PDA

View Full Version : Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence



InToTheRain
01-19-2015, 03:18 PM
Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence
By Abdal Hakim Murad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-violence.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
gurufabbes
01-23-2015, 02:53 PM
Yeah I've seen this article.

It gets a bit more into the mindset about the prophet that I still do not understand.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-23-2015, 04:21 PM
The irony is pretty thick.
Reply

titus
01-23-2015, 06:01 PM
Is the original poster actually saying that the Paris shootings were justified since the cartoons were an act of violence? If not then what exactly is the purpose of saying that a cartoon is an act of violence?

And why are there so many people that are so insecure that they think a cartoon can harm their religion?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
InToTheRain
01-23-2015, 11:53 PM
Hello Chaps :)

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Yeah I've seen this article.

It gets a bit more into the mindset about the prophet that I still do not understand.
I don't think a non-Muslim can appreciate the spiritual and emotinal bond between us and Mohammad( :saws: ). You can see some views from non-muslim perspectives here:
http://www.gainpeace.com/index.php?o...=41&Itemid=105

His immense love for mankind is immeasurable:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/disco...2/114414853706


Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
The irony is pretty thick.
OR the pretty irony is thick

Originally Posted by titus
Is the original poster actually saying that the Paris shootings were justified since the cartoons were an act of violence? If not then what exactly is the purpose of saying that a cartoon is an act of violence?

Islam has no room for vigilate justice so even if someone were to be violent towards me I would need to follow the laws of the land. As a renowned scholar mentioned, no insult on the Prophet ( :saws: ) is worthy of taking the blood of an innocent in his name.

Having said that I have no sympathy for Charlie Hebdoe and his ilk whom I see as sadists. These people are hardly innocent.

Here's another good article on that by Norman Finkelstein:
http://www.aa.com.tr/en/headline/452...ism-not-satire


Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And why are there so many people that are so insecure that they think a cartoon can harm their religion?
I think the article explained quite succintly the reasons why such acts are a threat seeing as they are analogues to what was perpetrated against the Jews by the Nazis.


Any more questions regarding the Article can be forwarded to the Good Dean at Cambridge University. Email address can be found there:
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/timothy-winter
Reply

Abdullahh
01-24-2015, 02:35 AM
There are limits to free speech. If you cross the line, prepare yourself for the consequences.
Reply

syed_z
01-24-2015, 07:24 AM
Originally Posted by titus
And why are there so many people that are so insecure that they think a cartoon can harm their religion?
What seems insignificant to you is of great significance to someone else, but how would you understand this when you have adopted Atheism, when you don't believe in God how would you have any respect for His Chosen ones?

I suggest you read the Quran and help yourselves because what your following will disown you on the day of judgement which is not so far. Your judgment will begin with your own death and every one of us has to die and return to Allah (swt).

Allah (swt) loves you, so help yourselves before its too late...He has given us all time so we return to Him and so He could have Mercy on us for His Mercy is Eternal and ever trying to win back those whom Satan have misguided.

(18:58) And your Lord is the Forgiving, full of mercy. If He were to impose blame upon them for what they earned, He would have hastened for them the punishment. Rather, for them is an appointment from which they will never find an escape.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-24-2015, 09:16 AM
Originally Posted by syed_z
Allah (swt) loves you, so help yourselves before its too late...He has given us all time so we return to Him and so He could have Mercy on us for His Mercy is Eternal and ever trying to win back those whom Satan have misguided.

(18:58) And your Lord is the Forgiving, full of mercy. If He were to impose blame upon them for what they earned, He would have hastened for them the punishment. Rather, for them is an appointment from which they will never find an escape.
Why are verses like this in the holy books of the Muslim and Christian and Jewish religions considered less offensive to atheists and other non-believers than the cartoons are to Muslims? I have been told by some, seemingly with glee, that I will suffer forever in hellfire because I don't believe in and worship a particular God. And the people saying that stand by that God, and say I deserve such treatment since I don't believe what they do. Why should that be less offensive to me than a drawing of Mohammed holding up a sign saying 'Je Suis Charlie" is to a Muslim?
Reply

BeTheChange
01-24-2015, 11:53 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Why are verses like this in the holy books of the Muslim and Christian and Jewish religions considered less offensive to atheists and other non-believers than the cartoons are to Muslims? I have been told by some, seemingly with glee, that I will suffer forever in hellfire because I don't believe in and worship a particular God. And the people saying that stand by that God, and say I deserve such treatment since I don't believe what they do. Why should that be less offensive to me than a drawing of Mohammed holding up a sign saying 'Je Suis Charlie" is to a Muslim?
Hello Pygoscelis,

Hope your well.

I wanted to click reply with quote but accidentally clicked on like your post :p freebie due to my clumsiness lol :embarrass

Just wanted to reply to your thoughts and advise that - Of course, non believers and atheists will find the scriptures to hold no value and no meaning so therefore offence doesn't come into their thought processes. You can only be offended by something or someone if you CARE or believe in that subject or individual in question.

You don't believe in our Prophet Muhammad SAW (PBUH) and the message that he was conveying to mankind so it doesn't matter how people talk about Him (SAW), what they draw etc. To Muslims, who believe in Prophet SAW, the Day of Judgement, the Devil etc it is more than an insult. Like another poster commented, there is limits to this so called illusionary freedom that people boast about.
Reply

syed_z
01-24-2015, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Why are verses like this in the holy books of the Muslim and Christian and Jewish religions considered less offensive to atheists and other non-believers than the cartoons are to Muslims? I have been told by some, seemingly with glee, that I will suffer forever in hellfire because I don't believe in and worship a particular God. And the people saying that stand by that God, and say I deserve such treatment since I don't believe what they do. Why should that be less offensive to me than a drawing of Mohammed holding up a sign saying 'Je Suis Charlie" is to a Muslim?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

The Verses I share are not from any human, they are from the Al Mighty Creator of the Entire Universe, at least what we believe. So if the Verse I shared which says 'Your Lord is Forgiving (your mistakes which you have made by disbelieving in Him), Full of Mercy (that is He wants to have mercy on you for Eternity in this life and the hereafter) ....then it really confuses me that how can you even think the word 'offensive' for His Message.

If you have been told by someone that you deserve Eternal Hell fire and that you will suffer forever, then that is their views and opinion they shared about you, Allah (swt) hasn't decreed that, you can ask them how they know the Unseen? at least I can say that because your still alive and He in His Mercy has given you so much time to rethink, because His aim is not to punish you but forgive you and bestow His Eternal Mercy on you, provided you choose to accept it, if you won't then it is not any one's else's loss except your own.

If you've been offended by what a Believer has said to you as a result of a heated or emotional argument then know that it is that person whose saying not Allah (swt). You make that a reason to disbelieve in Allah (swt), that is again your own loss.

Allah's message for you is in the Quran, read it and accept it so you may be saved in this Life and the Hereafter, make your heart soft with humbleness and request Him to guide you so it can be easily acceptable:

(59:21) If We had sent down this Qur'an upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah . And these examples We present to the people that perhaps they will give thought.

Our hearts can be harder than mountains ...
Reply

gurufabbes
01-25-2015, 01:34 AM
Originally Posted by InToTheRain
Hello Chaps :)



I don't think a non-Muslim can appreciate the spiritual and emotinal bond between us and Mohammad( :saws: ). You can see some views from non-muslim perspectives here:
http://www.gainpeace.com/index.php?o...=41&Itemid=105

His immense love for mankind is immeasurable:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/disco...2/114414853706


I think the article explained quite succintly the reasons why such acts are a threat seeing as they are analogues to what was perpetrated against the Jews by the Nazis.

No, I don't think we can... (for Mohammed).
Well, yes, Jews can in terms of their own prophets though I don't think this has ever been an issue as much as it seems to be today for Islam (maybe because the West is apart of post-christian civilization and therefore has had the same prophets and figures).

The thing that seems to be shown in all this is a particular attachment and reverence for the Islamic prophet (which is obvious as it is only Muslims that recognize his prophethood), which perhaps then sees a particular attack on the figure as an attack on their religious beliefs. It is understandable, especially for the Muslim minority in the West.

The reaction however is not so understandable as one wonders why Muslims should care what disbelievers think or say about their prophet. Why is it so important to them that people that do not even believe in Islam should accord him respect to the point that they should muzzle themselves?

-------------

I disagree with the last sentence, for the simple reason (among others though why such a comparison is ridiculous) that the Charlie Hebdo is a far left magazing manned by atheists, rather than by anti-Muslim far right activists that wish to do any physical harm to anyone.
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-25-2015, 02:25 AM
Originally Posted by syed_z
The Verses I share are not from any human, they are from the Al Mighty Creator of the Entire Universe, at least what we believe. So if the Verse I shared which says 'Your Lord is Forgiving (your mistakes which you have made by disbelieving in Him), Full of Mercy (that is He wants to have mercy on you for Eternity in this life and the hereafter) ....then it really confuses me that how can you even think the word 'offensive' for His Message.
I often hear this is the form of

1. You deserve punishment and suffering.
2. Allah / Jesus / etc is merciful and will forgive you and spare you...
3. If you believe X and do Y.

Those of us who are non-believers reject point 1 and would rightly find it offensive. It is the premise of 2 and 3, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

because your still alive and He in His Mercy has given you so much time to rethink, because His aim is not to punish you but forgive you and bestow His Eternal Mercy on you, provided you choose to accept it, if you won't then it is not any one's else's loss except your own.
And there it is.
Reply

Scimitar
01-25-2015, 02:46 AM
i think the title of this thread: Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence

...is a bit strong to be honest.

It certainly isn't an act of violence (though it did result in one). What it is though, is a provocation. Yes, it's an abuse of free speech .Hate speech, vindictive speech and incitements to violence etc have all been allowed under this uber-liberal banner of free speech.

I'm all for free speech but my definition of it is somewhat different to the modern day PC one. I believe people should be allowed to say what they like, draw what they like, propagate what they like - as long as it is done without offending any groups.

There is a limit on what people will call civil - and it is in this idea of what it means to be civilised that we must champion the understanding of this idea which we are having problems with - free speech - has to be mandated to be the expression of ideas in various forms within an ethnically, religiously and socially conscious framework. Without this, you will have problems - with the understanding, people will learn to respect each other - something which is missing in the real world.

Scimi
Reply

Zafran
01-25-2015, 02:49 AM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
No, I don't think we can... (for Mohammed).
Well, yes, Jews can in terms of their own prophets though I don't think this has ever been an issue as much as it seems to be today for Islam (maybe because the West is apart of post-christian civilization and therefore has had the same prophets and figures).

The thing that seems to be shown in all this is a particular attachment and reverence for the Islamic prophet (which is obvious as it is only Muslims that recognize his prophethood), which perhaps then sees a particular attack on the figure as an attack on their religious beliefs. It is understandable, especially for the Muslim minority in the West.

The reaction however is not so understandable as one wonders why Muslims should care what disbelievers think or say about their prophet. Why is it so important to them that people that do not even believe in Islam should accord him respect to the point that they should muzzle themselves?

-------------

I disagree with the last sentence, for the simple reason (among others though why such a comparison is ridiculous) that the Charlie Hebdo is a far left magazing manned by atheists, rather than by anti-Muslim far right activists that wish to do any physical harm to anyone.
These cartoon were not drawn randomly - they are being perceived as a humiliating attack on Muslims and Islam. In an environment of invasions, Torture files and mosque arson attacks - these drawings are just the icing on the cake.

The dudes should not have been killed (as the article says) - Muslims should care about what non muslims think - Humiliating what Muslims stand for and hold dear needs to be protested. I don't think most Muslims want to live in environment where they are being humiliated constantly, like burning poppies in the UK. Clear act of humiliation and provocation, or saying that soldiers are in hell when their bodies are returning from Iraq/Afghanistan.

You don't have to be right winger to be anti Islamic - many lefties are as well - atheist obviously are.
Reply

gurufabbes
01-25-2015, 03:02 AM
Originally Posted by Scimitar
I'm all for free speech but my definition of it is somewhat different to the modern day PC one. I believe people should be allowed to say what they like, draw what they like, propagate what they like - as long as it is done without offending any groups.
Leaving the current subject aside for a moment, I'm sure you're aware as well as I am that this is impossible.
We live in societies where "I'm offended" counts as an argument, and in your scenario would act as a veto.

Some things that are useless and silly offend people, but no less important and truthful statements end up offending certain people all the time as well.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-25-2015, 01:41 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
The reaction however is not so understandable as one wonders why Muslims should care what disbelievers think or say about their prophet.
We don't care for what they say within their own private domain, circle or household however if we allow these attacks on Mohammad(SAW) in front of us then it gives the impression that it's acceptable or tolerable to the Muslims when honestly it is intolerable for many reasons.

let's make it clear We do not care for what you say about extreme fringes within our community for even Mohammad(SAW) forwarned that we will have extreme elements. We all have extreme elements within our society regardless of what beliefs they subsribe to and unfortunately they are not easy control. We condemn them with the rest of the world.

But these extreme fringes have nothing to do with Mohammad(SAW) or his way. To insult him and what he stood for should be felt not just by Muslims but also by those who know what he stood for.

It was he Mohammad(SAW) who spoke against racism, respected and honored the beliefs of religious monorities and built cohesion within society. He didn't force Shariah law on Jews and Christians but rather allowed them to practice according to their scriptures within his domain. It was Muslims who allowed the Jews to enter Jeruselem after they were exiled. The first written constitution in History was made by Mohamamd(SAW); the treaty of Hudaybiah.
He wanted whats good for all even those who did not subsribe to his beliefs so to give the green flag to insult him (SAW) for the actions of some extreme elements is out and out gross injustice.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Why is it so important to them that people that do not even believe in Islam should accord him respect to the point that they should muzzle themselves?
Again the private domain doesn't matter but if someone insults someone I hold dear to my Heart within my earshot knowing full well how hurt I would be by it then expect some noise. Just to give an example would you tolerate me insulting your beloved parents in front of you and family after they died due to me believing they were bad people? In a civilized world would it be acceptable for me to insult them in this way and should we be encouraging such behaviour? And ultimately to what end?

-------------
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
I disagree with the last sentence, for the simple reason (among others though why such a comparison is ridiculous) that the Charlie Hebdo is a far left magazing manned by atheists, rather than by anti-Muslim far right activists that wish to do any physical harm to anyone.
But you being here proves otherwise. You yourself question the ability of Islam and muslims to be civilized and co-exist within society; those very thoughts are proof enough that there is a widespread propaganda against Islam. So agree to disagree on this one :)
Reply

gurufabbes
01-25-2015, 02:25 PM
Originally Posted by InToTheRain
We don't care for what they say within their own private domain, circle or household however if we allow these attacks on Mohammad(SAW) in front of us then it gives the impression that it's acceptable or tolerable to the Muslims when honestly it is intolerable for many reasons.

let's make it clear We do not care for what you say about extreme fringes within our community for even Mohammad(SAW) forwarned that we will have extreme elements. We all have extreme elements within our society regardless of what beliefs they subsribe to and unfortunately they are not easy control. We condemn them with the rest of the world.

But these extreme fringes have nothing to do with Mohammad(SAW) or his way. To insult him and what he stood for should be felt not just by Muslims but also by those who know what he stood for.

It was he Mohammad(SAW) who spoke against racism, respected and honored the beliefs of religious monorities and built cohesion within society. He didn't force Shariah law on Jews and Christians but rather allowed them to practice according to their scriptures within his domain. It was Muslims who allowed the Jews to enter Jeruselem after they were exiled. The first written constitution in History was made by Mohamamd(SAW); the treaty of Hudaybiah.
He wanted whats good for all even those who did not subsribe to his beliefs so to give the green flag to insult him (SAW) for the actions of some extreme elements is out and out gross injustice.



Again the private domain doesn't matter but if someone insults someone I hold dear to my Heart within my earshot knowing full well how hurt I would be by it then expect some noise. Just to give an example would you tolerate me insulting your beloved parents in front of you and family after they died due to me believing they were bad people? In a civilized world would it be acceptable for me to insult them in this way and should we be encouraging such behaviour? And ultimately to what end?

-------------


But you being here proves otherwise. You yourself question the ability of Islam and muslims to be civilized and co-exist within society; those very thoughts are proof enough that there is a widespread propaganda against Islam. So agree to disagree on this one :)
I think I gave my reasoning in the last message about how it is understandable that Muslims can feel personally attacked by depictions of their prophet, as Mohammed is one that is particular to their religion. I think that Muslims like any other religious group have and should have the right to protest against it and voice their dislike.

I think that it has become somewhat of a national cause here in France since the terror attacks. The local union (CSGT) sent two copies of the edition to its members, next to the 7 million or so that have been sold of a newspaper that usually doesn't sell more than 60 000.

I am quite happy, do not underwhelmed, that you find it acceptable to criticize the extreme segments of Muslim community, but what of the question of why it seems to exist more vocally within yours than in others?

Why from France alone, 1000 have run off to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq?

The first written constitution in History was made by Mohamamd(SAW); the treaty of Hudaybiah.
A side point, but it was neither the first treaty nor the first constitution in history. The Ancient Greeks or even the Babylonians and Persians had them way before.
Still I found the wikipedia article and found it interesting.

But you being here proves otherwise. You yourself question the ability of Islam and muslims to be civilized and co-exist within society; those very thoughts are proof enough that there is a widespread propaganda against Islam. So agree to disagree on this one
Not at all. The question is not on individuals but on the collective problem of whether millions of Muslims can coexist with radically different conceptions of society and rights without it coming to clashes.
I base myself on the events and ask questions on what Islam really says on certain issues.

Perhaps, even likely, there is much misinformation out there, but I'm not convinced that is all misinformation and propaganda that leaves people with a bad impression.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-25-2015, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
I think I gave my reasoning in the last message about how it is understandable that Muslims can feel personally attacked by depictions of their prophet, as Mohammed is one that is particular to their religion. I think that Muslims like any other religious group have and should have the right to protest against it and voice their dislike.
It did not escape me and I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
I think that it has become somewhat of a national cause here in France since the terror attacks. The local union (CSGT) sent two copies of the edition to its members, next to the 7 million or so that have been sold of a newspaper that usually doesn't sell more than 60 000.

I am quite happy, do not underwhelmed, that you find it acceptable to criticize the extreme segments of Muslim community, but what of the question of why it seems to exist more vocally within yours than in others?

Why from France alone, 1000 have run off to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
You'll find that those who do run off are amongst the ignorant and arrogant youth. This is a dangerous combination for it leads them to believe they know more about Islam than the Scholars and those who follow those scholars. ISIS appeal to their emotional and rebellious nature. When they see the difficulties in Muslim worlds they blame the Muslims for not doing enough about it so they run off.

As for the power and influence that these extremists have acquired I have mentioned in other threads it's not solely the distorted version of Islam they use that has helped them but also because of the Western Goverments meddling. I have written here about it:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...and-words.html

I will have a little rant and say that Under the the aegis of the dismal Saudi traitors, who could not even defend the Ka'abah without calling upon the booted elite of the French troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure), Islam has been disgraced and the Muslims humiliated, until under their misguidance men have been forced into despair of nihilism and suicides of terror which both declare their abject defeat in finding true Islam. For only someone who has not found Islam can actually think that suicide bombing maybe the answer as their current practice bears no fruit. Saudi themselves usurped power by applying laws against Muslims in order to usurp their lands as ISIS are doing now.

Also what's more "Vocal" is dependant upon how much we are informed by those we are relying upon to inform us. For example the war crimes by Mugabe in Zimbabwe did not get much spot light nor did America go to War against him despite him having committed the same atrocities as Sadam. So what the media decides to peddle can be based on geo-political games at play.


Originally Posted by gurufabbes
A side point, but it was neither the first treaty nor the first constitution in history. The Ancient Greeks or even the Babylonians and Persians had them way before.
Still I found the wikipedia article and found it interesting.
Sorry I got it wrong . What I meant was the first written constitution was in Madinah; I am not sure it had a name but respected the rights of others to live there and also the religious minority; Human rights for all and not just one that applied to Muslims and Arabs. I have not heard of anything like it existing before its time so if the Greeks and Babylonians had one I would be interested to know about what it contained if you know of it. Maybe it did exist but there is no written record of it existing.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Not at all. The question is not on individuals but on the collective problem of whether millions of Muslims can coexist with radically different conceptions of society and rights without it coming to clashes.
Islam has existed for 1400 years so why now is it's tolerance and ability to live amongst others questioned? Did Islam or Muslims start World war 1 or 2? Throw a nuclear bomb on Horoshima? Are they responsible for killing the indegenious poppulation of Australia and America? Did they enslave Millions of Africans many of whom died crossing the harsh terrains? No but in many countries the indegiouness poppulation accepted Islam without need for militiary intervention. It's because tolerance is a hallmark of Muslim Character. Thread here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...character.html
Reply

Scimitar
01-25-2015, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Leaving the current subject aside for a moment, I'm sure you're aware as well as I am that this is impossible.
if that were the case, please explain why i am not allowed to speak up against the holohoax... er, i mean holocaust... you see, clear lines have already been established in an age when the Muslim mindset was not considered as worthy of being offended - thus, the world is free to coax Muslims all they want, but say a peep against the jews and the holocaust, suddenly it's not free speech anymore, it's incitement to hatred, violence and all sorts.

Many European countries have a law where speaking up against the holohoax is a crime.

Yet, we apply the same standard to islam's propehet and messenger, Muhammad pbuh - suddenly there are no lines.

This hypocrisy, this double edged sword is failing as people around the world are waking up to the reality of what free speech really is and how it can be abused to incite hatred, violence and worse... we live in an age where the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowing this, you still claim the tired old argument of:

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
We live in societies where "I'm offended" counts as an argument, and in your scenario would act as a veto.
Subjective. Of course it is. being offended on an individual basis is subjective - but when entire populations are of the same mind - then it's a different reality, and the subjective argument goes into the bin. With your educated mind, i'm sure you were already aware of this.

Thus, my argument stands.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Some things that are useless and silly offend people, but no less important and truthful statements end up offending certain people all the time as well.
You're trying to split a hair here. Problem is, you haven't made a comparable analysis.

Let me help.

1) if I say something to you, for example: "you're a buffoon", you may be offended... I say this to someone else, they may laugh along with me... my point is, on an individual basis, the argument is subjective.

2) However, If I say "All Jews are the synagogue of satan" - then every single Jew would be offended - it's no longer subjective anymore, so your "subjective" argument fails in this regard.

Bottom line bro guru, is this - we, the people, have awoken to the reality of free speech, and the underlying hypocrisy it entails in the modern vernacular. We will not accept this bastradisation of it, nor will we remain silent - but we will make our opinions known to the world in order to show solidarity; in the hope to secure better laws governing the current abuse of free speech in the western countries.

I hope that is ok with you :) it certainly shouldn't offend you at the very least ;)

Scimi
Reply

gurufabbes
01-25-2015, 08:08 PM
We're getting a bit into politics here, but then again this topic is political.


it's not solely the distorted version of Islam they use that has helped them but also because of the Western Goverments meddling. I have written here about it:
A picture that speaks more than a thousand words...
Well this is where I wonder. I take that you're not a fan of Assad?
If they had not become involved the West would accused of complicity, and when it does get involved it's accused of meddling. It's a no win situation.

I suppose that your description of the types that run off to ISIS corresponds with the reports. I would add the fact that a number of converts to Islam often embrace these extreme ideas (Coualy and the murderer of Lee Rigby being examples).

Thank you for providing the link for the Grand Mosque seizure. I remember reading about that event years ago and forgot about the details.

Also what's more "Vocal" is dependant upon how much we are informed by those we are relying upon to inform us. For example the war crimes by Mugabe in Zimbabwe did not get much spot light nor did America go to War with them despite having commited the same attrocities as Sadam. So what the media decides peddle can be based on geo-political games at play.
Well by vocal, I was referring to those in Europe, in the West, not just those in the Middle East. That there is an open contestation, rebirth of Islam and political religious streams amongst those who were born to the first generation of immigrants that had no such views. A countercurrent to the expectations of integration by the general indigenous population.

Sorry I got it wrong . What I meant was the first written constitution was in Madinah; I am not sure it had a name but respected the rights of others to live there and also the religious minority; Human rights for and not just one that applied to Muslims and Arabs. I have not heard of anything like it existing before its time so if the Greeks and Babylonians had one I would be interested to know about what it contained if you know of it. Maybe it did exist but there is no written record of it existing.
I'm not well versed in the history of politics and law.

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

What I remember from my studies on Ancient Greece is that each city state had its own constitution and form of law. I'd have to look up what archaeological remains have been found, but the wide library of Ancient Greek writings talks about them.

But even more remarkable is the Hammurabi Stele (in the Louvre now) is from the year 1754 BC... Amazing.
Anyway, in short constitutions, laws, treaties go back a long time...

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

Also Cyrus the Great's Cylinder talks about the restoration of religious rights.

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


Islam has existed for 1400 years so why now is it's tolerance and ability to live amongst others questioned? Did Islam or Muslims start World war 1 or 2? Throw a nuclear bomb on Horoshima? Are they responsible for killing the indegenious poppulation of Australia and America? Did they enslave Millions of Africans many of whom died crossing the harsh terrains? No but in many countries the indegiouness poppulation accepted Islam without need for militiary intervention. It's because tolerance is a hallmark of Muslim Character. Thread here:
Tolerance: A Hallmark Of Muslim Character
Well, you're inviting some harsh answers here. It's not a matter of whether the West, Europe are blameless and don't have violent and bloody histories. But Islamic history for sure is not either.

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

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

But none of this relevant. It's irrelevant to the present day and it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's a matter of mass immigration and the problems of coexistence between populations that have completely different visions of the world and society. The agnostic, atheistic, liberal populations of the West and a more authoritarian (or need harsher guidance rather), religious, traditional population (which on top is ethnically and culturally different) from various parts of the world.

From this perspective, I'm answering my own question as Islam only one part of the issue. But these two competing ideas manifest themselves in this topic:

The average European doesn't care about drawings mocking religious figures or religions. It's all fair game. They've left religiosity behind
The average Muslim that holds strong to his religious traditions and upbringing finds it unthinkable (feels personally attacked) and something deep inside him reasons that such actions should not be allowed, should be banned by law.

This is the difference that events like these have brought out.
Reply

gurufabbes
01-25-2015, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Scimitar
if that were the case, please explain why i am not allowed to speak up against the holohoax... er, i mean holocaust... you see, clear lines have already been established in an age when the Muslim mindset was not considered as worthy of being offended - thus, the world is free to coax Muslims all they want, but say a peep against the jews and the holocaust, suddenly it's not free speech anymore, it's incitement to hatred, violence and all sorts.

Many European countries have a law where speaking up against the holohoax is a crime.

Yet, we apply the same standard to islam's propehet and messenger, Muhammad pbuh - suddenly there are no lines.

This hypocrisy, this double edged sword is failing as people around the world are waking up to the reality of what free speech really is and how it can be abused to incite hatred, violence and worse... we live in an age where the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowing this, you still claim the tired old argument of:



Subjective. Of course it is. being offended on an individual basis is subjective - but when entire populations are of the same mind - then it's a different reality, and the subjective argument goes into the bin. With your educated mind, i'm sure you were already aware of this.

Thus, my argument stands.



You're trying to split a hair here. Problem is, you haven't made a comparable analysis.

Let me help.

1) if I say something to you, for example: "you're a buffoon", you may be offended... I say this to someone else, they may laugh along with me... my point is, on an individual basis, the argument is subjective.

2) However, If I say "All Jews are the synagogue of satan" - then every single Jew would be offended - it's no longer subjective anymore, so your "subjective" argument fails in this regard.

Bottom line bro guru, is this - we, the people, have awoken to the reality of free speech, and the underlying hypocrisy it entails in the modern vernacular. We will not accept this bastradisation of it, nor will we remain silent - but we will make our opinions known to the world in order to show solidarity; in the hope to secure better laws governing the current abuse of free speech in the western countries.

I hope that is ok with you :) it certainly shouldn't offend you at the very least ;)

Scimi
I have to admit, be honest with you, that mentioning the Holocaust as being a hoax does offend me. It offends me because it's not, as perhaps some think, some massive conspiracy to falsify history, to pull money out of European states to fund nefarious activities, to justify political enterprises in other lands... (all that). But because it is an event that wiped out the Jewish populations in Eastern and Southern Europe. It's a factual event, one of the most widely studied events in human history, and something that remains a national trauma within the Jewish people. An event beyond modern politics. As with anyone, disbelieving something because one wants to, just as believing something because one wants to, does not make it true.

Indeed, I personally wish the Holocaust deniers were correct. They're not, one trip to Poland and Lithuania will make that clear. And this without even touching the mountains of testimonies, evidence, documents and survivor stories, the family members that one doesn't have, that can point to no other conclusion.

Having said that, I sense a bit of hostility or anger in your post.

So how is it different from the Mohammed cartoons? In my opinion, it isn't. I don't believe in laws against Holocaust denial either.

Do I agree that Jews sometimes go too far on this subject? Yes (Though within France, Poland and Germany it affects the sensibilities of the general population, which is possibly why they went so far as to actually ban such discourse). That the media goes so far to insinuate anti-semitism when there is no anti-semitism, yes.

But even beyond this, I do logically see a difference between denying a tragic historical event (usually with wider political motives) and making pictures mocking a religious leader. But I see it that way because I don't see things from your perspective. I'm not a Muslim, I do not understand the attachment you have to the prophet and to the prohibition of not depicting him. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be the one to go out of my way to offend them this way either.

This hypocrisy, this double edged sword is failing as people around the world are waking up to the reality of what free speech really is and how it can be abused to incite hatred, violence and worse... we live in an age where the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowing this, you still claim the tired old argument of:
But this is where you're arguing against yourself. You're in favour of such curbs based on at least one group of people being offended. And.. how about when atheists are offended by religious symbols or discourse in public? When feminists are offended by hints at gender and gender roles in society? How about when the whole host of other opponents to certain things you may believe in can veto what you can say and do? How about circumcision, non-stunned slaughter of animals when certain rights groups don't like it?

Subjective. Of course it is. being offended on an individual basis is subjective - but when entire populations are of the same mind - then it's a different reality, and the subjective argument goes into the bin. With your educated mind, i'm sure you were already aware of this.
And when do you have entire populations that are of the same mind?

You're trying to split a hair here. Problem is, you haven't made a comparable analysis.

Let me help.

1) if I say something to you, for example: "you're a buffoon", you may be offended... I say this to someone else, they may laugh along with me... my point is, on an individual basis, the argument is subjective.

2) However, If I say "All Jews are the synagogue of satan" - then every single Jew would be offended - it's no longer subjective anymore, so your "subjective" argument fails in this regard.

Bottom line bro guru, is this - we, the people, have awoken to the reality of free speech, and the underlying hypocrisy it entails in the modern vernacular. We will not accept this bastradisation of it, nor will we remain silent - but we will make our opinions known to the world in order to show solidarity; in the hope to secure better laws governing the current abuse of free speech in the western countries.
I sincerely just don't understand your position at worst, or else I think what you're saying from what I have understood is unworkable.

We're in the theoretical realm here. As I mentioned above, how do you divide what is a group and what is individual? The problem is we have societies of groups nowadays.
These groups are women (feminists), atheists and agnostics, religious groups, they are gays... etc

Say something such as 'marriage is between a man and woman' and you'll get the latter groups offended. Say our society is based originally on 'Judeo-Christian' values, and the other religious groups and agnostics will be offended. Say that woman has a crucial role to play as a mother and in the home that men do not naturally fulfil and you'll offend the former...

By your reasoning we would no longer be allowed to say such things, which may or not be correct, because they offend certain groups.
If there is hypocrisy, deal with the hypocrisy rather than creating more.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-26-2015, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
We're getting a bit into politics here, but then again this topic is political.
Well this is where I wonder. I take that you're not a fan of Assad?

If they had not become involved the West would accused of complicity, and when it does get involved it's accused of meddling. It's a no win situation.
To the best of my knowledge it is how I see it at the moment. There is no other way to make sense of the surge or power ISIS has gotten recently. Unfortunately for them ISIS have turned against their makers.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
I suppose that your description of the types that run off to ISIS corresponds with the reports. I would add the fact that a number of converts to Islam often embrace these extreme ideas (Coualy and the murderer of Lee Rigby being examples).
What Muslim like Anjam CHowdhury thrive on are ignorance and emotion so new Muslims unfortunately succumb to them because they do not know any better. However I believe the number of reverts that do this are signifacantly less then those that do not; much like the number porportion between Extreme and non-extreme Muslims.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Well by vocal, I was referring to those in Europe, in the West, not just those in the Middle East. That there is an open contestation, rebirth of Islam and political religious streams amongst those who were born to the first generation of immigrants that had no such views. A countercurrent to the expectations of integration by the general indigenous population.
You can say Muslims are more politically active now which is not a bad thing as the previous generation were too busy fighting racism and settling in lol. As for their views being counter current to the indegiouness poppulation and if we are using "free speech" as an example then there is good reason to be against the way it's currently seen as there are double standards. This is felt more by the hot-headed youth who may unfortunately take extreme measures to vent their frustration.



Originally Posted by gurufabbes
I'm not well versed in the history of politics and law.

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

What I remember from my studies on Ancient Greece is that each city state had its own constitution and form of law. I'd have to look up what archaeological remains have been found, but the wide library of Ancient Greek writings talks about them.

But even more remarkable is the Hammurabi Stele (in the Louvre now) is from the year 1754 BC... Amazing. Anyway, in short constitutions, laws, treaties go back a long time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Also Cyrus the Great's Cylinder talks about the restoration of religious rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder

Thanks for the link. I haven't went into in detail and just skimmed through it for now. The Hamurabi speaks about law and order but does not mention rights of religious minorities. The authenticity and credibility of Cyrus Cylinder appears to be under dispute by historians and may have been part of a propaganda devised by Pahlavi regime.

As such I view Mohammad(SAW) as someone who sparked a revolution which reverberated throughout the world.


Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Well, you're inviting some harsh answers here.
hmmmm it does feel like I am opening up a can of worms ... wanna go fishing :)

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
It's not a matter of whether the West, Europe are blameless and don't have violent and bloody histories. But Islamic history for sure is not either.
Yes blood have been spilt by all sides. I guess the point I was trying to make was Muslims have co-existed for years amongst Jews and Christians and other minorities. The contitution Mohammad(SAW) made respected their rights. Had Muslims or Islam was unable live amongst non-Muslims or had hatred for them then the coptic christians of Egypt would have not existed nor would Jews be allowed back into Jeruselam etc. The main instigators of recent wars have not been Muslims and so, in my humble opinion, our tolerance shouldn't come into question. We know their is extremists who do not help the situation however the media as it currently works makes it a strain to clear the confusion. Infact at times we feel the bias it has against us:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/200...ng.raceintheuk


I am going off topic just to give my opinion on this issue. Regarding having slaves, and I know how horrible this may sound in our current mindset :), but it wasn't so abhorrent before. It was also means by which POW's could intergrate within society and gain status as the slave represented the master so in that sense it was more of the role of the servant or butler. Mohammad(SAW) would advocate they be treated with respect and dignity. So much so that a Slave in a rich household would be better off then a Free man in a poor household as they would adorn the clothes similiar to their masters. Slaves before could be from any race and way of life so it wasn't as abhorrent or unjust as it didn't mean superiority of a race over the other.

I am not saying slavery should return; just saying it wasn't as abhorrent as it is seen now. Mohammad(SAW) advocated freeing them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamma...ews_on_slavery

The affect of this message was clear when the Umar Al-Khattab(RA) walked into Jerusalem, after having conquered it!, whilsts having his slave ride his camel because it was his turn to walk. And he walked in using tattered clothes with patches on them. Detailed here:
http://www.alim.org/library/biograph...tent/KUM/18/69

Yusuf(AS) was also a slave for a long duration of his life. Just shows It was a practice which was ingrained within social practices for many centuries.
http://www.bibleandkoran.net/verhaal...IntEntityId=17

Back on topic!


Originally Posted by gurufabbes
But none of this relevant. It's irrelevant to the present day and it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's a matter of mass immigration and the problems of coexistence between populations that have completely different visions of the world and society. The agnostic, atheistic, liberal populations of the West and a more authoritarian (or need harsher guidance rather), religious, traditional population (which on top is ethnically and culturally different) from various parts of the world.

From this perspective, I'm answering my own question as Islam only one part of the issue. But these two competing ideas manifest themselves in this topic:

The average European doesn't care about drawings mocking religious figures or religions. It's all fair game. They've left religiosity behind
The average Muslim that holds strong to his religious traditions and upbringing finds it unthinkable (feels personally attacked) and something deep inside him reasons that such actions should not be allowed, should be banned by law.

This is the difference that events like these have brought out.
Yes I agree with that analysis. There is certain things beyond our tolerance and unless we can respect that then we will not have cohesion.


Regarding the Holocause here is a good article by Hamza Yusuf:
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Yu...nesIslam/print
Reply

gurufabbes
01-28-2015, 12:00 PM
Sorry for the late reply:

To the best of my knowledge it is how I see it at the moment. There is no other way to make sense of the surge or power ISIS has gotten recently. Unfortunately for them ISIS have turned against their makers.
I see it possible due to weapons that have fallen into their hands, to the point that they overwhelmed the other Syrian resistance groups. Also, Turkish support.
Kohn Kerry complained last year about ill-advised support to the Syrian resistance by several of its allies.

What's makes the Madina contitution unique is that it is the first to speak of a pluralistic society:
http://islamforwest.org/2011/12/28/t...f-the-world-2/

As such I view Mohammad(SAW) as someone who sparked a revolution which reverberated throughout the world.
Possibly. I don't know the history of minority rights well enough.

I am convinced however that there were tolerant areas (at least before the arrival of Christianity). But I will give Islam its due on this one.

The main instigators of recent wars have not been Muslims and so, in my humble opinion, our tolerance shouldn't come into question.
Up for debate. A debate that I will not go into.

I think the tolerance of... let's say, normal mainstream Muslim societies, and individual societies may be accepted, as long as some large political upheaval or event doesn't occur (War in Algeria, Reconquista with the Almohad dynasty, Pakistan...).

The question I would have is whether a society under modern day forms of Sharia law is compatible with this. And there are numerous reasons to question that:
Saudi Arabia, Iran (not the Jews), the ISIS controlled areas...

And this not even mentioning the shrinking minorities in many of these countries.
The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?
Also, when Muslims become growing minorities in the West, does friction increase?

I say this though, with the honest opinion that none of Monotheistic Abrahamic religions are truly tolerant in the sense we want it to mean today.

I am going off topic just to give my opinion on this issue. Regarding having slaves, and I know how horrible this may sound in our current mindset :), but it wasn't so abhorrent before. It was also means by which POW's could intergrate within society and gain status as the slave represented the master so in that sense it was more of the role of the servant or butler. Mohammad(SAW) would advocate they be treated with respect and dignity. So much so that a Slave in a rich household would be better off then a Free man in a poor household as they would adorn the clothes similiar to their masters. Slaves before could be from any race and way of life so it wasn't as abhorrent or unjust as it didn't mean superiority of a race over the other.
Not to disregard this point, but slavery (particularly if its not for a rich household and a cushy position) is still a means by which someone is the property of someone else and needs to do what they say. For most slaves, I'm sure this position wasn't enviable and their jobs were not ideal for the most part.

I'm also sure that slave owners in the Southern US probably had similar examples to give and back in the days could justify it as being more normal and less harsh than it is depicted as today.

I don't take the position, of say the PC atheists, on their critique of Islam, and am open to hearing the justifications of certain Islamic practices that seem alien to our modern day world, but with critical analysis as well.
Reply

ardianto
01-28-2015, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?
In one conversation my Christian neighbor told me that she is worry about radical Muslims. But she also grateful because she lives among tolerant Muslims. I understand if she feel like that because I feel like her too. I am worry about radical Muslims, but I am grateful because mostly Muslims in my place are tolerant and peaceful.

I live in Indonesia, a country where around 85% of citizens are Muslims. And Islam is one of six official religions, The five other are Christianity (Protestant), Catholic, Balinese Hindu, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Every official religions has religious holidays that become national holiday.

Of course, inter religious conflict sometime happen. But you can also find many examples of religious tolerance. In Muslim majority regions in Indonesia you will not find "Christian area" or "Buddhist area" like Muslim area in London. It's because those non-Muslims choose to live among Muslims, and they are safe.

So, if Muslims are majority, would non-Muslims persecuted?. It's not depend on how much the Muslims are. But depend on how tolerant those Muslims.
Reply

InToTheRain
01-30-2015, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by gurufabbes
Sorry for the late reply
Me too. No need to apologise seeing as I usually take just as long if not longer to respond at times :D

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
The question I would have is whether a society under modern day forms of Sharia law is compatible with this. And there are numerous reasons to question that:
Saudi Arabia, Iran (not the Jews), the ISIS controlled areas...
ISIS have been condemned by Muslim scholars from around the world. They have no more in common with Islam then LRA has with Christianity.

Originally Posted by gurufabbes
And this not even mentioning the shrinking minorities in many of these countries.
The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?
Also, when Muslims become growing minorities in the West, does friction increase?
I am not sure about the shrinking of minorities you are referring to and which countries they are. I think Brother Ardi above made some good points. There are lot of dynamics at play but Muslims aren't taught to disrespect others for their beliefs.

We have been slowly pushing the boundaries of what we regard as tolerant as time goes on. Maybe what's changing is the people and the environment and Muslims due to their belief cannot encourage changes that go against their beliefs as it's considered sinful however this does not mean we should disrespect or hate those individuals. Hate the Sin and not the sinner. However if that sinner then becomes a beacon in leading the way for those sins than I guess that's a different ball game.
I would say Muslims as a whole will never compromise or adapt to secularism as other religions have. But I don't think this is intolerance and more to do with Belief of the Muslims.

It's important to note that much of the friction that exists between Muslims and Non-Muslims is not due to religion but more due to political differences or injustices. For example the tragic death of Lee Rigby was mostly politically motivated. The killers chanted "you do this to our Brothers and Sisters over there we do this here".

Allah Most High didn't create us to enforce Shairah Law but to worship Him. If enforcing Shariah Law was so important then why did Mohammad(SAW) allow the Jews and Christians in Madinah to implement the laws of their scriptures instead of Shariah Law? Laws are made to help the people; if they do not accept it then the burden is theirs to bear for the corruption that ensues. However Even if the whole world implemented Shariah Law it would be pointless if Allah Most High is not worshiped as shown by Mohammad(SAW).
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!