The movie is absolutely popular in Turkey. And yes, Muhammed was never shown in any way, the dialogues that needed to be with him were like monologues as well.
I have seen enough of this. I am a Muslim and finding the reasons to bannination of Muhammed from being shown/ depicted/illustrated absolutely rational. See what they have done in the first chance ? It may please you, you can fit it into the Freedom Of Speech. But Muhammed is my holy Prophet and does not deserve the way he is offended because of what Al-Freak-Da-Bombists have done. Even you had suggested that he would approve and be aside with AQ if he was alive after all these.Why would you abhor any movie that portrayed him visibly? I mean what is the importance of the taboo to you, to LEN the man personally?
Danish newspaper would apologize in the first days of the matter and nothing would have happened. It has happened before (Muhammed being depicted in a portray by Bild, if I'm not wrong) and the case was peacefully closed by their apologize.
This is a nerve that should not be touched. It is like the West peeing on a wall religious taboo of centuries. The reason why you take it this far and find the Muslim world reaction ridiculous, lies under the Norwegian paper's words of apology (not the exact version): "We couldn't anticipate that it would state such an offence against Muslims"
Yeah it offends us and give up depciting him, let alone the ugly charicatures, why that much of insistence? Can not you have fun without depicting Muhammed ?
P.S. I've already stated my refusal against what has been done to the embassies and flags, please do not reply in a way "Should you have reacted that way?". The answer is above and I'm repeating the reasons of such harsh reactions added the contribution of fuel into the fire by Western papers doing the same thing one after another, for another time again here.
Bookmarks