rikacomet

Being a Muslim is to bow one's will to the Almighty. There is no such thing Wahabi/Hijji/Cultural Muslims. This is cleared in the Quran, that the religion chosen for us is Islam, not Islam Version A or Version B.

A Muslim will enter it knowing its importance, and though he may not be perfect in conduct, he would ought to ask for forgiveness.

Non-Muslims would naturally move about naturally, and end up doing things they do not know the gravity of, and over that not ask for forgiveness (from Allah). This is the reason in plain words.

For the Non-Muslims, my op stays as it is. Just because you are interested in sightseeing Mecca, doesn't mean we undo our own vows. Yes it is a beautiful place, you wanna watch it? Buy the tickets: "There is only one God, and there is no other God, that is the way straight". And you should be gladly allowed to sight see or pray.. whichever you want. Mecca's Hospitality would be yours.

Islamic Perspective in Rough (need citation):

Prophet Adam (Peace be upon Him) created the first House of Worship at Kaaba.

During the time of Prophet Nuh (Noah) (Peace be Upon Him), it was in one sense, 'lost'.

Then Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) 'the true' and Prophet Ismail (?) (Peace be Upon them) rebuilt the Kabba again.

Again and Again, Kabba and Mecca with it, were lost (to what?)

Until At last, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) cleaned it for the last time. Removing the 360+ idols placed within.

A interesting story, just Before the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is that a certain king vowed to destroy the Kaaba, and plunder the city of Mecca. To which he was roughly told 'The Owner of this House is well capable of protecting it'. The Army of that King was killed by a hailstorm of stones carried by countless birds, a sign for those who believe.

It is not a place of entertainment or sight-seeing. Hajj is a Farz for Muslims. Anyone who enter's Mecca ought to do so with the thought of his Lord on him, seeking redemption and forgiveness.

Or Would you worship your Lord only if it is 'entertaining to you'?

I think that is a excellent example of how information might get abused.

I would rather not agree with this "Break up the NSA" thing. I do follow the public opinion that its surveillance is wrong, but this is not the fix.

NSA is a organization, a empty shell without its people. If the people are not going to change their mindset in short-term (social change in mentality), it means that law has to be changed in short-term, so that very mentality gets more time to change.

But this is where I must contradict myself, does these people who are benefiting from such "Its abuse, not use of power" deserve such a delay? Given that for every second the situation remains the same, countless bottom-of-pyramid-people across the globe would keep suffering? Or have we become TOO used to looking away?

Also, a very important question is, that 'has NSA's Information Collection System become such a tool, where bulk of Americans are used to collect data on Bulk of Americans, and put that in the hands of Few, who then abuse it?' Or NSA has more to it than just the empty shell called: "Interest".

As Voltaire said: "You must ask, whether it is 'Just Interest' or 'National Interest'. "

A supporting question is, who is the Nation anyway? A few or all? Abraham Lincoln ought to be right here. But, fast forward 200 years, It is also important to question, whether "Nations" especially the idea of "America" stands as it is, given the fact that it is America itself that pushed for a "Globalized World" and still does.

I must say, that the sense of realism in that was really good! Allow me to just point out a few things that would help it get nearer to perfect! (This is good heart'ed feedback obviously!):

1. The bathroom door was somehow unnaturally bent backward, it really was the only thing that clicked instantly (even in 144p!) [Perhaps its just me :/ ]

2. Near the end of the video, the hallway was a bit too dark, global lights suddenly dimmed, the transition was unnatural (slightly ..), but it is not as noticeable as point no1.

3. From a artistic point of you, I would have preferred if the sofa in the second room (living room) would have had a slight shade of yellow (sun effect).. just a tiny bit to separate it from the bedroom scene. The reason I feel is perhaps because of nature of both rooms, Bedrooms have a blue sleepy appeal, living room are a bit cheerful, and since here the source of light was sun, it should have had that warm hue for the sense of realism to be even better. The other reason is perhaps because the set contains only 3-4 rooms plus lobby, that slight tone of diversity would have had a profound artistic uplift.

PS: Please take it as just feedback, and not as criticism. Dude! I can't even though half of that.. so salute to you and best of luck :)

Love from India ~

Though there is an increase in certain pockets, there is no attitude change in the Indian government towards forest/wildlife conservation in aggregate (at all!), as evident by the deforestation activities on the outskirt of Sundarban.In fact as we speak two important areas are being bulldozed:

Mangarbani (South-West of Capital Delhi)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news-video/av-india/mang...

And

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/protest-pl...

This little increase in the population of tigers is almost just a facade for the actual mentality of Indian Government (Bureaucracy in particular) towards Environment which is often viewed as "Just a formality"

And you think that Islam promotes this "bodily harm/threats" ? You sure are a delusional one. I leave you at that, I should have known that you are not here to listen to opinions, or engage in a fair debate.

And you are unable to see that you are simply starting to touch the line of madly imposing your opinion upon others. and Also doing both side of a conversation.

It is very easy to sit at home and be a arm-chair philosopher, and hope that the people in your circle are the all-there-is of the world.

In your opinion it is not possible for Muslims to have sensitivity about certain topics, that they would not like to be toyed around with. Cause that is against the concept of liberty perhaps?

okay, since you are insisting this much. Let us hear what your copy says? What are you quoting exactly, and what is your point? You seem to claim that you are not rigid in your opinion and are open for debate.

Then we simply have different opinions. Nothing more.

What I meant in my original post is that, out of the millions of ways to be amused, if you can simply write off "insulting prophets of Islam", I your Muslim friend would be very happy.

Dear Jacques, your opinion is not the only one that matters, I hope you remember that. No opinion got diluted, nor yours or mine or whatever you meant by that.

I will say this clearly to you, Muslim people have faith in Prophet Muhammad and his teachings. What are they? You neither have complete knowledge nor intention to get it.

It in-fact, includes the same liberties and rights you seem to be are defending at the moment. Yet from the intensity with which you are responding to my replies to other people as well, makes you look like rather driven by emotions here.

If you could only find out for yourself, and spend the proper effort in finding out what Islam really is (from a genuine Quran) you will realize that what you are simply brushing off as another religion is not what you think it is.

Is it possible for you to be wrong about Islam? Yes or No?

there you go quoting random things from the internet. This is really not worth my time anymore.

Should I say two things clearly?

1. I condemn the attack on charlie hebdo. Do you?

2. I condemn the over-the-top carricatures of Muhammad. Do you?

Whether your answer is Yes or No, that is your opinion, and this is mine.

For the record, any Quran you find over the internet is most likely to be not genuine.For example, there are only 30 chapters in Quran. so no.33 is just not possible.

Can I point, that one of the central tenants of Islam is that the only source of Quran is Quran itself. Wikipedia is not a accurate source. But you knew that right?

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> Let me put it this way. There are only a couple of hundred thousand/million of people who follow Bahai Religion. Can they have the bloodiest history? Both Christianity and Islam, are among top 3 in terms of people who follow a religion. Of course with nearly half the planet following Islam and Christianity, if people stand up for the right things, they will end up with a bloody history. (In no way I support violence, but what I say is for the sake of the argument).

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> And I agree with you, Islam specifically says that Non-Muslims are to be treated with respect and dignity. As you say, no man who has laid eyes on Quran can claim that such terrorism is justified.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Who says it is too little? Which Divine power will decide it is too much or too little?

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Is this in someway becoming, tell me what Islam is? If you have questions, about "What Islam actually says", then go read a genuine English Translation of Quran.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

>> You seem to have a delusion about "Serious" Muslim Country. No one can clearly say which country is better. Isn't it peaceful to say all religions are good, all countries are good? Which side are you really on? Of a peaceful mindset or I want to work out my issues about Islam on HN?

Islam starts at Tauheed, which is to believe in "One God".

As a Muslim I have only 2 things to say to you:

Do you condemn the attacks? I do.

Do you condemn over-the-top caricatures of our Prophet? I do.

If you can't believe either me or them, then you surely can try to find out what Islam is yourself right? Best help is self help! To start looking, pick up a genuine English Translation of Quran.

No learning Arabic is not compulsory, though reading the Quran is. There are lot of translations of Quran, including in English.

People are not aware as such because of similar reasons, as you may not know the whole of constitution that governs you. It takes time and effort.

Regarding Nasruddin, there are thousands of stories by different authors for all type of audience, if you look a bit more, you will find one with satire.

To offend him is to offend me. The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case.

Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

The liberty to express yourself is not the only liberty in the world. I, You and All of Us have the liberty to be offended as well.

The point is: -what to do if you are offended? To which I say simply ignore it happened.

-why offend someone in the first place?

did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

If you read the content of that wiki yourself (Carefully), or watch the movie "The Message", you will find out yourself that you are wrong.

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wished for those people to get hurt (there is specific mention of this in Islam). It is against the moral of our religion to engage in such "eye for an eye" notions. Yet people (like the 4 suspects) who are not aware of their own religion and the finer lines tend to do these things when agitated or pushed in a corner.

On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair. People are serious about it, be it any religion. People live and die by the religion, it is the very guide of majority of the people in this world. And if someone portrays something so closely associated to people, it is a kin to playing with their feelings. And that is where things start to get ugly, and such mishaps happen.

Satire is accepted in Islam, as evident from the semi-fictional writings about Mullah Nasruddin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasreddin

But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much. Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam. Even if we are to write a play on factual things about him, it is prohibited to have someone portray him (even for a good/just reason). To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that.

People in the west have indeed respected this, as seen in the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/

Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

Being an Indian, I agree with that. Sometimes, when asked "how do you justify the X salary you are demanding" I find very few who have any answers (except the occasional: 'How he/she belongs to IIT' as if being an IITian gives you the right to earn without work)

MS, why you no break that iso file in part files?

In Asia, people are still running on barely Broadband speeds (1MB or below). So much for having a Indian CEO.

Just to add as feedback to that: I much prefer the Jpeg render of 2 things in particular in that sample image. First, the brownish stone on the lower-right corner. As we as the car tracks. Regarding the car-tracks, the rough look in the Jpeg render looks more natural to me. The stone is though only slightly better in the jpeg. For the rest of it, Daala wins! I specially like the thin, tall leave-less tree on the left.

Just to add to that, India, perhaps learned from the 1970 famine (see the wiki on Green Revolution). There are more variety of rice today in India, than anyone can count. And people have appreciation for that. I often eat 0.45cm long rice, which is as fat as a worm, as well as 3-4cm long rice, that is cooked not as a delicacy but as a base of other delicacies :)

Mangoes are another widely diversified food item. We even have a mildly popular Mango Festival Tradition in different suburbs at the edge of Urban Centers.

please do share, if you found a picture of noteworthy legitimacy that shows even 1% of the figure quoted above i.e 20 million. (btw the population of DPRK is 24 million as per wikipedia, thus 20 million seems a lot inflated.)

I agree partially with you. And to add to that. The probable problem with the US approach to this is the "rate of change" ("probable" because it is too hard to call it anything more, since this is world affairs we are talking, we can't talk loosely)

Spreading freedom is right, and I can see the good side of US authorities in this. I imagine there might be lot of people living in North Korea under medieval set of freedoms (but we all lived through that and is it that bad?).

But people can't open up easily, even if you are trying to help them. It takes time. If we want NK to come to terms with upholding human rights, we need to give them time. While at the same time pushing them a bit as well. Sometimes I wonder if that is what is happening. US the lash, Russia/China the console. If that is so, then the culprit is neither US or NK or Russia, but us, for over-reacting in certain senses.

For example, in the above translation there is a line: "all war spaces including cyber warfare space to blow up those citadels."

I think the above line was for 'biased or mistaken/unbiased' reasons miss-quoted/translated by some in the US media, as 'North Korea threatens to blow up US buildings'(creating unnecessary tension based on the events of 9/11). Instead it might have meant "breaking a nexus". But anyways, quite a few media outlets ran that story. And I guess, to some extent the comedic approach to North Korea is thus needed. But that should not mean disgracing its leader directly. Tease but don't Touch!