I am a Christian, and I found those cartoons highly offensive. Clearly there are millions of Muslims who have also found those cartoons offensive, but they have not killed anyone. Do you seriously want to offend all those millions of Muslims yet again, because of what four individuals have done?
The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims; it would be to uphold free speech, which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.
Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.
Greetings h-n,
format_quote Originally Posted by h-n
Why bother using a quote if you don't accept it yourself?? That is how stupid you are.
I suppose this discussion has been a bit much for you. Since you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the topic in a civilised or rational way, perhaps you won't mind if I ignore your crazy ramblings from now on.
format_quote Originally Posted by hameedhamza
you get burned, when you play with fire
Here we have another person who sides with the killers.
While we're on the topic, would anyone else like to openly declare their support for murder?
The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims;
Never the less, these cartoons are offensive. I heard on Sky news today that their journalists have been told not to show any of these cartoons in their coverage, but why? Are they afraid of retaliation, or do they recognize the cartoons might offend, and they do not need or want to offend anyone. I hope it is the later reason.
it would be to uphold free speech,
But we know that not all speech is free, 'pleb' caused serious problems, and I don't personally find it that offensive. Jeremy Clarkson was in serious trouble for using the 'n' word; and it was edited out of the show.
which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.
Not sure that would be helpful, the people who would buy the magazine like a laugh and joke at someone else's expense, so millions of Muslims would know they are being ridiculed even without seeing the cartoons.
Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam,
We can live with criticism, but openly mocking the sacred is beyond the bounds of criticism.
No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.
In France about nine percent of the population is Muslim, that seems to be advocating bullying a minority, and that is not healthy. Why is there the need to be offensive, I don't understand how anything good can come of being offensive
In the spirit of praying for justice for all people
Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.
There is a difference between proper criticism and plain mockery. Proper criticism allows for the other party to defend themselves intellectually. Perhaps you might benefit from member MuslimInshallah's post.
The intention of a mass broadcast of the cartoons would not be to offend Muslims; it would be to uphold free speech, which is far more important. If it were to happen simultaneously, it could be preceded by a message saying "If you are Muslim and think you might find this offensive, then don't watch it". Problem solved.
Muslims need to understand that many people are critical of Islam, and in a free society they have the right to be critical of Islam. No amount of religious bullying is going to change that.
Greetings h-n,
I suppose this discussion has been a bit much for you. Since you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the topic in a civilised or rational way, perhaps you won't mind if I ignore your crazy ramblings from now on.
Here we have another person who sides with the killers.
While we're on the topic, would anyone else like to openly declare their support for murder?
Peace
I don't have an issue with you ignoring posts as you have already ignored the relevant points, as people can see themselves. You accuse me of not living in the real world, then blabber on about free speech and that Muslims need to realise that people don't like Islam-WE ALREADY KNOW!!! That plenty of people don't like Islam.-So where have you been all this time, that you think Muslims need to be told this. We don't care, they are simply making the same mistakes as people aforetime.
You accuse us of supporting murder, it wouldn't have made a difference if he was run over by a bus, we are only thinking of that they are now dead and regretting what they have said. You accuse us of supporting murder, when it is your own western governments that have killed so many people worldwide.
You also quote that if Muslims find something offensive, then don't see, or watch it, here proving how thick you are;-
1. You earlier stated that Muslims should learn to laugh at these cartoons-so that means that you want Muslims to see them??? Then as above, your telling Muslims to ignore them. I also stated earlier to get to the point, as I clearly stated that these papers target audience are non-Muslim, so what are they hoping to achieve, if they have no dialogue with Muslims in a respectable way and at the same time saying they wish for Muslims to behave differently??
2. So to you its;-
Make a cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam
Make another cartoon to show that we don't like Islam,
Where as above they are able to write and make cartoons, its not about freedom of speech-its about controlling how others respond to you!! If your freedom of speech was restricted, then you wouldn't be able to make cartoons in the first place.
3. So as previously stated, you wish to control the reaction of people, how can you do that??? How can you say that if you speak badly about someone, that you will not be attacked??? There are people who are willing to attack people for just saying something badly-of course plenty of people wouldn't do it.
4. So the idiots who made this cartoon didn't make the cartoon to just say to the non-Muslims we don't like Islam, we don't like Islam, it was about doing something to purposely anger Muslims. It wasn't solely on trying to stoke people's reaction against Islam, the huge reason was the fact that Muslims don't like it, so they chose to do it. So they didn't wish to make cartoons of the Prophet for any other reason, not because of freedom of speech, but because it was upsetting to the Muslims.
5. Why don't you actually read, and listen to what some people actually say, for example, do you think that this anti-Islam is going to go away for the rest of this year?? The next year? The year after? If we are still around. people believe it will, there were quotes by officials that they believe the war on terror will last for decades (if they think that God will just give them so long, as of course these countries will not be around like this, the anti-Christ will be arriving and the Prophet Jesus peace be upon him returning). So it is important to get to the point, and what you think people should be doing, you quote bullying-but actually your the bully, by telling Muslims to accept abusive cartoons, and if we don't then there is something wrong with us, and that we are not civilised like the cartoon makers you say. You even quoted that people should leave if they don't like what certain people (not all are doing), so if we don't want to accept abuse, we should leave-that is what you say. Then go to say that people are fed up of the Muslims as we don't accept their abuse.
So you have shown yourself to be dumb, a hypocrite (ie accusing us of being intolerant when you yourself are promoting it-by hiding being abuse by "freedom of speech"), a liar (where you cannot for one minute admit that the cartoonists chose to make the cartoon with the full knowledge that it was offensive to the Muslims-this was their motivation, not because they wished to draw the Prophet for any other reason etc).
So your lies, will be confronted on the Day of Judgement. It is the same with evil, when they are in large numbers, they think they are in a position of strength, even as Pharoah was a tyrant, and thought that his place would continue. It is not the Muslims that you have to be concerned about, it is God Al-Mighty, whereas he has destroyed people in the past.
"Allah! There is no god but He - the Living, The Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him Nor Sleep. His are all things In the heavens and on earth." Quran , Surah Baqarah 2:255
Thank you for sharing your insights Br Eric H, if the "movement" were to be about mocking homosexuals, blacks, jews in the name of "free speech" I think many would realise the problem in it. It is a sad state that we are in.
Thank you for sharing your insights Br Eric H, if the "movement" were to be about mocking homosexuals, blacks, jews in the name of "free speech" I think many would realise the problem in it. It is a sad state that we are in.
Sad state?
It's a wonderful state.
Islam is in the spotlight like not even the best da'ees could have hoped for, and there is so much concern over it (as happened in Makkah) that people with sense are seeing the error of their ways and researching it.
It has been proven by the infidel leadership that Islam is different to all other ways of life and that it frightens them like no other way of life.
I'd say it's a propaganda coup.
They were so concerned about the call of the Prophet pbuh that they'd warn all pilgrim groups and tribal leaders in advance, people who hadn't heard the Prophet pbuh's name before lol, made them want to know more and the sensible ones accepted the truth.
Also, Allah is making it so stark that no human being of this age will be able to pretend he never heard of Prophet Muhammad pbuh at judgement.
What a wonderful way to make people sit up and think.
You seem to be increasingly playing the role of the media, by homing in on particular statements then blowing them out of proportion. Your aim seems to be to pick out statements that can be misconstrued as supporting murder or killing. If people suggest that freedom must be used responsibly unless one is prepared to face negative consequences, that does not equate to supporting the acts of murder in Paris. There are plenty of clear statements condemning such actions - even though an automatic apology from every Muslim is unwarranted - but of course in the event that such condemnations are made they seem to go unnoticed.
You argue, quite crudely, for freedom to offend yet overlook the freedom to be offended. Why is it that the moment someone says something against Jews, the media pounces on them as being anti-Semitic, yet when Muslims are the target of attack it should be accepted silently? Did you know that even Charlie Hebdo itself, in 2009, fired a cartoonist who offended Jewish communities with a cartoon about the engagement of Nicholas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish woman that was deemed “anti-semitic”? I wonder if those who are bravely re-posting the cartoons everywhere would apply the same courage to posting anti-Semitism.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Islam is a religion that is in a huge mess at the moment, and the sooner it is re-organised (or even Reformed - how about that for an idea?) the better it will be for planet Earth as a whole.
After all this time I would have hoped you knew the difference between Islam and Muslims. Islam, as a religion, is divine guidance for all of humanity. Muslims, as followers of Islam, are imperfect human beings and yes, they may be in a bad state at the moment and many of them may not be following its teachings. So the solution is returning to the correct teachings of Islam which will be our salvation, not warped ideas of reformation which are in effect calls for dissolution.
Never the less, these cartoons are offensive. I heard on Sky news today that their journalists have been told not to show any of these cartoons in their coverage, but why? Are they afraid of retaliation, or do they recognize the cartoons might offend, and they do not need or want to offend anyone. I hope it is the later reason.
Sky News, and all the other media outlets, are not publishing the cartoons primarily due to fear of violence. That is the the reason that is uppermost in their minds. Ask any journalist.
But we know that not all speech is free, 'pleb' caused serious problems, and I don't personally find it that offensive. Jeremy Clarkson was in serious trouble for using the 'n' word; and it was edited out of the show.
Yes, of course. There are lots of examples of legitimate restrictions on free speech. You're not allowed to falsely shout "Fire!" in crowded theatre; the law protects the identity of vulnerable people in court cases, and so on. These are legitimate restrictions that are designed to prevent harm. Anti-Islamic cartoons may well cause offence, but they do not harm anyone.
Not sure that would be helpful, the people who would buy the magazine like a laugh and joke at someone else's expense, so millions of Muslims would know they are being ridiculed even without seeing the cartoons.
Groups of people get ridiculed in the media all the time. Politicians, celebrities, you name it. Why should Muslims (or any other religious group) be any different?
People are free to insult my atheist beliefs as much as they want. I'm not going to threaten violence in return.
We can live with criticism, but openly mocking the sacred is beyond the bounds of criticism.
Why? Some people think religion deserves mockery. It's one of the most direct and effective forms of criticism there is.
In France about nine percent of the population is Muslim, that seems to be advocating bullying a minority, and that is not healthy. Why is there the need to be offensive, I don't understand how anything good can come of being offensive
Satire, by its very nature, is often offensive. Its purpose is to wake people up to some of the crazy things that people do or believe. It performs a vital function in society by mocking pretension, ignorance or injustice.
Suicide bombers are pretty much all religious people. Those who practise female genital mutilation are pretty much all religious too. Some of us find those acts offensive and barbaric, and we should be free to mock and denigrate those who practise them.
In the spirit of praying for justice for all people
Eric
Eric, we can all see that you're a good man, and that you wish only the best for everybody. Personally, I'd have no hesitation in letting you look after my pets and I'd even let you marry my sister if that's what you both wanted.
But the world is a dangerous place, with lots of crazy people living in it amongst good people like yourself. Simply hoping and praying that people will live peacefully with each other isn't going to work, much as we all wish it would.
You seem to be increasingly playing the role of the media, by homing in on particular statements then blowing them out of proportion. Your aim seems to be to pick out statements that can be misconstrued as supporting murder or killing. If people suggest that freedom must be used responsibly unless one is prepared to face negative consequences, that does not equate to supporting the acts of murder in Paris.
In this conversation, it absolutely does.
In the case we are discussing, we know what the negative consequences have been. Dead bodies. If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?
There are plenty of clear statements condemning such actions - even though an automatic apology from every Muslim is unwarranted - but of course in the event that such condemnations are made they seem to go unnoticed.
There has been widespread condemnation of the Hebdo attacks from the Muslim community, and that is of course welcome. I don't think anybody is deliberately setting out to conceal this condemnation.
But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?
You argue, quite crudely, for freedom to offend yet overlook the freedom to be offended.
Of course people are free to be offended. I don't deny it for a moment.
Why is it that the moment someone says something against Jews, the media pounces on them as being anti-Semitic, yet when Muslims are the target of attack it should be accepted silently?
It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.
I take your point, however, because it is a good one. Muslims have their own equivalent, of course, 'Islamophobia'. In the society I live in, Islamophobia is currently the last acceptable form of racism. I get very worried by the things I hear people around me saying about Muslims.
I am very much in favour of criticism of Islam as a religion, as I believe it is both untrue and dangerous, but I'm fully aware that most Muslims are peaceful people with as much human worth as anyone else. My good opinion of the majority of the Muslim public is one that is becoming rarer.
I frequently see English school children whose steadfast opinion is "Muslim = terrorist", simple as that. I have spent many hours patiently trying to explain to them that this is far from the truth. But all they have to do to feel justified is point at the news. To say that Islam has an image problem in this country is a massive understatement.
Did you know that even Charlie Hebdo itself, in 2009, fired a cartoonist who offended Jewish communities with a cartoon about the engagement of Nicholas Sarkozy’s son to a Jewish woman that was deemed “anti-semitic”? I wonder if those who are bravely re-posting the cartoons everywhere would apply the same courage to posting anti-Semitism.
I did not know that, and I can see why you think it is unfair. I think the distinction I mentioned earlier, imperfect though it may be, has played its part in the development of the legal framework that surrounds this topic.
After all this time I would have hoped you knew the difference between Islam and Muslims. Islam, as a religion, is divine guidance for all of humanity. Muslims, as followers of Islam, are imperfect human beings and yes, they may be in a bad state at the moment and many of them may not be following its teachings. So the solution is returning to the correct teachings of Islam which will be our salvation, not warped ideas of reformation which are in effect calls for dissolution.
I can see what you're getting at here, but I think it's a pretty cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief that Islam is perfect divine guidance.
From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.
I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion. Or perhaps you have other reasons that you think are more important?
In Europe, religion persists, but for the most part we have outgrown it. I think we have gained far more than we have lost in the process.
I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.
I don't know what the solution is, but part of the solution must involve being able to talk to each other openly and honestly. Of course we will disagree, and we may even offend each other at times, but that is a by-product of having very different views. I am grateful to you and the other mods for giving me the chance to communicate with Muslims on this forum for the last ten years.
I also want to know - if a person like Anjem Chaudhary, clearly enjoying the benefits of life in Britain and who condoned the attacks, uses his freedom of expression to suffocate people in Britain, then would a non-Muslim be wrong in expecting his freedom of expression against Muslim beliefs in a Muslim nation?
Why does Anjem Choudary's rights under British law have any normative implications for any Islamic country?
I hope every news organisation in the West simultaneously republishes the same cartoons, to show that we are united in our support for freedom of speech and to show that we are fed up with this religious bullying. Look at Facebook - thousands of individuals are doing this already.
Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.
If you support the publication of offensive material for the sake of making a statement for freedom of speech, how about publishing something that's taboo to mainstream society? Why not, if the point is to show that freedom of speech trumps sensibility? How about something making fun of holocaust victims? A cartoon that mocks holocaust survivors as whiners with victimhood complexes should do it.
Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.
You speak as if the murder of innocent civilians is a small matter.
If you support the publication of offensive material for the sake of making a statement for freedom of speech, how about publishing something that's taboo to mainstream society? Why not, if the point is to show that freedom of speech trumps sensibility? How about something making fun of holocaust victims? A cartoon that mocks holocaust survivors as whiners with victimhood complexes should do it.
As I have mentioned, the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech that exist in law are designed to prevent harm. The publications you describe would be a glorification of harm and violence, and it is right for the law to prevent such things.
If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?
Err not at all, just because someone expresses their opinion that so-and-so shouldn't be doing something dangerous doesn't mean that they are in support for whatever misfortune happens. If a man who plays with lions everyday one day gets attacked, just because someone comments that "He knew the dangers and he still did it." doesn't mean that they in support of what happened to him.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that muslims are responsible for whatever wrong actions a person does as long as the person happens to be a muslim?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.
I think if you were to ask around, you will find that one's religious beliefs have more to do with their identity than their ethnicity.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.
Then your understanding would be based on improper reasoning. There is a difference between what a book instructs it's readers to do and what some readers who claim to follow the book do. If your conclusion that there is something wrong with the book is based on what you see people who claim to follow it do then it's faulty reasoning.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion.
And what enlightenment may that be? And how did you come to the conclusion that scientific progress leads to the diminution in the influence of religion?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.
Just because there might be many people having different interpretations of a book doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid, or valid at all. On an intellectual stage, there's no "extremist interpretation" that can stand a chance against a real scholar. It's foolish to conclude that "it's all open to interpretation" without actually knowing the full context of the situation.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I don't know what the solution is, but part of the solution must involve being able to talk to each other openly and honestly. Of course we will disagree, and we may even offend each other at times, but that is a by-product of having very different views. I am grateful to you and the other mods for giving me the chance to communicate with Muslims on this forum for the last ten years.
What you are describing is a proper discussion, but what you mentioned that you are in support of is plain mockery in the name of "free speech".
You speak as if the murder of innocent civilians is a small matter.
What part of "the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did" do you have a hard time understanding?
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
As I have mentioned, the necessary restrictions on freedom of speech that exist in law are designed to prevent harm. The publications you describe would be a glorification of harm and violence, and it is right for the law to prevent such things.
Ah, so freedom of speech applies all the time, except when you think there's a really good reason to restrict it. You get to make exceptions to it and should get to have them enforced by the coercive power of the state, but Muslims should just have to suck it up.
Err not at all, just because someone expresses their opinion that so-and-so shouldn't be doing something dangerous doesn't mean that they are in support for whatever misfortune happens. If a man who plays with lions everyday one day gets attacked, just because someone comments that "He knew the dangers and he still did it." doesn't mean that they in support of what happened to him.
I take your point, but why are you comparing adherents of your religion to dangerous wild animals?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that muslims are responsible for whatever wrong actions a person does as long as the person happens to be a muslim?
Not directly, but Muslims should at least try to root out the psychopathic killers that exist in their community.
I think if you were to ask around, you will find that one's religious beliefs have more to do with their identity than their ethnicity.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Remember than Jews inherit their Jewish identity from their mother's family line.
Then your understanding would be based on improper reasoning. There is a difference between what a book instructs it's readers to do and what some readers who claim to follow the book do.
Of course.
If your conclusion that there is something wrong with the book is based on what you see people who claim to follow it do then it's faulty reasoning.
My conclusion that there is something wrong with the Qur'an is based on the fact that I've read it.
And how did you come to the conclusion that scientific progress leads to the diminution in the influence of religion?
Because it demonstrably does. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious. In the West, humanity has moved from a situation where natural phenomena like thunder and lightning, earthquakes and disease were dimly understood and it was assumed that God was the only explanation for them. We now have a much deeper understanding of these things, and our explanations for them do not require any gods at all.
Just because there might be many people having different interpretations of a book doesn't mean that all of them are equally valid, or valid at all.
Of course. That doesn't stop some lunatic terrorist from choosing to believe a wrong interpretation though, does it?
On an intellectual stage, there's no "extremist interpretation" that can stand a chance against a real scholar.
How do you know who the real scholars are? More to the point, how does an ignorant, corruptible young fanatic with an axe to grind know who the real scholars are?
It's foolish to conclude that "it's all open to interpretation" without actually knowing the full context of the situation.
I don't conclude that. Clearly there are disagreements though.
What you are describing is a proper discussion, but what you mentioned that you are in support of is plain mockery in the name of "free speech".
The point is this: mockery of your religion is going to occur. That is just a plain fact, I'm afraid. I don't see any good reason why it should be prevented either. The question is how are you going to respond?
What part of "the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did" do you have a hard time understanding?
You're talking about future killings now, and maybe you're right - the risk would be spread among a large number of news outlets. I'm talking about the killings which have already happened, which your statement belittles when taken as a whole.
Ah, so freedom of speech applies all the time, except when you think there's a really good reason to restrict it. You get to make exceptions to it and should get to have them enforced by the coercive power of the state, but Muslims should just have to suck it up.
It's not up to me, it's up to the law. The law is imperfect, but as it happens, I think most of the time the law in the UK strikes a good balance between security and freedom of speech.
If Muslims want to live in the UK, then yes, they should obey the law of the land.
Sad state?
Islam is in the spotlight like not even the best da'ees could have hoped for, and there is so much concern over it (as happened in Makkah) that people with sense are seeing the error of their ways and researching it.
It has been proven by the infidel leadership that Islam is different to all other ways of life and that it frightens them like no other way of life.
I'd say it's a propaganda coup.
This is not the type of spotlight a Muslim should want. Islam is being portrayed as a violent religion and Muslims as a dangerous subversive minority that will kill to get there way. If there is any fear, it is over violence that Muslims may cause and this is unfortunate because most Muslims don't condone these actions. Even Muslims who believe that in an *Islamic* state there should punishment for mocking Muhammad do not condone vigilantism in secular nations. Unfortunately these types of acts have a polarizing affect and the propaganda machine that is the Media will use it against Muslims. And believe me, as a Catholic I know all too well just how the Media bashes and distorts truths, so I completely sympathize with my Muslim friends who have been facing bombardment by the propaganda mills. The difference I would say is that Catholics do pose an *intellectual* threat to the secular West, being that we call back our people to faith in God and following the natural law which the secularists detest, and this is the type of "threat" you want to pose to the West, and not a threat of physical harm. So I disagree with you that this type of spotlight is good for the Muslim community or that it will help people approach Islam in accurate and non distorted way.
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Oooh, what a brave stand, publishing something that's taboo for a powerless minority with no way to make you pay, other than kamikaze attacks like this, the risk of which would be negligible if really every news organization did.
Peace be with you Futuwwa, I don't agree with mocking what people hold sacred but at the same time we live in secular societies that in principle value the concept of freedom of speech. Is this freedom exercised equally? No. Do some groups have a privileged status? Yes. Is this right? Of course not, but neither are so called "kamikaze" attacks. As mentioned above that I am Catholic, and I would say the Church has been far more maligned than Islam has, yet never would I condone physical harm (let alone killing!) of anyone who mocks what I hold sacred. We can't treat this as if it were a situation where certain Muslims were pushed over the edge, it's simply never appropriate murder and act as a vigilante.
In the case we are discussing, we know what the negative consequences have been. Dead bodies. If you stood over a murder victim and said "you get burned, when you play with fire", that unequivocally expresses support for the murder. How could it not?
You have yourself admitted that freedom of speech is not absolute - it should not cause harm. Likewise, if people express their view that freedom of speech should be used responsibly rather than a means to provoke reaction, it in no way shows support for a particular action of murder. I have not seen anyone celebrating over a dead body here, so let us not pretend that is the case. I found your comment about Muslims and wild animals particularly distasteful. This is not the kind of open and honest communication that leads to respect and understanding.
But who is going to stop the next terrorist attack in the name of Islam? You? Your fellow Muslims?
Extremists are criminals exploiting Islam. This fact is clear when many, even a majority, of their victims are actually Muslims. We also need to look at the wider picture and realise that the responsibility for their actions does not solely rest with Muslims but others too, who propagate the notion of a war against Islam and perpetuate killing, humiliation and denigration of Muslims worldwide.
It's a grey area, but one perceived difference is that Jews in such a context are considered to be a race, and Muslims are not. Anti-Semitism in general is an attack on people for who they are, not what they believe.
Why is it acceptable to attack people for what they believe, but not for who they are? Is this distinction truly important as far as preventing harm and maintaining security are concerned? It is rather a shame that a grey area could not exist when it comes to Muslims.
I am very much in favour of criticism of Islam as a religion, as I believe it is both untrue and dangerous, but I'm fully aware that most Muslims are peaceful people with as much human worth as anyone else. My good opinion of the majority of the Muslim public is one that is becoming rarer.
Criticism is totally different than mockery and ridicule. Through dialogue we can achieve understanding and clarity. But mockery is one-sided and devoid of any value.
I can see what you're getting at here, but I think it's a pretty cheap distinction that relies on your prior belief that Islam is perfect divine guidance.
From my point of view, Islam is the sum total of its scriptures, practices and adherents. As a materialist, that is the only view of any religion that I can take. And we both agree, despite our differing terminology, that Islam (say I) / Muslims (say you) are in a mess.
Even as a non-Muslim, you can easily read about the multitude of examples of the Prophet's mercy and tolerance. You can read about Islam's prohibition on lying, cheating and causing harm to others. Yet there are many Muslims that do not follow these teachings, whether due to ignorance or otherwise. Do you still deny the distinction between the teachings of Islam and what some adherents practice?
I sincerely hope that Islam undergoes a reformation, and that Muslims experience an enlightenment in a similar way that Christians did in Europe. I would guess that you don't want this to happen principally because enlightenment and scientific progress necessarily lead to a diminution in the influence of religion. Or perhaps you have other reasons that you think are more important?
The Enlightenment was exactly what I had in mind when replying to your comment. 'Enlightenment' seems to suggest that religion is backward and godlessness is the way forward. The resulting immorality and degradation of principles is manifest today. But from Islamic history, we know of a Golden Age when Muslims were very educated and at the forefront of scientific discovery, whose scholarly works are still referenced today. I do not recall any of them feeling the need to remove themselves from religion.
I don't see how simply "returning to the correct teachings of Islam" can be a realistic solution. How are the teachings of Islam to be presented in a unified way? You know yourself that the Qur'an and Sunnah can be interpreted in a huge number of ways; if that were not so then why do huge numbers of interpretive scholars exist? Scholars disagree with each other all the time, and so any misguided individual Muslim looking to cause trouble in the cause of Allah has no difficulty in finding some "authentic scholarly opinion" to support his violent actions.
The fact is that any misguided individual looking to cause trouble does not have to look far. The teachings of any religion or ideology can be distorted when one wishes to cause trouble. We even see the 'war on terror' being used to justify the massacre of whole countries. Islam is a religion with firm foundations and principles. If one studies it, they will realise that the differences are for the most part concerning minor issues. By plucking out one or two verses from the Qur'an or one or two Hadeeth, clearly one is going to have a distorted picture. By having a complete and holistic view, that is when true understanding comes. This much is clear, that ridiculing Islam is neither the way to dispel the myth that it is 'dangerous' nor to present its true teachings.
This is not the type of spotlight a Muslim should want. Islam is being portrayed as a violent religion and Muslims as a dangerous subversive minority that will kill to get there way. If there is any fear, it is over violence that Muslims may cause and this is unfortunate because most Muslims don't condone these actions. Even Muslims who believe that in an *Islamic* state there should punishment for mocking Muhammad do not condone vigilantism in secular nations. Unfortunately these types of acts have a polarizing affect and the propaganda machine that is the Media will use it against Muslims. And believe me, as a Catholic I know all too well just how the Media bashes and distorts truths, so I completely sympathize with my Muslim friends who have been facing bombardment by the propaganda mills. The difference I would say is that Catholics do pose an *intellectual* threat to the secular West, being that we call back our people to faith in God and following the natural law which the secularists detest, and this is the type of "threat" you want to pose to the West, and not a threat of physical harm. So I disagree with you that this type of spotlight is good for the Muslim community or that it will help people approach Islam in accurate and non distorted way.
Peace be with you, Sojourn.
I do not condone vigilantism. If there was a media that insult Islam I would choose non violent ways such as dialog , or, as the last way, I would sue them to the court. Unfortunately not all Muslims think like me. There are Muslims who prefer to choose violent way. In this matter I could tell them to not do violence. But would they listen to me?. They would not. And this is the problem.
Extremism has become major problem in the Muslim world, and get huge attention from the moderate Muslims. Without the West know, the moderate Muslims actually have done many efforts to prevent and dampen extremism. But unfortunately there is disturbance from some non-Muslims who still provoke Muslims. It makes the efforts to prevent and dampen extremism become useless. Yes, how could I tell other Muslims to not hate non-Muslims if there were non-Muslims who rant that Islam should be hated?.
So, if we want to prevent and dampen extremism we must cooperate.
I take your point, but why are you comparing adherents of your religion to dangerous wild animals?
If you read what I said properly, you will that I was making a general statement and not specifically mentioning muslims. Nevertheless, it's a red herring on your part. I've pointed out the error in your careless statement.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Not directly, but Muslims should at least try to root out the psychopathic killers that exist in their community.
The responsibility of reporting dangerous individuals to the authority lies on everyone in the community regardless of their religious beliefs. It's plain stupidity to say that a person is responsible for someone else's actions just because they happen to be of the same religion.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Of course.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
My conclusion that there is something wrong with the Qur'an is based on the fact that I've read it.
Yet, initially your conclusion was based on the actions of people who claim to be following the Quran. Now your conclusion is based on you having read the Quran? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? That when you read the Quran you understood it completely as it should be understood? Your statements beg a lot of questions.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Because it demonstrably does. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious. In the West, humanity has moved from a situation where natural phenomena like thunder and lightning, earthquakes and disease were dimly understood and it was assumed that God was the only explanation for them. We now have a much deeper understanding of these things, and our explanations for them do not require any gods at all.
Ah, the typical atheist narrative of "history of religion". It's really just a strawman fallacy. "You believe in God because you don't know how these things work, now we are smarter and know how things work, therefore your belief in God is no longer necessary.".
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Of course. That doesn't stop some lunatic terrorist from choosing to believe a wrong interpretation though, does it?
If someone uses a cookbook wrongly and the dish tastes bad, the responsibility lies on the person who cooked the dish, not the cookbook itself. This is common sense.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
How do you know who the real scholars are? More to the point, how does an ignorant, corruptible young fanatic with an axe to grind know who the real scholars are?
Through knowledge. For starters, you can ask those who are more knowledgable than you.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
I don't conclude that. Clearly there are disagreements though.
We do not hide nor shy away from the fact that there may be differences of opinions between scholars, in fact it is quite likely that in this forum alone there are muslims who belong to different schools of thought. It doesn't make us see each other any differently.
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
The point is this: mockery of your religion is going to occur. That is just a plain fact, I'm afraid. I don't see any good reason why it should be prevented either. The question is how are you going to respond?
My question is, can you intellectually justify your support of the movement of spreading mockery? You can be as stupid as you want, you can behave however you want, I don't find it that hard to ignore stupidity. But since we are in this setting and you are seemingly setting up this movement as some kind of noble act, then I would like to see if whether or not you can justify what you are doing.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
ali399 liked this post
mercy and tolerance. You can read about Islam's prohibition on lying, cheating and causing harm to others. Yet there are many Muslims that do not follow these teachings, whether due to ignorance or otherwise. Do you still deny the distinction between the teachings of Islam and what some adherents practice?
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks