhere related to this thread. Which could very well all boil down to my own fundamental disbelief of religion. I find myself daily moving from the agnostic side (not necessarily the actual definition, but the HOPE that there's a god) to the athiest side, if for no other reason than what man has turned "god" INTO.

All of that being said, as much as I'm a non-believer or anti-violence or whatever, I absolutely refuse to be someone who tells people what they should believe in and said feelings of.

How they ACT, I will respectfully reserve the right to judge. :winkwink:

That pretty much covers it except you left out the part about shooting a nun in the back.

This is a sad, sad world indeed :(

I read the text.

So great, they can protest and burn flags - just like they did on September 11th? Great idea. How about us? Don't we get a day of rage? How about on Friday we firebomb every city where it's peaceful citizens celebrated the falling of the WTC?

Day of rage? Why do they need a day of rage? These Muslim Extremeists are attacking us on a daily basis? What about bombing a church in Isreal? Or killing a nun?