Dealing with criticism of, and insults to, Islam

fly_agaric

Okay, the banning Catholic practices from the workplace thread in humanities
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054863420&page=5 and the stuff spouted there about Catholicism and later Islam and muslims got me thinking about something I was going to ask here but felt I'd probably get reported for. This forum seems to be dying a slow death so I may as well chance it. Anyway, report away!

We all know that those (muslim and non-muslim alike) who dare to criticise and certaily those who downright insult Islam are taking their lives into their hands if they live in a country with a significant muslim community (I mean literally taking their lives into their hands, not in the sense of it may end their career as a journalist, writer, politician, reporter etc - although corpses can't do any of these things:D ).
If you doubt what I say, I'm sure I can dredge up a few of the more recent and lurid instances - but then I'd be going into the realm of politics which is verboten here.
What I wanted to ask of the muslims here is (1) how they feel when aspects of their religion are criticised, and if the criticism goes over into unfair insult [I know it may be difficult for the very devout to draw the line on this] (2) what do you think about about the "extremists" who take it on themselves to "punish" the insulter/critic, either by making their lives and the lives of their families a hell or by actually killing them? Are they a manifestation of Allah's will on Earth - constuting a kind of divine wrath that the critics and insulters deserve and have in effect brought on themselves?
Kinda like - "Well, I know what the extremists did is wrong and I condemn it - but if he just hadn't profaned the prophet, none of this nasty business would ever have happened!"?

Thoughs?
edit:
If I may, I'll give an example of what I'd consider fair criticism of, and insults to Catholicism.
"Criticism" is questioning the contracepion ban, bar on women's vocations etc.
"Insult" is creating artworks which pervert or debase Catholic/Christian worship and iconography (eg "last supper" Paddy Power ad recently).

Wibbs

I agree with you that criticism is one thing, insult is another. The Dutch filmaker Van Goghs death came about over a film that decidely drifted into the insult category. The idea that the Dutch ministers sequel is going ahead is asking for trouble and is both unwise and inflammatory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4531702.stm

However she should be free to make her movie, idiotic that it may seem to some or most. She and others like her should be free from the threat of violent death.

Sadly, the biggest difference with Islam seems to be the all too often violent response. While you do get some Christian groups up in arms when movies like the "Last Temptation of Christ", or some Jewish groups protesting against Gibson's "the Passion", violent reaction is a rarity in those groups. A similar movie that featured Mohammed would likely have Gibson or Scorcese quickly assume the mantle of dead men walking. I suspect if either of them shot a movie entitled "Buddha was a fattie" I would suggest their chances of dying violently by the hands of Buddhists would be slim to none.

This violent response to criticism or insult has roots in the life of the Prophet himself. Many of those who he considered insulted him were killed by his followers.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html
No 4348 A blind man kills a slave(mother of his children) who insults the Prophet. Mohammad says that no retaliation is payable. No punishment at all.

No 4349 Here a Jewish woman is strangled by another of his followers because of insults and again no punishment is forthcoming from the Prophet.

Neither of these women were hardly raising armies against the Prophet. They were hardly "threats" in any normal sense, were they? I note they appear not to be insulting God, but Mohammed. An insult seemed to be enough to get you killed and your killer set free for defending the Prophet of the faith.
Here's another example of killing in the name of the Prophet. The man even gets direct instruction to use deceit to help in the asassination;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

The vast majority of Muslims wouldn't go along with this nonsense, but passages like this can only help to give backing to those Muslims of more murderous intent.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

IHowever she should be free to make her movie, idiotic that it may seem to some or most. She and others like her should be free from the threat of violent death.

However your trying to impose your moral values onto a different culture society.

I think you are also ignoring the fact that not all Muslims issue or follow out fatwas over stuff like this.

If someone in Ireland wanted to make a movie about child pornography what do you think the response would be? Or how about the freedom to have an abortion in this country.

Now granted we don't have a death sentance law on the books but if a guy had made the movie you can be pretty sure he wouldn't be able to safely show themselves in public.

You are making comparsions against things which are not comparable.

Btw, Muslims are bound to keep within the law of the country they are in (Islamic law). Just because someone in Teran may issue a death sentance doesn't mean it can be carried out by other muslims in a country where it is illegal. So lets not tar everyone as a fanatic.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

However your trying to impose your moral values onto a different culture society.

Yep, freedom of speech. A terrible imposition, to be sure. That's the thing freedom of speech isn't an imposition, it's a right that should be universal, or don't you agree with the UN et al in this? While I may have serious questions about how other cultures operate, I think it's a far different thing where one's own culture(western democracy), may be held to ransom by militants(of all colours) who may have fundamental differences with the society they find themselves in. Saudi Arabia protects its own cultural differences and they're right to do so(even if I question their reasons or methods)

I think you are also ignoring the fact that not all Muslims issue or follow out fatwas over stuff like this.

Try reading the last paragraph in my post.

If someone in Ireland wanted to make a movie about child pornography what do you think the response would be? Or how about the freedom to have an abortion in this country.

If you mean that somone making an actual child pornography movie would be in danger for their lives. Yes, of course they would. Are you trying to tell me that child pornography is the same as a movie showing an actor portraying Mohammed? If so, I'm perplexed at the logic behind that. Do you honestly think someone would be killed over a movie about the freedom of abortion? Uproar, possibly, death unlikely. To quote Mr. Dave Bowie, this is not America.

You are making comparsions against things which are not comparable.

Really? May I respectfully suggest that you fail to see that comparisons can and should be made, not ignored for "cultural" reasons.

Btw, Muslims are bound to keep within the law of the country they are in (Islamic law).

Only if said laws don't interfere with their faith(naturally). When examples that fall outside that, such as freedom of speech(among other things), the gloves are considered off for some.

Just because someone in Teran may issue a death sentance doesn't mean it can be carried out by other muslims in a country where it is illegal.

Well the case I referred to wasn't Tehran, was it. If you do want to take the Tehran example, Mr Rushdies advisers thought the threat strong enough that he had 24 hr worldwide protection that continues to this day. For writing a book. What of the publishers and translators of said book, that were killed or injured? How many books have been written that some might construe as anti-Hindu/Christian/Buddhist. How many of their authors have needed protection? It seems to the layman that Islam is certainly more prone to violent reaction to critique and/or insult.

So lets not tar everyone as a fanatic.

As I've pointed out before, I didn't. I merely suggested that violent reaction to criticism of Islam has a long history going all the way back to it's inception.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Yep, freedom of speech. A terrible imposition, to be sure. That's the thing freedom of speech isn't an imposition, it's a right that should be universal,

Freedom of speech is a myth. Your only free to talk about what doesn't effect the social norms of the country/culture you are in.

Are you trying to tell me that child pornography is the same as a movie showing an actor portraying Mohammed?

No I am not and I find that comment offensive in what you are implying.

I am pointing out that various cultures have what is defined social norms. Abortion for example. Not legal here, it is in England.

Being Offensive to Mohammad would be as offensive to some cultures as child pornography is offensive to ours.

However to our culture being offensive about religon doesn't have the same effect.

As I've pointed out before, I didn't. I merely suggested that violent reaction to criticism of Islam has a long history going all the way back to it's inception.

As I have pointed out before I am getting very tired of nearly every post you put up refers to how Islam is violent across multiple threads. You have been warned already. Consider this the last one.

The OP asked about what Muslims thought about the extremists and how they feel about having their religon insulted. He wasn't looking for lists of examples of violence in the Koran.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Freedom of speech is a myth. Your only free to talk about what doesn't effect the social norms of the country/culture you are in.

Agreed. It's a question of degree however, There is a scale within which secular democracies would be the more liberal and "free" by far.

No I am not and I find that comment offensive in what you are implying.

Excuse me what am I implying? I just thought the comparison a tad overwrought. If I put it clumsily and implied anything else that you felt was offensive to you, I unreservedly apologise.

Being Offensive to Mohammad would be as offensive to some cultures as child pornography is offensive to ours.

The difference is the latter is illegal(for good reason) while the former is legally acceptable(morally dubious, I'll admit). That said, offense is/was expected. As I pointed out in my first post, IMHO what the dutch crowd are doing with their movies is designed to be offensive, regardless of what their official motives are. To continue after the death of one and the division it's caused is nothing short of stupid. Personally I'd be going for legal action, boycotts, that sort of thing. Violence, however is another thing entirely and that is the crux of the matter. That goes for whether we are discussing faith, abortion or anything else for that matter.

As I have pointed out before I am getting very tired of nearly every post you put up refers to how Islam is violent across multiple threads. You have been warned already. Consider this the last one.

I've posted those things as responses to other's posts. Quadri's assertions about the innate peaceful nature of Islam as a faith for example. he has his opinion. I have mine. I gave my opinion that there may be flaws in that argument. He responded with his viewpoint(very convincingly too), that showed how interpretation has much to bear on the matter.

However, I've also consistantly pointed out how Islam had a better legal system(in some ways still better), a better scientific knowledge and a culture of charity and welcome that that shone out when compared to the west in the past. In fact the culture of welcome and charity are still good examples of the legacy of Islam even today. The grassroots Muslim response to the Pakistan earthquake a good example. Another, the welcome Times columnist AA Gill recieved after he visited Pakistan after 911 and the US invasion of Afghanistan. He was free to walk the streets with no fear or threat, even though he represented the face of the west to many. The Muslims in NY didn't fare as well.

I've pointed out repeatedly that I see the difference between the faith and the faithful. I've also pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people like the majority of people everywhere, regardless of creed or culture.

You seem to ignore that however. Even in this thread;

So lets not tar everyone as a fanatic.

Which I didn't.

I think you are also ignoring the fact that not all Muslims issue or follow out fatwas over stuff like this.

I'm not. May I respectfully suggest you read what I've actually typed, not what you'd like to think I did.

The OP asked about what Muslims thought about the extremists and how they feel about having their religon insulted. He wasn't looking for lists of examples of violence in the Koran.

I was giving historical and theological reasons why this appears be more likely with Islam. Simple as.... Is that not germane to the topic? It may be one of the reasons, it may not. If I'm considered wrong or misinformed, then why not have that debate and let others judge my foolishness or no? If it's just because you don't agree regardless, then that's ok too. All part and parcel of debate.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

The difference is the latter is illegal(for good reason) while the former is legally acceptable(morally dubious, I'll admit).

The latter is illegal in some countries though.

You shouldn't be requoting old stuff to say the same thing again. I've told you why you were warned, I expect you to get your point across without having to repeat the same thing over and over in different threads.

You want to point out/discuss violence in the Koran you have a thread for it. It is not open for discussion in this thread.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

You shouldn't be requoting old stuff to say the same thing again.

Well I'll leave this thread alone now, but just to be clear, I didn't requote "old stuff" in this topic. This stuff's completely new and entirely applicable to the point in question IMHO.

You want to point out/discuss violence in the Koran you have a thread for it. It is not open for discussion in this thread.

Fair enough. Though it kinda kills the debate of the OT if one can't even suggest theological/historical reasons why this may be so, or why some nutters feel religiously vindicated in their actions. Maybe badly interpreted scripture is one of the reasons, maybe it's not. I just posted it as an example open to debate.

fly_agaric

Wibbs wrote:

I was giving historical and theological reasons why this appears be more likely with Islam. Simple as.... Is that not germane to the topic? It may be one of the reasons, it may not. If I'm considered wrong or misinformed, then why not have that debate and let others judge my foolishness or no? If it's just because you don't agree regardless, then that's ok too. All part and parcel of debate.

I thought it was interesting anyway. Thanks for trying to apply some cpr to this cold and stiffening thread. There probably aren't enough Irish based muslims posting here to get a good sample of answers to the questions I was asking anyway. Maybe there aren't enough muslims living in Ireland for it to be an important thing to consider yet. We may get these answers when someone/some company in Ireland either just criticises (or more likely gives offence to) Islam in a massively public way.

archdukefranz

When was the last murder of a journalist in Ireland??
When was the last murder of a journalist for anything to do with religion
what are the bets for the religion being Islam?

Granted other cultures have had it to, but in Islamic countries it seems to be excessively dangerous to say anything that could be interpreted as "anti-islamic", and dangerous to your health as well as your social standing.

Hobbes

How about stop taking bets and tell us.

I will point out that a quick look of recent reporters murdered, you have to go down the list quite a bit before you even find a flimsy tie to religion (ie. Iraq) which is an unstable country to begin with.

If you are going to make accusations against Islam I would prefer you back your comments up with more then just opinion.

archdukefranz

Hobbes wrote:

How about stop taking bets and tell us.

I will point out that a quick look of recent reporters murdered, you have to go down the list quite a bit before you even find a flimsy tie to religion (ie. Iraq) which is an unstable country to begin with.

If you are going to make accusations against Islam I would prefer you back your comments up with more then just opinion.

Can you explain to me why Salman Rushdie has to hide to stay alive?

fly_agaric

Veronica Guerin would have been the last journalist murdered in the Republic (I think)? She was executed/assassinated by criminals.

For journalists killed in 2005 see:

http://www.cpj.org/killed/killed_archives/2005_list.html

A quick scan would suggest that very few have any connection to criticism of Islam - apart perhaps from the murder of 2 journalists in Pakistan (and that may have more to do with what the "defenders of Islam" see is criticism of themselves).

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

I will point out that a quick look of recent reporters murdered, you have to go down the list quite a bit before you even find a flimsy tie to religion (ie. Iraq) which is an unstable country to begin with.

Agreed. That link would be extremely tenuous. Journo's seem fairly safe from that kinda thing, even in Iraq, they're usually left alone. The locals want some sort of news of their plight to get out for a start.

archdukefranz

fly_agaric wrote:

Veronica Guerin would have been the last journalist murdered in the Republic (I think)? She was executed/assassinated by criminals.

For journalists killed in 2005 see:

http://www.cpj.org/killed/killed_archives/2005_list.html

A quick scan would suggest that very few have any connection to criticism of Islam - apart perhaps from the murder of 2 journalists in Pakistan (and that may have more to do with what the "defenders of Islam" see is criticism of themselves).

ok with the first one I was implying that journalists very rarely get murdered
and as far as I recall haven't been murdered for saying something socially acceptable or religiously intollerant in ireland which is a predominantly Christian country.

However in a lot of Muslim countries this is not the case...

Hobbes

archdukefranz wrote:

ok with the first one I was implying that journalists very rarely get murdered

First few I found recently killed were murdered.

However in a lot of Muslim countries this is not the case...

Then its something you should take up in the politics forum rather then the Islam forum.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Then its something you should take up in the politics forum rather then the Islam forum.

Fair enough Hobbes, I would agree with you if they were killings of a purely political nature, but where the religion is given as a reason or used as an excuse*, surely this forum would be the more relevant? That way examples such as, suicide bombing being Islamic would be examined and in the instance, shown to be a false link. If you were talking about Christian muppets killing doctors in the US bible belt, you could be forgiven if you asked the question of other Christians as to were they stand and does this kind of action have a religious basis?







*Regardless whether this is quoted by the non Muslim media or by the perpetrators/countries/muppets themselves.

Hobbes

I was referring to his "Muslim Countries" comment. Because certain countries governments rules are not reflective of the religon as a whole.

I am trying to be a bit lax here on discussion topic however as mentioned in the charter I do not want this forum turned into Political/Humanities related issues. It is for honest dicussion and questions about the religon directly.

I am also not saying that you can't discuss these topics but they would be better suited on other forums.

Wibbs

Fair points all. Grey areas aren't in it. I don't envy your task.











To be fair if I was modding this I'd be smiting left right and center.:D Especially on the "if you can't reference things you die" bits. Of course my references are always impeccable...

Belle Ende

No religion should be excepted from any and all degrees of scrutiny and ridicule.

Wibbs

Agreed. I would add that no criticism of any religion should be excepted from scrutiny and ridicule either.

fly_agaric

Well, this thread has been overtaken somewhat by events.
We can now observe how muslims in Europe and the ME react to insults to Islam and that reaction is, to say the least, not very good. The extremists offer violence (as expected) and the average joes offer moral support, boycotts etc. The dictators of Islamic states shut embassies and petiton the UN to put limits on freedom of speech when it comes to religion. I'm sure it will be the same here. It all bodes very badly for our future.

Wibbs

This may be pertinent to the debate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4672642.stm

It's the extreme reaction that is the worry. The boycott of Danish food I can see a reason for, if this kind of thing is so upsetting, but when you have deathtreats, bomb warnings and Palestinian gunmen showing up to the EU offices in Gaza, it feels a bit, I dunno, an overreaction. I know, I know, it's an insult to the prophet, but when diplomats have to be withdrawn over a cartoon you have to ask yourself, you really do.

Edit just saw fly_agaric's post now. Psychic or wha?

Edit no 2 Further to your other thread Suff, this would be one of the reasons that many in the west would have a mistrust of Islam and any moves to "Islamify" a society.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

Well, this thread has been overtaken somewhat by events.
We can now observe how muslims in Europe and the ME react to insults to Islam and that reaction is, to say the least, not very good. The extremists offer violence (as expected) and the average joes offer moral support, boycotts etc. The dictators of Islamic states shut embassies and petiton the UN to put limits on freedom of speech when it comes to religion. I'm sure it will be the same here. It all bodes very badly for our future.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054883864

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. The picture is clearly offensive. If you found something in the local paper offensive awould you continue to buy the product from them if they told you to get over it?

Wibbs

Who said it was clear cut? As I said, boycotts of produce one thing, threats of violence leading to closure of embassies quite another. This is the point the OP was asking about. A large portion of Islam can react violently to insult/criticism, percieved or otherwise(in this case I can see a point). The list of examples is long and getting longer.

This particular issue is split all over the place in boards. It's hard to know where to post

RobEire

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054883864

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. The picture is clearly offensive. If you found something in the local paper offensive awould you continue to buy the product from them if they told you to get over it?

I might not support the product if something about it offended me, I might even write a letter to complain. I certainly would not start a war of persecution against everyone and everything associated with said product. That is taking things too far...

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054883864

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. The picture is clearly offensive. If you found something in the local paper offensive awould you continue to buy the product from them if they told you to get over it?

Sorry, I didn't see there was a thread on it already. I just put a new reply here as the current furore remided me of this thread I made about insults to Islam and how muslims react to them.

I know the cartoons are offensive - I never fudged on that. I classified the cartoons as an insult in my post.

Anyway, first, European newspapers are not the local rags of the people doing all this boycotting and protesting in the ME, or those extremists practicing intimidation in Gaza, burning flags etc. 2nd - they are boycotting pretty much everything Danish over this - not just its papers. And as for making a big diplomatic incident over it and squealing at the UN - may I just:rolleyes:.
This is without even mentioning the hypocrisy of governments like that in Saudi, who have a long way to go before they can start declaiming about a lack of religious tolerance in Europe which the UN should correct.
There is a massive loss of proportion going on here which, if I may say, I find very scary and disturbing.

The muslims in Denmark do have a perfect right to protest about the cartoons in Denmark, boycott the paper, write nasty letters to the editor, whatever, so long as it is not violent. It is what I'd do anyway.

As for telling muslims to get over it - isn't that what devout Catholics and other Christians are supposed to do when their faith is insulted for a bit of media scandal?

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

Freedom of speech is a myth.

So how are we having this discussion then? If Muslims practiced their 'non-violent' religion according to the Koran then there would be no suicide bombings. Correct?

rsynnott

fly_agaric wrote:

Okay, the banning Catholic practices from the workplace thread in humanities
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054863420&page=5 and the stuff spouted there about Catholicism and later Islam and muslims got me thinking about something I was going to ask here but felt I'd probably get reported for. This forum seems to be dying a slow death so I may as well chance it. Anyway, report away!

Are you aware that that thread was a joke?

Hobbes

Freddie59 wrote:

So how are we having this discussion then?

This is free speech? Try posting on where to get warez on boards and see how free your speech is then.

If Muslims practiced their 'non-violent' religion according to the Koran then there would be no suicide bombings. Correct?

Many do. Out of 0.7-1.2 Billion muslims how many are suicide bombing?

rsynnott

Hobbes wrote:

This is free speech? Try posting on where to get warez on boards and see how free your speech is then.
?

There's no such thing as absolute free speech.

Freddie59 wrote:

So how are we having this discussion then? If Muslims practiced their 'non-violent' religion according to the Koran then there would be no suicide bombings. Correct?

Similarly, if all Christians practised their 'non-violent, forgiving' religion according to the Bible, they would no doubt refrain from blowing up gay bars and similar. Mad people are not by any means restricted to any one religion.

Suff

Freddie59 wrote:

So how are we having this discussion then? If Muslims practiced their 'non-violent' religion according to the Koran then there would be no suicide bombings. Correct?

Islam doesnt have a violent teachings, you need to look into the actual law and when/how to practice it before judgging the religion.

before saying anything about suicide bombings, ty to search why are they doing it.
Most muslims oppose suicide bombings.

I truly beleive that the actual teachings/nature of Islam are still unclear to many people (Wibbs, you might like to start one!) so I'll start a new thread for answering them directly from the sunnah and the qurann with refrences.

fly_agaric

rsynnott wrote:

Are you aware that that thread was a joke?

Well, the first post was nonsensical alright but it developed in an interesting direction.:D
When I made reference to the thread I wasn't thinking about the rubbish post that started it going.

Tom Dunne

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, so I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I have no doubt what so ever that these images are offensive to Muslims, and I can understand why.

But I would like to draw parallels to the recent Paddy Power adverts. Yes, people were outraged in Ireland. Yes, people were offended. Yes, it was crude an in very poor taste. But people didn't grab their nearest AK-47 and start surrounding their local Paddy Power office. They didn't start burning Paddy Power leaflets/posters in the street.

They phoned radio stations to vent, they wrote letters to papers, they debated it on TV. All very hot, but very civilised.

Contrast this to the hysteria in Middle East. Shooting, kidnapping Europeans, embassy closures, bomb threats and flag burning. Given the number of papers in Europe that re-printed these images, protesters are soon going to start running out of flags to burn.

A very good point was made on the Matt Cooper show today - where was the Muslim condemnation when the Taliban destroyed the ancient statues in Afganistan?

Suff

tom dunne wrote:

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, so I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I have no doubt what so ever that these images are offensive to Muslims, and I can understand why.

But I would like to draw parallels to the recent Paddy Power adverts. Yes, people were outraged in Ireland. Yes, people were offended. Yes, it was crude an in very poor taste. But people didn't grab their nearest AK-47 and start surrounding their local Paddy Power office. They didn't start burning Paddy Power leaflets/posters in the street.

They phoned radio stations to vent, they wrote letters to papers, they debated it on TV. All very hot, but very civilised.

Contrast this to the hysteria in Middle East. Shooting, kidnapping Europeans, embassy closures, bomb threats and flag burning. Given the number of papers in Europe that re-printed these images, protesters are soon going to start running out of flags to burn.

A very good point was made on the Matt Cooper show today - where was the Muslim condemnation when the Taliban destroyed the ancient statues in Afganistan?

the muslim community in denmark went the "Civilised" route on the first time of publication, but neither the newspaper nor the goverment gave them the time.
I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.
people are angry and I can understand sure I'm angry, they are showing their anger in a way that would attract the worlds attention.

sadly it is the wrong way to deal with this situation.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

the muslim community in denmark went the "Civilised" route on the first time of publication, but neither the newspaper nor the goverment gave them the time.

Then get the Muslim community together and sue both their arses. There's enough learned lawyers among the Muslim community that would destroy them in court. The boycott of the products is a good plan. Hit them in the pockets. I get irritated when they go from civilised behaviour to crazy madness, chanting in the streets, calling for violence too damned quickly. There exists other options as tom dunne pointed out

I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.

Man, I hope you're right. If it does get ugly I suspect it won't be in the ME either, it'll be in the far east or Pakistan where it'll kick off.

sadly it is the wrong way to deal with this situation.

Yes exactly, because it seems to prove to many that the Muslim way is reactionary and incompatible with western practice and thought on a very fundamental level.

John Doe

Someone said a while back that the right to free speech is (or should be) an absolute right. Maybe it should be, but it isn't and it won't be any time soon. I think there are no absolute rights any more. For instance, that decisions have been made in history (and are being made today) to sacrifice people's lives for the perceived greater good of others shows that the right to life, the ultimate of all rights, is no longer absolute. The right to free speech has similarly been denied multiple times throughout history, and when you think about it no-one here could go out into the middle of a supermarket and scream whatever they liked (for instance "I'm a raging paedophile" or suchlike) without facing legal and social consequences, that effectively deny them the right to do so.

Tom Dunne

Suff wrote:

I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.

A German national was kidnapped earlier in the week. He was released after a couple of hours unharmed.

Suff wrote:

people are angry and I can understand sure I'm angry, they are showing their anger in a way that would attract the worlds attention.

I often think Muslims are their own worst enemy sometimes. They do themselves no favours. This situation is a prime example of it.

John Doe wrote:

and when you think about it no-one here could go out into the middle of a supermarket and scream whatever they liked (for instance "I'm a raging paedophile" or suchlike) without facing legal and social consequences, that effectively deny them the right to do so.

I don't want to drag this thread off into free speech, but I disagree with your point on going into a supermarket and making such a declaration. What ramifications would it have? Social, yes, legal, no. On what grounds could you be arrested/fined for making a declaration in a public place? (I am no legal eagle - if there is some such law, please educate me)

I utterly loathe tabloid newspapers, but they have the freedom to print essentially what they want. If I disagree with any material that they print, I can take action to have the matter rectified. Action such as those already suggested by Wibbs - boycott, legal action, and if it was bad enough, peaceful demonstrations.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

This is free speech? Try posting on where to get warez on boards and see how free your speech is then.

I presume by Warez you mean software obtained without paying for it. That is theft - where does it come into free sepeech?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

Similarly, if all Christians practised their 'non-violent, forgiving' religion according to the Bible, they would no doubt refrain from blowing up gay bars and similar. Mad people are not by any means restricted to any one religion.

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children. As you are very obviously either Islamic, or lean towards their viewpoint, then you must agree that this is a struggle between two cultures and social ideals, which has been caused by one (Islam) wanting to foist it's values and ideals on the other.

One (Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

The other (Islamic totalitarianism) does not. Radical Islamics are no different to Hitler - they just hide behind the facade of religion to justify similar actions. The President of Iran,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, inaugural statement to the UN caused uproar when he spoke of 'ushering in' Armageddon, along with a statement that the Holocaust was a myth, and that Israel was a 'blot'.

Need I say more? Religion, fascim, socialism - whatever they have been called - behind them all lay a dictator with his own agenda who ultimately led his country down the path to destruction.

This time will be no different.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children. As you are very obviously either Islamic, or lean towards their viewpoint, then you must agree that this is a struggle between two cultures and social ideals, which has been caused by one (Islam) wanting to foist it's values and ideals on the other.

Me? No, I'm a filthy atheist. I'm simply surprised that you are willing to use examples of violence perpetrated by isolated (and probably mad) people of the Islamic faith while ignoring that isolated mad Christians also do unpleasant things. Flying planes into buildings is not, as far as I'm aware, a tenet of Islam.

Freddie59 wrote:

One (Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

This is not an issue of Christianity versus Islam, but rather a case of secularism versus theocracy. Go back to the middle ages and see how much freedom of speech you get, see how women are treated. Hell, go back to 50s Ireland. IMO, secularism is better. Christianity fought against secularism tooth and nail, as Islam is doing now.

Freddie59 wrote:

The other (Islamic totalitarianism) does not. Radical Islamics are no different to Hitler - they just hide behind the facade of religion to justify similar actions. The President of Iran,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, inaugural statement to the UN caused uproar when he spoke of 'ushering in' Armageddon, along with a statement that the Holocaust was a myth, and that Israel was a 'blot'.

Obviously, holocaust denial is a little silly (I have ranted on about this before). Why do you feel, though, that the Iranian president represents Islam? When Bush goes on about the "Axis of Evil" and doing god's work, and so on, is he representing all Christians?

Freddie59 wrote:

Need I say more? Religion, fascim, socialism - whatever they have been called - behind them all lay a dictator with his own agenda who ultimately led his country down the path to destruction.

This time will be no different.

I fail to see where socialism comes into this? Reasonable doses of socialism have shaped modern Europe, and I think we're the better for them.

Tom Dunne

Freddie59 wrote:

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children.

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

Freddie59 wrote:

(Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

In addition to rsynnott extremely lucid points on this matter - look at the status of women in Japan. Are they of equal stature to men? I don't believe they are.

Hagar

tom dunne wrote:

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

That wouldn't be the same dictator that had previously invaded a neighbouring sovereign muslim state, looted it, killed inocent people and set fire to its oilfields?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

Me? No, I'm a filthy atheist. I'm simply surprised that you are willing to use examples of violence perpetrated by isolated (and probably mad) people of the Islamic faith while ignoring that isolated mad Christians also do unpleasant things. Flying planes into buildings is not, as far as I'm aware, a tenet of Islam.

Try telling that to the Middle East radical despots hiding behind 'Islam'.

rsynnott wrote:

This is not an issue of Christianity versus Islam, but rather a case of secularism versus theocracy. Go back to the middle ages and see how much freedom of speech you get, see how women are treated. Hell, go back to 50s Ireland. IMO, secularism is better. Christianity fought against secularism tooth and nail, as Islam is doing now.

It may be so. But I thought we were discussing (and comparing) current events, like the current treatment of women?

rsynnott wrote:

Obviously, holocaust denial is a little silly (I have ranted on about this before). Why do you feel, though, that the Iranian president represents Islam? When Bush goes on about the "Axis of Evil" and doing god's work, and so on, is he representing all Christians?

Many Christians would identify with him in his quest. We cannot allow our Western freedoms (hard won and paid for in millions of lives) to be undermined by medieval religious barbarity and thinking.

rsynnott wrote:

I fail to see where socialism comes into this? Reasonable doses of socialism have shaped modern Europe, and I think we're the better for them.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yes a great contribution to modern history. Half the continent imprisoned for over 50 years.

Freddie59

tom dunne wrote:

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

That's open to debate. Many agree with the invasion - many don't. But more people now enjoy freedom in Iraq than ever. And hopefully the bully-boy 'martyrs' will have their card marked soon.

I ask you this: if the roles were reversed, and the Arabs had the nukes, and, let's say, atrocities were committed in Middle Eastern Countries by Westerners, do you think they would show the restraint that the West has? I don't think so.

tom dunne wrote:

In addition to rsynnott extremely lucid points on this matter - look at the status of women in Japan. Are they of equal stature to men? I don't believe they are.

That is an extremely obscure comparison. While Japan likes to think of itself as 'Western' they really aren't. Their roots (particularly with women) still lie in the middle ages. Show me another Western country where women are treated with such disrespect as in the radical Muslim countries. It's worth bearing in mind that when Osama bin Laden was asked what his idea of the perfect Islamic State was, he replied with 'the Taleban have it just right in Afghanistan'.

Hobbes

I will say this once and once only. For the new people read the charter.

This thread will be locked if it continues on this track.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

It may be so. But I thought we were discussing (and comparing) current events, like the current treatment of women?
.

You're confused. I'm simply pointing out that it is NOT an issue of Islam versus Christianity, it is an issue of secularism versus theocracy. Western states are generally not Christian states (fortunately); many Middle Eastern states ARE Islamic states. The problem is not with the religion, but rather with the religion's interference with public policy.

Freddie59 wrote:

That's open to debate. Many agree with the invasion - many don't. But more people now enjoy freedom in Iraq than ever.

Can women walk the streets without veils again, then? And surely the invasion has led to Iraq becoming MORE Islamic, not less?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

You're confused. I'm simply pointing out that it is NOT an issue of Islam versus Christianity, it is an issue of secularism versus theocracy. Western states are generally not Christian states (fortunately); many Middle Eastern states ARE Islamic states. The problem is not with the religion, but rather with the religion's interference with public policy.?

Far from confused. You can dress it up any way you like. Call it Islam, Nazis, Communism, etc, you still end up with tinpot dictators straight out of a bad James Bond movie trying to take over/destroy/convert the world.
No amount of pussyfooting around the issue changes that.

rsynnott wrote:

Can women walk the streets without veils again, then? And surely the invasion has led to Iraq becoming MORE Islamic, not less?

Agree with you on the veil. But at least they are free to walk down the street. I'm sure the vision of people being whipped on a street corner in Afghanistan for 'defiling religion' is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

I will say this once and once only. For the new people read the charter.

This thread will be locked if it continues on this track.

May I respectfully ask how it is going off track?

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Agree with you on the veil. But at least they are free to walk down the street. I'm sure the vision of people being whipped on a street corner in Afghanistan for 'defiling religion' is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Please do try to keep Iraq and Afghanistan separate in your mind. They're not at all the same place.

larryone

Freddie59 wrote:

May I respectfully ask how it is going off track?

starting to get less religious or social and more political methinks.