Muslim Extremists Firebomb Publisher of Allah Book

speedboatchase

Naturally the people behind this attack (who are terrorists, no dancing around the subject) represent a tiny, tiny minority of the Muslim population in the UK - lets get that out of the way first off.

Still though, this kind of irrational violence in the name of religion and fearmongering versus free speech really worries me, particularly as its happening so close to us. That Danish cartoon controversy (100+ dead :eek:) really set a precedent that I think will constantly be brought into focus more and more, and our principles should never be compromised IMO. Also, and not to ire anyone but lets be honest - why is it ok that the prophet had a 9 year old bride in the first place?!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/28/muhammad.book.attack

Firebomb attack on book publisher

Firm had bought rights to a controversial novel about the Prophet Muhammad's child bride

The London home of the publisher of a controversial new novel that gives a fictionalised account of the Prophet Muhammad's relationship with his child bride, Aisha, was firebombed yesterday, hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics.

A petrol bomb is believed to have been thrown through the door of Martin Rynja's £2.5m town house in Islington's Lonsdale Square, which also doubles as the headquarters of his publishing company, Gibson Square. Three men have been arrested on terrorism charges.

The Observer has learned that police told Rynja late on Friday night to leave his property. His company recently made headlines when it announced it was to publish The Jewel of Medina.

Written by US journalist Sherry Jones, the book was due to have been published in August by US giant Random House. But amid controversy the company halted publication, a move denounced by Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, as 'censorship by fear'.

Rynja bought the UK publishing rights earlier this month. 'The Jewel of Medina has become an important barometer of our time,' Rynja said at the time. 'As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate.'

Yesterday the Metropolitan Police confirmed that three men had been arrested in connection with the incident in Lonsdale Square. Two men aged 22 and 30 were stopped by armed officers in the street outside the property and a third man, aged 40, was arrested near Angel tube station. Police have begun searching four addresses around north-east London - two in Walthamstow, one in Ilford and one in Forest Gate.

The men were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, and last night were being questioned at a central London police station, a Met spokesman said. Scotland Yard confirmed that a small fire inside the property had been extinguished. 'At this early stage it is being linked with the arrests,' the spokesman said.

Residents in the square said armed police, assisted by firefighters, broke down the door of the property at around 2.30am yesterday.

Francesca Liebowitz, 16, who lives five doors away with her parents, said: 'The police couldn't get the door open so the fire brigade battered it down. It's a bit scary to have this happen on your doorstep. Nothing like this has ever happened round here before.'

Rynja, whose company has also published Londonistan by journalist Melanie Phillips and Blowing up Russia by murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko, appears to have been determined to use Jones's book to take a stand for free speech.

'I was completely bowled over by the novel and the moving love story it portrays,' he said earlier this month. 'I was struck by the careful research of Sherry Jones, who is a journalist with almost 30 years of experience, and her passion for the novel's characters. I immediately felt that it was imperative to publish it. In an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear.'

One of his neighbours in Lonsdale Square, a friend who also works in the publishing industry, said Rynja had not expressed any fears that he might be attacked. 'I just hope this does not dissuade him from his work,' the friend said. 'We live in a country of free speech and Martin is very passionate about that.'

The book, despite being described by one critic as 'a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalise the personal life of the Prophet and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East', has attracted criticism. One sex scene has been described as 'softcore pornography' by an American academic, Denise Spellberg, an influential professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas.

Spellberg made the comments after Random House sent her the book hoping for a favourable comment to publish on its jacket. Instead, in an email that was leaked to the US press, Spellberg described the novel as a 'very ugly, stupid piece of work'.

'I don't have a problem with historical fiction,' Spellberg wrote. 'I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into softcore pornography.'

It appears Spellberg was instrumental in drawing attention to the book among segments of the Muslim community. In April, Shahed Amanullah, an editor of a popular Muslim website, claimed Spellberg had told him the book 'made fun of Muslims and their history'.

Amanullah sent emails to Middle East and Islamic studies students, claiming: 'Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel Jewel of Medina - she said she found it incredibly offensive.'

The resulting furore prompted Random House to pull the book, a move that dismayed its author, who received a $100,000 advance. 'To claim that Muslims will answer my book with violence is pure nonsense,' Jones told a German newspaper last month. 'Anyone who reads the book will see that it honours the Prophet and his favourite wife.'

She expressed anger at the political consequences of Random House's decision. 'That one of the biggest publishing houses in the world refuses to publish a book because of warnings is a sobering comment on the state of freedom of speech in the USA,' she said.

Fratton Fred

There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.

When Western countries stop with this sort of rubbish, then i feel we can criticise the Muslim world for their views. We are not much better, we just see it from a different angle.

O'Morris

speedboatchase wrote:

Naturally the people behind this attack (who are terrorists, no dancing around the subject) represent a tiny, tiny minority of the Muslim population in the UK - lets get that out of the way first off.

I've a feeling they probably won't let it get out of the way.

Don't forget to mention as well that religious extremists exist in all religions, including Christianity. And don't forget the inquisition and the wars of religion in Europe and Galileo and all the other bad things that Christians have done in their history.

It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.

LostinBlanch

O'Morris wrote: »

It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.

Yes, but they've gone backwards at a rate of knots since then.

I don't think anyone sane condones this kind of thing. The idea that subjects like this are totally verboten for discussion on pain of death (cf Rushdies Fatwa, Theo Van Goghs assasination, The Danish cartoon furore, this attempted murder etc) is totally anathema to a modern democracy. Of course, this also applies to any other extremist individual or group whatever their beliefs. EDIT: This doesn't mean that anyone can or should go out of their way to stir things up though.

I note that 3 men have been arrested, if found guilty I'd hope that they get the book thrown at them and don't get out for at least 50 years. Won't happen though.

studiorat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.

Not condoning it, but she was let off.

Apparently the "Virgin Mary" was 12, btw.

speedboatchase

To Fratton Fred, do you honestly think Catholics in the UK would firebomb a publisher? "We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?! There have been many examples of Catholic intolerance throughout history but nowadays when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed, you can't make that comparison surely?

Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine

irish_bob

speedboatchase wrote: »

To Fratton Fred, do you honestly think Catholics in the UK would firebomb a publisher? "We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?! There have been many examples of Catholic intolerance throughout history but nowadays when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed, you can't make that comparison surely?

Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine

you can make that comparrison when islam is a sacred cow to you

O'Morris

LostinBlanch wrote:

Yes, but they've gone backwards at a rate of knots since then.

No they haven't. They're still the same people. The christians in the west are the people who have morally gone backwards since then.

LostinBlanch wrote:

I don't think anyone sane condones this kind of thing.

I don't condone the violence but I don't condone the decision to publish that book either. Religious muslims aren't like religious catholics, they take their religion seriously and some of them are prepared to react violently when they see Islam and their prophet insulted. This is something we know from past experience so it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see this reaction when someone decides to publish a book that is less than respectful of the prophet.

LostinBlanch wrote:

The idea that subjects like this are totally verboten for discussion on pain of death (cf Rushdies Fatwa, Theo Van Goghs assasination, The Danish cartoon furore, this attempted murder etc) is totally anathema to a modern democracy.

I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.

LostinBlanch wrote:

Of course, this also applies to any other extremist individual or group whatever their beliefs.

Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.

djpbarry

speedboatchase wrote: »

...when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed...

I've seen Mohammed in South Park on at least one occasion:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509667/Mohammed's-appearance-on-South-Park-fails-to-spark-outcry.html

American Dad regularly pokes fun at Islam, as does, albeit to a lesser extent, Family Guy.

speedboatchase

O'Morris, are you actually serious? The West has gone morally backwards? Should we stone women that have been raped and commit female genital mutilation a little bit to appease you? We should sacrifice our democratic laws, beliefs and principles, in particular our freedom of speech for immigrants that come from countries that more often than not cannot respect the most basic of these values as well? Bloody hell, are you actually giving moral equivalence for the publisher and the firebombers decisions?

Djpbarry, Mohammed was featured in the Superfriends episode way back, but when Trey and Matt tried to push their networks buttons by featuring him at a time when it would be provocative to do so and catch the interest of muslims, Comedy Central backed away and censored his image.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.

Rubbish. I am an atheist and in my eyes religion is the same as any other ideology. Religion deserves no more or less respect than politics or philosophy. If a religion is harmful to it's followers or to others then it should not be beyond reproach same as any other ideology and if it's followers commit a crime in the name of their religion they should be given equal treatment to any other criminal.

studiorat

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine

Temple virgin till from 3 or 4 until the age of 12, then released of her service. (see Protoevangelium of James)

At the time neither of these instances would have seemed improper. Aisha was bethrothed to someone else before she married Muhammad, her previous suitor canceled because they were seen as outcast when they went to Medina. She was then bethrothed to him for a few years before the marriage.

It would have been quite normal in a historical context. Putting modern morals on ancient practices, is no better that what the fundamentalists are doing already.

Aisha wasn't a concubine btw.

LostinBlanch

O'Morris wrote: »

No they haven't. They're still the same people. The christians in the west are the people who have morally gone backwards since then.

Right that's it then. Lets all find a time machine and go back to the middle ages then shall we? Bring back the Spanish Inquisition says I.

O'Morris wrote: »

Religious muslims aren't like religious catholics, they take their religion seriously and some of them are prepared to react violently when they see Islam and their prophet insulted. This is something we know from past experience so it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see this reaction when someone decides to publish a book that is less than respectful of the prophet.

Take a look at Speedboats post. Most rational people would say that moral equivalence doesn't work in this case, or many others for that matter.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.

So you want to give in to extremists because they threaten violence? OK then, shall we all convert at gunpoint? Like I said before bring back the inquisiton.

O'Morris wrote: »

Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.

I'm not even going to bother trying to refute such rubbish, as your words say more about the state of mind of people who peddle such ideas more eloquently than any rebuttals ever could.

donaghs

O'Morris wrote: »

Don't forget to mention as well that religious extremists exist in all religions, including Christianity. And don't forget the inquisition and the wars of religion in Europe and Galileo and all the other bad things that Christians have done in their history.

It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.

Whilst I find history fascinating, unfortunately we are living in the present day, and the middle ages was a long time ago. I don't think religious extremism in the Middle Ages excuses it today in our more enlightened age.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

"We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?!

Most people were killed by security forces actually and not the rioters. The regimes in the ME etc are pretty notorious for that sort of thing.

O'Morris

speedboatchase wrote:

O'Morris, are you actually serious? The West has gone morally backwards?

Yes, I think it has and I think it's not an altogether bad thing that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. It seems that the muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.

speedboatchase wrote:

Should we stone women that have been raped and commit female genital mutilation a little bit to appease you?

I don't think women who have been raped should be stoned but I don't condone the moral decadence of the west either. While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme.

speedboatchase wrote:

We should sacrifice our democratic laws, beliefs and principles, in particular our freedom of speech for immigrants that come from countries that more often than not cannot respect the most basic of these values as well?

What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims? It's just an accident of birth that we happen to value those beliefs. If our beliefs and principles were so self-evidently good then why are muslims so resistant to them? Could it be because they see their culture and their beliefs as superior? How do you know they're not right?

I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.

speedboatchase wrote:

Bloody hell, are you actually giving moral equivalence for the publisher and the firebombers decisions?

Not at all. What the firebombers did was far worse than what the publisher did.

sink wrote:

Rubbish. I am an atheist and in my eyes religion is the same as any other ideology. Religion deserves no more or less respect than politics or philosophy.

Religious belief is valued much highly than political or philosophical belief and so in that sense it should be treated differently.

sink wrote:

if it's followers commit a crime in the name of their religion they should be given equal treatment to any other criminal.

Of course, if they commit a serious crime then they deserve to be punished. I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime. We should make a distinction between a provoked and an unprovoked attack. Muslims rarely act violently without provocation.

LostinBlanch wrote:

Most rational people would say that moral equivalence doesn't work in this case, or many others for that matter.

There may not be a moral equivalence in our eyes but there is in the eyes of a muslim who sees any insult to the prophet as one of the worst offences possible. We cannot judge people of different cultures by our own standards.

LostinBlanch wrote:

So you want to give in to extremists because they threaten violence?

I don't want to give in to extremists. I want to see us respect the culture and religion of our muslim fellow citizens. And not just because they threaten violence either but because I think it's the right thing to do and because I think our societies can benefit from being more Islam-friendly.

LostinBlanch wrote:

Like I said before bring back the inquisiton.

The Christian inquisition was far worse than anything you'll find in the history of Islam. There's very little chance of seeing anything even remotely similar in a muslim Europe.

eoin5

O'Morris wrote: »

Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.

Thats a silly way of looking at it. How different is a neo-nazi to an extremist Muslim? They all generalise to the same kind of deluded dogma.

turgon

Theres a reason that the economy in Europe and America is better than the middle east: were not killing ourselves by killing others.

Bottle_of_Smoke

O'Morris wrote: »

Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.

Oh come on, this is sheer nonsense, all religions are made by man, prove otherwise or stick to the law of the land.

turgon

O'Morris wrote: »

muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.

Which is why they force their women to wear overalls in the middle of the burning hot summer.

O'Morris wrote: »

While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme.

That is true, however its none of my business what other people do in a situation like this: I would not intrude into your sex life; why should others intrude into other peoples? Unless of course its illegal like rape.

O'Morris wrote: »

What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims?

It like a mathematical axiom really in that it cant be proved, but in my opinion treating women the same as men is better than treating them as subordinates.

O'Morris wrote: »

I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are

Theres a term for such a thing. Its called "taking it for granted". Maybe if you were in a situation, like communist Russia, your feelings on those might be more positive. Just a thought.

O'Morris wrote: »

I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime.

In other words if I hear a book is coming out that I dont agree with, I have entitlements to throw petrol bombs at the publisher.

O'Morris wrote: »

a muslim who sees any insult to the prophet as one of the worst offences possible.

So what your saying is that we have to treat their beliefs with respect, such as believing in Allah, but they are allowed flaunt ours, such as freedom of expression, even though they are in our country?

If you move into a new country you have to accept that it wont be the same as back home. I would not expect to get served Stout in Nepal for example. And whats more, I wouldnt throw a petrol bomb into the window of the pub that doesnt have it.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Religious belief is valued much highly than political or philosophical belief and so in that sense it should be treated differently.

By some people yes but by no means all people. I for instance place politics and modern philosophy as of paramount importance and religion as of negligible importance.

O'Morris wrote: »

Of course, if they commit a serious crime then they deserve to be punished. I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime. We should make a distinction between a provoked and an unprovoked attack. Muslims rarely act violently without provocation.

Why should we place religion in a special box due to your subjective opinion of it? Surely the only fair way is to treat all things as equal for if we start giving religion special treatment in the eyes of the law be prepared for every crackpot out there to claim they act in the interests of their own individual religious beliefs. What method would you use to separate those whom you view as having sincere belief from those who don't? Would you introduce state sanctioned religions? Or would you leave it up to a judge to decide on a case by case basis? Either is wide open to abuse by those in power.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, I think it has and I think it's not an altogether bad thing that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. It seems that the muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.
…
What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims? It's just an accident of birth that we happen to value those beliefs. If our beliefs and principles were so self-evidently good then why are muslims so resistant to them? Could it be because they see their culture and their beliefs as superior? How do you know they're not right?

I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.

Hmm, all seems very much at odds with this:

O’Morris wrote: »

Because Turkey is not a European country. It's an Asiatic, Muslim country with a culture that's foreign to the Christian culture of Europe. Europe already has serious problems in integrating Muslims and so granting free movement to 70 million Muslim Turks is hardly going to do much to further the goal of European integration.

I agree with Valery Gistang De Valera who said that Turkey's entry into the EU would mean the end of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giscard

O'Morris

turgon wrote:

Which is why they force their women to wear overalls in the middle of the burning hot summer.

The women themselves don't seem to have any problem with it.

turgon wrote:

That is true, however its none of my business what other people do in a situation like this

It should be your business. It should be all of our business. Intolerance of immorality is one of the key tenets of Islam and it's probably the most important contribution that muslims can make to the moral regeneration of Europe.

turgon wrote:

It like a mathematical axiom really in that it cant be proved, but in my opinion treating women the same as men is better than treating them as subordinates.

Are you trying to suggest that muslims treat their women like subordinates because if you are you need to read up on what muslims believe. A muslim recognises that women have a different nature to the nature of men and that they should therefore be treated differently. It's the same way that if you had a pet dog, you would treat that dog with as much respect as you would treat another human. It's the same with Muslim men, they treat their women in the way that you would treat a dog i.e. with a great deal of affection and respect. It's got nothing to do with treating them as subordinates.

turgon wrote:

Theres a term for such a thing. Its called "taking it for granted".

Ireland is a changing country and Europe is a changing continent. It's not about taking anything for granted, it's about seeing the trends and about welcoming the positive things that muslims can bring to our culture.

turgon wrote:

In other words if I hear a book is coming out that I dont agree with, I have entitlements to throw petrol bombs at the publisher.

It's much more than not agreeing with it. It's about finding that the contents of that book are deeply insulting to the prophet. How would you react if someone published a book that was insulting of your mother or another member of your family?

turgon wrote:

So what your saying is that we have to treat their beliefs with respect, such as believing in Allah, but they are allowed flaunt ours, such as freedom of expression, even though they are in our country?

It's easier for us to change our behaviour than it is for the muslims to change theirs.

turgon wrote:

If you move into a new country you have to accept that it wont be the same as back home.

You would still expect to be treated with respect regardless of the culture of the country. All I'm asking is that we treat muslims with respect.

djpbarry wrote:

Hmm, all seems very much at odds with this:

I was being sarcastic when I made those comments about Turkey. I was trying to caricature the narrow-minded and xenophobic attitude that many Euro-nationailsts take towards Turkey and the muslim world in general.

O'Morris

sink wrote:

By some people yes but by no means all people. I for instance place politics and modern philosophy as of paramount importance and religion as of negligible importance.

I think you're in a very small minority. Most people place infinitely more value on their religious beliefs than they do on their political or philosophical beliefs.

sink wrote:

Why should we place religion in a special box due to your subjective opinion of it?

I'm not talking about giving any special treatment to people on account of their religious beliefs. I just think that a crime motivated by religion is not the same as one that isn't. An unprovoked crime is much worse than a provoked one. If a muslim feels they have been provoked to act violently in response to a serious insult then that should be taken into account when punishing them for that crime.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I was being sarcastic when I made those comments about Turkey. I was trying to caricature the narrow-minded and xenophobic attitude that many Euro-nationailsts take towards Turkey and the muslim world in general.

I see. So what about this then:

O'Morris wrote: »

I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't see immigration as an economic issue. I see it more as a political and cultural issue. I'm far more concerned about the impact that large-scale immigration will have on our culture and our identity as a nation than I am about it's economic impact.

So you're terribly concerned about the impact that immigration will have on our culture, but you're more than happy to change our culture to suit Islam? That's a little inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

O'Morris

djpbarry, please don't ruin this for me. Just play along and see how far I can take this.

speedboatchase

O'Morris

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

I think you're in a very small minority. Most people place infinitely more value on their religious beliefs than they do on their political or philosophical beliefs.

Depends on where you are. In Ireland so may people are disillusioned with religion possibly a majority they don't know what to believe. Do you think they place religious belief as special? In the rest of North west Europe such as the UK, Benelux and Scandinavian countries atheists are in a majority.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not talking about giving any special treatment to people on account of their religious beliefs. I just think that a crime motivated by religion is not the same as one that isn't. An unprovoked crime is much worse than a provoked one. If a muslim feels they have been provoked to act violently in response to a serious insult then that should be taken into account when punishing them for that crime.

Ok so if I just place my political and philosophical beliefs in a religious context I should be entitled to the same treatment as Christians and Muslims. I could for instance believe the flying spaghetti monster wants me to bring about a social liberal revolution in this country and condones the use of force and any restriction placed upon individuals such as outlawing abortion or polygamy should be violently resisted. Who will decide whether my beliefs are sincere and upon what evidence should they rely?

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

djpbarry, please don't ruin this for me. Just play along and see how far I can take this.

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

turgon

O'Morris wrote: »

The women themselves don't seem to have any problem with it.

Are you being serious? Why would you think that? Because, I doubt a Muslim women could actually complain about having to wear that yoke without getting the **** kicked out of her. At least that what would happen if she did go around down in male clothes.

O'Morris wrote: »

It should be your business.

Really. So if my next door neighbor quietly brings home a different women every night without hassle, and I cant hear them having sex, in fact I am oblivious to this players sexual life, and it doesn't impact me WHATSOEVER, but yet it is still my business???? Me no comprehende.

O'Morris wrote: »

A muslim recognises that women have a different nature to the nature of men and that they should therefore be treated differently. It's the same way that if you had a pet dog, you would treat that dog with as much respect as you would treat another human.

Thats funny. You claim they are not treated like subordinates and then compare them to pets. Way to go.

Ok so if the women are forced to cover up, and the men are not, who can that possibly be respectful? The men are treated better then women. That is a fact. That is inequality.

O'Morris wrote: »

How would you react if someone published a book that was insulting of your mother or another member of your family?

I would go to the courts (yes, the courts!!! I would not take my own values to heart a petrol bomb somebody I would actually use the system that has been tried and tested for centuries - stupid me). The I would actually prove my mother existed. At this point the muslim would be thrown out: Allah cannot be proven and even if he does one cannot claim to be related to him.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's easier for us to change our behaviour than it is for the muslims to change theirs.

Im really starting to think that you are taking the piss. If you are please stop.

O'Morris wrote: »

You would still expect to be treated with respect regardless of the culture of the country. All I'm asking is that we treat muslims with respect.

Theres a difference between respecting them and submitting to all their values. I do treat muslims with respect. However when they come here and start saying that Irish law should be changed and that they have divine rights to do as they always done, and that the prophet cannot be talked about etc etc that is showing disrespect of us.

Respect is mutual.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

Stupid me for taking the bait. Cheers.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

Who do I see about reclaiming the time I've wasted arguing with that guy on other threads?

Sand

Yourself I guess, obvious troll is obvious.

I mean I was scanning through this and this comment "While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme." made me laugh. It just shouts "LOOKATME!!!!"

What was even funnier was a response to the above quote that went "That is true..." , is it? Really?

Back on topic though its to be hoped these guys get the book thrown at them. Western society needs to stamp out firmly threats to free speech, where small unrepresentitive groups can act as self appointed censors. I do wonder if Denise Spellberg will foot the bill for the repairs seeing as she was responsible for stoking anger in extremist groups. They probably wouldnt even have heard of the book had she not gone out of her way to tell them they should be enraged about it.

pablomakaveli

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

Well done. that guys been trolling for the last few days especially on the united ireland thread. nearly every post he made had delibrately provocative opinions and remarks. everyone should have just ignored him though.

anyway back to the main point. i think extremists like these give all people who believe in religion a bad name.

as long as someones beliefs dont involve hurting other people (either physically or mentally) or trying to force thier beliefs on someone else then let them believe what they want no matter how ridiculous it seems to others.

islam should be open to criticism just like every other religion. if something isn't open to criticism the negative aspects of it will never be improved.

SeanW

I HOPE he's trolling and that he doesn't actually believe any of that crap.

I would be very disturbed if European natives were so full of such self-hatred as to surrender our way of life to Islamofascist bigots.

(Just want to make this clear lest some pinhead accuse me of racism) I have no problem per se with Muslims who come to our countries and accept the laws, customs and culture of their adopted nation.

But in the interests of protecting what we all love about Western civilisation, I think this kind of thing deserves a very sharp response, and I hope the people behind this get a steep punishment and don't get out of it because of sympathy for their religious beliefs.

djpbarry

pablomakaveli wrote: »

that guys been trolling for the last few days especially on the united ireland thread. nearly every post he made had delibrately provocative opinions and remarks. everyone should have just ignored him though.

Hobbes

not sure what the whole thread has to do with politics. Glad to see stupidty being reported though, maybe the OP can be as zealous on the recent news story of Muslims being gassed while praying. Cited because of some DVD released.

Hate comes in many forms.

irish_bob

while i realise o morris was trolling , in a very clever way i might add , its interesting that he was banned for being a trolling in general and not specifically because the disgusting views he put on this thread , views i know for a fact he doesnt believe

in fact i suspect had it been someone else without a history of **** stirring , they would be still allowed to sing the virtues of shariah and the like

wes

irish_bob wrote: »

while i realise o morris was trolling , in a very clever way i might add , its interesting that he was banned for being a trolling in general and not specifically because the disgusting views he put on this thread , views i know for a fact he doesnt believe

in fact i suspect had it been someone else without a history of **** stirring , they would be still allowed to sing the virtues of shariah and the like

So people, with opinions you don't like, and who don't break the rules should be banned then? Would it not be better to let people air such views, so they can be challenged? Wouldn't that be better in the long run?

wes

Hobbes wrote: »

not sure what the whole thread has to do with politics. Glad to see stupidty being reported though, maybe the OP can be as zealous on the recent news story of Muslims being gassed while praying. Cited because of some DVD released.

Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard about that.

oscarBravo

wes wrote: »

So people, with opinions you don't like, and who don't break the rules should be banned then? Would it not be better to let people air such views, so they can be challenged? Wouldn't that be better in the long run?

Note to everybody: this thread isn't about how the forum is moderated. Post on-topic, or don't post, cheers.

ChocolateSauce

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.

When Western countries stop with this sort of rubbish, then i feel we can criticise the Muslim world for their views. We are not much better, we just see it from a different angle.

Actually she's been acquitted.

Anyway, I'm extremely glad to hear that book is being published, it is very important that it is. Ironically, if there hadn't been a fuss about it I wouldn't have cared.

Fratton Fred

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually she's been acquitted.

Anyway, I'm extremely glad to hear that book is being published, it is very important that it is. Ironically, if there hadn't been a fuss about it I wouldn't have cared.

I missed that, must read more newspapers.

It is important that he book is pblished, just as it is important that Muslims have the right to protest about its publication, although firebombing the publishers is way over the top.

Chritians demonstrated against the film last temptation of Christ, just as they did the Di Vinci Code. whilst to us moderate or non christians these may seem mad, but then, the firebombing of a publishers will seem mad to the average moderate Muslim, of which the majority are.

Hobbes

wes wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard about that.

posting the source story because it lacks the artistic license that has been added to the story from where I read it from originally (and appears to be quoted as main source)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/27/ddn092608evacweb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=16

Here is the related DVD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/pro-mccain-group-dumping_b_125969.html

ChocolateSauce

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I missed that, must read more newspapers.

It is important that he book is pblished, just as it is important that Muslims have the right to protest about its publication, although firebombing the publishers is way over the top.

Chritians demonstrated against the film last temptation of Christ, just as they did the Di Vinci Code. whilst to us moderate or non christians these may seem mad, but then, the firebombing of a publishers will seem mad to the average moderate Muslim, of which the majority are.

A totally agree, Muslims must have the right to denouce the book, provided it is not done in a threatening way.

turgon

Sand wrote: »

What was even funnier was a response to the above quote that went "That is true..." , is it? Really?

The Muslim attitude is that their sex lives are completely our business.

The other attitude is that their sex lives arent any of out business whatsoever.

They are opposites viewpoints, regardless of who suggested it, and I acknowledge that in my quote. Here, let me help you understand.

The whole point is that their is a huge clash between some western values and some Muslim values, and that some people feel firebombing is the answer.

Sand

The Muslim attitude is that their sex lives are completely our business.

The other attitude is that their sex lives arent any of out business whatsoever.

They are opposites viewpoints, regardless of who suggested it, and I acknowledge that in my quote. Here, let me help you understand.

The whole point is that their is a huge clash between some western values and some Muslim values, and that some people feel firebombing is the answer.

What made me laugh was the way you didnt blink at the blatant trolling of "turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores". All cultures are equal, amirite?

But dont get too worried about it, some guy trolled, you engaged, I laughed, the sun set and rose as normal and life continues. The only sobering thing is that many religious people do view women who arent under the thumb of the patriarchy as behaving like whores.

turgon

Sand wrote: »

But dont get too worried about it, some guy trolled, you engaged, I laughed, the sun set and rose as normal and life continues. The only sobering thing is that many religious people do view women who arent under the thumb of the patriarchy as behaving like whores.

True, just grab a copy of that catholic Alive! newspaper and youl know about it!!

wasper

In 1976 a Swedish film director made a film about Jesus Christ being homosexual. The film was banned in the UK.
The Greeks trashed any cinema that was showing 'The Last temptation'.

SeanW

I haven't seen the movie Obession, but I can't see how it can be blamed for the gas attack in Dayton. I don't think I'll bother downloading it either because I've seen all I need to in Fitna and the American commentator Glenn Beck on CNN to know that we've got some serious problems.

And before someone blamed this movie, or Fitna or any other Western right-wing production for anything remember that these moviemakers (presumably) aren't making this stuff up. All they do is take footage of Islamic leaders and preachers inciting much more hatred of their own (goading people to kill non believers and teaching children as young as 3 1/2 years old that Jews are apes and pigs, and so on) and acts of terror committed by the people they inspire (crowded trains being bombed to bits, planes crashing into towers, demonstrations in London warning all of us to "Take lessons from the examples that you can see, for you will pay with your blood" etc).

These are all things said, and acts committed in the name of God, by Islamofascists.

To the people who criticise the publications mentioned here, do you not likewise agree that Islamic extremism poses a threat to Western civilisation?

Fratton Fred

SeanW wrote: »

I haven't seen the movie Obession, but I can't see how it can be blamed for the gas attack in Dayton. I don't think I'll bother downloading it either because I've seen all I need to in Fitna and the American commentator Glenn Beck on CNN to know that we've got some serious problems.

And before someone blamed this movie, or Fitna or any other Western right-wing production for anything remember that these moviemakers (presumably) aren't making this stuff up. All they do is take footage of Islamic leaders and preachers inciting much more hatred of their own (goading people to kill non believers and teaching children as young as 3 1/2 years old that Jews are apes and pigs, and so on) and acts of terror committed by the people they inspire (crowded trains being bombed to bits, planes crashing into towers, demonstrations in London warning all of us to "Take lessons from the examples that you can see, for you will pay with your blood" etc).

These are all things said, and acts committed in the name of God, by Islamofascists.

To the people who criticise the publications mentioned here, do you not likewise agree that Islamic extremism poses a threat to Western civilisation?

all extremism poses a threat tbh.