[Closed] Muslims offended again

Easily offended people are easily offended.

It's not just Muslims.

Christians are not exactly known for being thick skinned either.

Neither is my old neighbour and I don't think he believes in a god at all.

Are you offended by their taking offence?

Muslim groups have reportedly previously called for a jihad on dogs.

If I'd have known that before, I'd have converted to Islam. I've always thought they were bang on about dogs being filthy creatures that have no place in a civilised society, but if they're going to get shut of them all, then [b]ALLAH AKHBAAAAAAAR!!!!![/b] 😀

[i]Why is it never Hindus, Buddhists (D'uh!!), Sikhs[/i]

Do you read the news beyond the stuff about Muslims?

There's continuous violence throughout India and the far East as a result of various religious groups taking offence at some perceived slight from another one.

As an example;

Buddhist monks attack Muslims;

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306[/url]

Yesterday - violence between Sikhs and Muslims.

[url= http://www.firstpost.com/politics/curfew-relaxed-in-saharanpur-violence-was-pre-planned-say-sikh-victims-1637679.html ]http://www.firstpost.com/politics/curfew-relaxed-in-saharanpur-violence-was-pre-planned-say-sikh-victims-1637679.html[/url]

and it goes on. Do a google search for the name of any religion followed by 'offence' or 'violence' and it's there.

Some just gets reported more in certain types of British newspapers than others.

Also, don;t forget it's not *all* members of a religious faith who take offence or attack others - the newspapers just find it easier to portray it that way...

Different cultures have different values
you can either decide to learn what these are and respect them or moan about how easily offended they are when you are insensitive to their culture
the choice is yours.

Many Muslims refuse to have direct contact with dogs, which are considered by some to be "unclean" in Islamic culture. Some overseas Muslim groups have reportedly previously called for a jihad on dogs.
Possibly making matters worse was the fact that Jock, who was supposed to lead out the Malaysian team, sat down and refused to move as soon as his coat was put on, meaning he had to be carried by the team representative.
Mohamad Sabu, the deputy president of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party said: "Malaysia and all Islamic countries deserve and apology from the organiser.
"This is just so disrespectful to Malaysia and Muslims – especially as it happened during Ramadan. Muslims are not allowed to touch dogs, so the organiser should have been more aware and sensitive on this issue.
"It is hoped this incident can teach other Western countries to be more respectful in the future."

Given the amount of bodily flesh displayed by non-muslims at this time of the year, and much of it distasteful to non-muslims as well, I think the majority of muslims are remarkably forebearing.

extreme or controversial points of view make better headlines than 'meh, so what'

you can either decide to learn what these are and respect them or moan about how easily offended they are when you are insensitive to their culture

They're not the only two option though are they? The other option is to learn about their views, become fully educated about their culture and then continue to hold it in complete disdain.

That's my approach.

Was any muslim actually forced to touch any of the dogs?

I forgot how many tree hugger do gooders there were on here who would opt for that one

Forgive my error 😉

Was any muslim actually forced to touch any of the dogs?

no offence but there is a link and i quoted a fair amount of it .

[b]Possibly making matters worse was the fact that Jock, who was supposed to lead out the Malaysian team, sat down and refused to move as soon as his coat was put on, meaning he had to be carried by the team representative.[/b]

Everyone gets offended, it's just that the Telegraph and the Daily Mail only tell you about the Muslims in a bid to control your tiny little mind.

I forgot how many tree hugger do gooders there were on here who would opt for that one

Bit confused as to the link between environmental concern and cowardly culture relativism?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/christian-groups-violently-offended-black-jesus-series-article-1.1879233

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10635857/Arundhati-Roy-condemns-Penguin-for-withdrawing-book-which-offended-Hindu-extremists.html

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/faith_and_values/2014/07/11/hindus-offended-by-urban-outfitters-duvet-cover.html

Can we move on?

no offence but there is a link and i quoted a fair amount of it .

No problem, I did have a look at the article, as the link does not work, but missed that part.

I would still like to assume that the team representative was informed before the ceremony that the dog would be involved and that that was acceptable, rather than just being given a dog to carry.

Ferris-Beuller - Member
Its always the same record

If you keep listening to the same record it will always sound the same 🙂

Looks to me like a couple of Malaysian politicians trying (and winning at) to get their names in the press and get a bit of a boost to their profile. That and the Telegraph being able to make middle England and some folk STW froth about how ridiculous the complaints are.

I think it was little shortsighted of the organizers not to think of this, its pretty well known that Muslims think dogs are unclean. You can go round an Arab city and there will be hundreds of skanky cats but no dogs.

Given the amount of bodily flesh displayed by non-muslims at this time of the year, and much of it distasteful to non-muslims as well, I think the majority of muslims are remarkably forebearing.

"Vast majority of people pretty much in favour of live-and-let-live" is the headline the DM's probably least likely to ever print.

meaning he had to be carried by the team representative

It was insensitive to expect a muslim team rep to carry a dog, but to be fair he or she didn't actually [u]have[/u] to, did they?

All I can say is it's a good job that white people never get 'offended' by black people and drag them to their deaths behind a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr. ]pickup truck[/url]. Or get so offended by brown people that they murder old men and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24675040 ] blow up mosques[/url]. Pesky white people, always causing problems, why do they think they're so special?

I think it was little shortsighted of the organizers not to think of this, its pretty well known that Muslims think dogs are unclean

Yep, they should have changed the whole ceremony on that basis. Unfortunately, as a FSM high priest I find fireworks and walking and [insert anything else] offensive, so they really might struggle to organise anything palatable.

its pretty well known that Muslims think dogs are unclean.

Plenty of people think plenty of things, doesn't make them true.

Charlie Brooker's column on 'offence' jumps to mind here. It's a fine line between "respecting" and "pandering." How much respect is being paid to the traditions and culture of Scotland by calling one of their mascots "unclean"?

In the interests of balance, can I be offended on behalf of the Scottish?

The easy solution would have been for a dog handler to be used where appropriate.

Te easy solution would have been for a dog handler to be used where appropriate.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened isn't it? The "team representatives" weren't members of the teams, they were people - presumably local volunteers - who walked in front of the flag bearer, in uniform rather than team kit.

edit:
[img] [/img]

I have no idea if this woman is a muslim or not.

What I was saying is that whilst there cn be dogs in the ceremony, and I loved them, the Malayasians should have been asked if they wished to have a dog ahead of their team.

The 'Team Representative' was not Malaysian, she was Scottish (and presumably not Muslim, or not worried by dogs). No Malaysian team member was asked to touch the dog.

When in Rome.......

Lemonysam - When i first looked i thought the same, looks more like a local style of dress too. In which case this is a complete load of BS.
If it was the team rep, they would be from the team country not the host country?

All Muslims are terrierists!

Do I win a prize?

So this is BS from either the Malaysian muppets or the Telegraph muppets then.

I do not find dogs offensive and i do not find the absence of dogs offensive. Given this it is not difficult to find a solution here where no one is offended

Plenty of people think plenty of things, doesn't make them true

When in [s]Rome.....[/s] and islamic country cover your wife up and dont let her drive

It really depends on what they do in Rome tbh

EDIT 2: if it was carried by a non muslim Scots person then that is a rather important point that should have been made clear. I read it as a Malaysian carried the dog.

Problem solved:[img] [/img]

not a all Muslims think dogs are dirty, plenty own dogs as pets and plenty of Muslim places use working dogs,
is it that it wouldn't make a nice story (or thread title) for the swivel eyed loons to latch onto to justify their swivellyeyedness...

Junkyard - If the story is true, It seems that the Malaysian politicians have assumed the team rep was a muslim.

All Muslims are terrierists!

I agree it does appear that way [ see my edit] and I would probably have cared less had I realised that bit.

An explanation/history of the human race:

Person/country/culture/religion 1: You're stupid
Person/country/culture/religion 2: No, you're stupid

It seems that the Malaysian politicians have assumed the team rep was a muslim.

I think it's funny they get offended, it's just a bit much when they start chopping peoples heads off.

Has anyone asked the dog what he thinks?

I think the key point here is 'religion'. Without wishing to spark off the latest round of the STW religious wars, I feel that religion's only function is to make you think you are better than the non-believers [regardless of which actual religion] and that religious being offended is so much worse than any other kind.

I didn't see British Muslims marching in support of the UK in the aftermath of 7/7. Apart from the Muslim Council you don't see Muslims in support of the British flag, or anything associated. Very sad and very true.

Where is the 'not in our name/they don't speak for us' campaign?

Sad really. As I know some good people but theres no desire(?) .. pride? as you would get from say Sikh's.

Also sad that as I'm 'critising' above in some countries it'd mean jail/death and here at home automatically a 'racist'.

If I did the same and criticise an aspect of Christian faith/a section of the Christian community I'd be classed as 'debating' or having a 'critical view' on a subject to do with Christians.

I feel that religion's only function is to make you think you are better than the non-believers

Disagree, think the idea behind religions was to try to stop people f***ing each other over all the time.

Didn't quite work did it? Then again, maybe things would have been worse without religions.

"Dato Ibrahim Bin Ali, a far-Right politician, former MP and founder and president of Malay supremacist group Perkasa..."

If one gets offended by religious actions of others, well, thats just life. Get over it with it and move on. No point beating the drum endlessly about it is, these people are blinkered in their religion and beliefs

hora - Member
I didn't see British Muslims marching in support of the UK in the aftermath of 7/7. Apart from the Muslim Council you don't see Muslims in support of the British flag, or anything associated. Very sad and very true.

Well said, World domination is looming