US shooting at Mohahammed Cartoon conference

SILVAMAN

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, all one billion of them, in the 6th century.

As ever the defender of the indefensible.....what exactly are you?

Nodin

SILVAMAN wrote: »

As ever the defender of the indefensible.....what exactly are you?

Yep, the notion that the entire "muslim community" does not in fact need " to pull it's head out of its ass and accept that this is now the 21st Century, not the 6th century." is defending the indenfensible all right.

SILVAMAN

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, the notion that the entire "muslim community" does not in fact need " to pull it's head out of its ass and accept that this is now the 21st Century, not the 6th century." is defending the indenfensible all right.

When I read your postings on Islam and other such divel Orwell's quote comes to mind " political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible".
I'm surprised that you haven't had a swipe at Israel or jews. Perhaps you forgot. One place for you.....IGNORE button.

Nodin

SILVAMAN wrote: »

When I read(...........)...IGNORE button.

Dismissing a frankly insulting generalisation against over a billion people isn't an act of "defence", its calling out stereotyping.

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

It was a Prophet Mohammad art exhibition for heaven's sake.

They were insulting a few million people who'd never done anything to them, for attention.

How exactly are the billions of Muslims in the world being insulted by drawing Mohammed?
Where exactly does it say that it can't be done?
And do all Muslims subscribe to this?

It seems that drawing Mohammed has been done in the past. Here's an article which shows this art.

And here:

Fundamentalists of Islam support the idea that any depictions of Mohammed (also spelled Muhammad) must be forbidden, but in fact such depictions had not been prohibited until the 16th or 17th century and they are never condemned in the Koran.

Then you've got to ask yourself why should non-Muslims be bound by the rules of Islam.
Why are we so eager to avoid offending a particular religion, while at the same time have no reservations about criticising Catholicism?
Why is there never talk about Islam being respectful of our right to free expression?

Samaris

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How exactly are the billions of Muslims in the world being insulted by drawing Mohammed?
Where exactly does it say that it can't be done?
And do all Muslims subscribe to this?

It seems that drawing Mohammed has been done in the past. Here's an article which shows this art.

And here:

Quite true, and it is very interesting that it didn't used to be banned. However, under the current laws, they don't agree with it, and, in general, it seems to be found insulting.

So why do it? Plenty of people got offended by an exhibition of sacriligious Christian art some years back, and I don't particularly agree with doing anything for the express purpose of insulting people.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then you've got to ask yourself why should non-Muslims be bound by the rules of Islam.

We're not, of course. But you could also ask "Why go out of your way to insult a specific religion by doing something that you know upsets the tenets of that religion." I'm not talking about eating pork, I'm talking about drawing their specific holy figure. The entire exhibition was centred around Islam, so they could have shown a bit of respect to it. As it was, it came across on cashing in on causing offence.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why are we so eager to avoid offending a particular religion, while at the same time have no reservations about criticising Catholicism?

Criticism is one thing. That wasn't constructive anything, it was the right to insult.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why is there never talk about Islam being respectful of our right to free expression?

I don't know what the situation is elsewhere, but at least in France a couple of years back that was a major topic of conversation in terms of whether it is insulting to the native customs to have people wearing the hijab, etc. They concluded it was, and so now all outwards shows of religious faith are banned in certain areas. Fair enough, in my view. It's a far more adult way of dealing with cultural collides than going "nah nah, I drew your holy figure, whatcha gonna do about it?"

Edit: LET IT BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR (because otherwise -someone- at least will accuse me of being a sympathizer), I absolutely in no way agree with violent terrorism. I just think that the whole damn exhibition was unnecessary "edgy" attention-seeking.

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

Quite true, and it is very interesting that it didn't used to be banned. However, under the current laws, they don't agree with it, and, in general, it seems to be found insulting.

Yes but this is about as far as most explanations go.
There's never any analysis of which groups find it offensive or the ones that don't.
Saying something is offensive should be the start of a conversation and not the end of it.

So why do it? Plenty of people got offended by an exhibition of sacriligious Christian art some years back, and I don't particularly agree with doing anything for the express purpose of insulting people.

Because it's art and it's up to the individual as to why they do it.
I'd say right now most of the reasons people do this is due to the reaction that they get.
People see the disproportional response(threat of death) for doing something that they see as very basic and normal(drawing an historical figure).
They probably see this as an attempt at control, one which they instinctively resist.
And think that bowing to this demand could lead to a raft of others.

Wang King

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, all one billion of them, in the 6th century.

Well, since they all believe in a mythical, nonsensical being, I suppose they really are

Egginacup

bb1234567 wrote: »

Bouncers and cops are symbols of authority, and those situations involve one offender being punished.
Radical muslims aren't and can never let be symbols of authority in our nations. And what they were planning was a mass attack that would have hurt or left innocent people not even drawing in the competition dead.

Bouncers and cops are not SYMBOLS of anything and they are not a law unto themselves.
You need to start learning a little bit about the law and not what you think is the law.

Nodin

Wang King wrote: »

Well, since they all believe in a mythical, nonsensical being, I suppose they really are

And does that apply to all people with some sort of religious faith?

LadyFenghuang

Angelique Bitter Gut wrote: »

Hilarious! 2 people are dead. They may have been the gunmen but two human beings are still dead.
Stuck for a thread?

It's sad but if they were not dead many more people would be dead. Ideally it would have been better had they never been radicalized. It's sad but I would wager if they were not dead many more innocent people would be.

As for all Muslims being offended by drawings of the prophet I know two who are not all offended and feel non Muslims should do as they please. Extremists don't speak for all Muslims. Even objecting to the drawing of the prophet is a far cry from shooting people.

It's unfortunate it happened at all.

Samaris

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes but this is about as far as most explanations go.
There's never any analysis of which groups find it offensive or the ones that don't.
Saying something is offensive should be the start of a conversation and not the end of it.

I quite agree, but their version of questioning it is..well, like dancing naked on the sacred mountain and then wondering why people are pissed. Again, this does NOT excuse terrorist attacks, ofc. Still, it seemed childish.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Because it's art and it's up to the individual as to why they do it.

Art my arse. It was politics right there.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'd say right now most of the reasons people do this is due to the reaction that they get.
People see the disproportional response(threat of death) for doing something that they see as very basic and normal(drawing an historical figure).
They probably see this as an attempt at control, one which they instinctively resist.

Isn't that just a wee bit childish though? I mean, I don't disagree with your reasoning, I suspect you're correct, but is that really a sensible reasoning for insulting other people? Because there's a small portion of nutters out there? Maybe they should talk about it. Although I think there's a lot more to talk about some of the modern interpretations of Islam than whether or not one can draw someone.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And think that bowing to this demand could lead to a raft of others.

Dunno if it's really bowing to not draw one specific holy figure of another culture. I mean, is anyone's life really made so much the worse by drawing something else? Seems like a cheap way to get publicity to me. It's not a slippery slope, we can resist what is encroaching on others while not deliberately encroaching on the relatively harmless customs of others. It just seemed...childish and provocative and they KNEW it would cause some flaming brainwashed zealot to go ape**** and try to kill someone. Ugh, the whole thing annoys me. I'm just glad that no-one else died for it.

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

I quite agree, but their version of questioning it is..well, like dancing naked on the sacred mountain and then wondering why people are pissed. Again, this does NOT excuse terrorist attacks, ofc. Still, it seemed childish.

I'd say it's driven by fundamentalism.
If the media really delved into the subject, I'm guessing they'd find the reason for the change in attitude.
And they'd also discover that not all Muslims are offended, which might lead to debate.
It's lazy journalism, it stunts our understanding of Islam and plays to the hand of fundamentalists.

Art my arse. It was politics right there.

The part of my post that you quoted in this reply, I was replying in the general sense rather than regarding a specific incident.

Isn't that just a wee bit childish though? I mean, I don't disagree with your reasoning, I suspect you're correct, but is that really a sensible reasoning for insulting other people? Because there's a small portion of nutters out there? Maybe they should talk about it. Although I think there's a lot more to talk about some of the modern interpretations of Islam than whether or not one can draw someone.

I think you have to stand up for your freedoms otherwise they'll be trampled all over.
It's my understand that "Draw Mohammed Day" and other events, stemmed from death threats being issued on the back of Mohammed being depicted in a cartoon.
Satire is very important to our culture, people feel the need to stand up to people who want to shut this down.
We had this before with The life of Brian, I doubt you'd find many people wanting to ban that film today.
And if you did they be laughed at and rightly so.
This is the stage we're at with Islam, they need to accept in societies with freedom of expression that their ideals are open to all forms of criticism.

Dunno if it's really bowing to not draw one specific holy figure of another culture.

It's a big curtailment in our freedom of expression just to placate a religious group.
Religions in my experience are either trying to gain power, or are having it taken away.
They don't sit still.

Samaris

I can't deny what you say, jackofalltrades, nor would I entirely argue against it. I am not strongly religious myself, but I do respect other peoples cultures and ways. Not drawing the Prophet seems like a simple enough thing out of respect. Now, I do entirely get why they did it, on the back, as you said, of the Dutch cartoonist and the death threats. It just seemed childish to have a go in that way in such a manner as to insult others.

OK, take the Malaysian mountain business as a roughly similar act of upsetting people. Say those people had been killed for disrespecting the mountain and those people's beliefs. That would be utterly unacceptable to us. But would the best way to go about avenging their deaths be to organise a rave on the mountain? Not just offending the fundamentalist lunatic types, but also those who had nothing to do with it, certainly wouldn't agree with murder, but also dislike the mountain being defiled? 'Course there may be other people of those same towns that have no opinion on the mountain, think the dancers are being a bit disrespectful, but don't deserve retribution. Maybe then they should have a conversation about whether or not the beliefs should focus on the mountain like that. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's a rather difficult topic when it focuses on beliefs and customs. But mind you, I would have the same opinions as to whether it was Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Kinabalu, etc. I don't believe it's right to -deliberately set out- to insult others.

It's just...I don't know really. It just seems like taking a wild swipe at a lot of people for the sake of the specific lunatics that aren't supported by the majority of those they claim to represent.

I really don't see it as a curtailment of freedom to not do something as weirdly specific as draw one bloke from history, that's only important in someone else's religion. Or indeed strip naked on a mountain halfway across the world for the luls.

volchitsa

Samaris wrote: »

I can't deny what you say, jackofalltrades, nor would I entirely argue against it. I am not strongly religious myself, but I do respect other peoples cultures and ways. Not drawing the Prophet seems like a simple enough thing out of respect. Now, I do entirely get why they did it, on the back, as you said, of the Dutch cartoonist and the death threats. It just seemed childish to have a go in that way in such a manner as to insult others.

OK, take the Malaysian mountain business as a roughly similar act of upsetting people. Say those people had been killed for disrespecting the mountain and those people's beliefs. That would be utterly unacceptable to us. But would the best way to go about avenging their deaths be to organise a rave on the mountain? Not just offending the fundamentalist lunatic types, but also those who had nothing to do with it, certainly wouldn't agree with murder, but also dislike the mountain being defiled? 'Course there may be other people of those same towns that have no opinion on the mountain, think the dancers are being a bit disrespectful, but don't deserve retribution. Maybe then they should have a conversation about whether or not the beliefs should focus on the mountain like that. Do you get where I'm coming from? It's a rather difficult topic when it focuses on beliefs and customs. But mind you, I would have the same opinions as to whether it was Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Kinabalu, etc. I don't believe it's right to -deliberately set out- to insult others.

It's just...I don't know really. It just seems like taking a wild swipe at a lot of people for the sake of the specific lunatics that aren't supported by the majority of those they claim to represent.

I really don't see it as a curtailment of freedom to not do something as weirdly specific as draw one bloke from history, that's only important in someone else's religion. Or indeed strip naked on a mountain halfway across the world for the luls.

The mountain business is different, because they were tourists there. When you go into someone else's house, or into their country, you owe some respect to their customs.

It's all the more disgusting when it's rich tourists in a poor country. The feeling of entitlement that comes across is despicable. It's like those young tourists felt they had bought the right to piss anywhere they liked because they were richer than the locals.

That's very very different from attacking people for using their legal right to freedom of speech in a country which prizes itself on freedom of speech.

Samaris

True, I was just trying to draw any sort of a parallel with a somewhat less emotive subject than Islam. There is the divide between in someone else's country and in our own. But quite frankly, it all just seemed needlessly provocative and rude.

Absolutely am not condoning the actions of those two, but ..ergh, I just dislike needless jabs at others. In that particular case, it would be more likely to jab at neighbours and friends as punishment for the actions of others several thousand miles away.

In conclusion, two radicalised idiots are dead, and the world of art has not really had much added, I suspect!

volchitsa

Samaris wrote: »

True, I was just trying to draw any sort of a parallel with a somewhat less emotive subject than Islam. There is the divide between in someone else's country and in our own. But quite frankly, it all just seemed needlessly provocative and rude.

Absolutely am not condoning the actions of those two, but ..ergh, I just dislike needless jabs at others. In that particular case, it would be more likely to jab at neighbours and friends as punishment for the actions of others several thousand miles away.

In conclusion, two radicalised idiots are dead, and the world of art has not really had much added, I suspect!

See, here's the thing. Why should the idea of foreign tourists desecrating a shrine in the country they are guests in be less emotive just because it isn't an Islamic shrine?

Are the beliefs of non Muslims less important? Is it the fact that it is a pagan shrine, not one of the main religions therefore you think nobody believes in it "really"? Or do you mean that non Muslims are happier seeing Islam insulted than other religions?

Samaris

volchitsa wrote: »

See, here's the thing. Why should the idea of foreign tourists desecrating a shrine in the country they are guests in be less emotive just because it isn't an Islamic shrine?

Are the beliefs of non Muslims less important? Is it the fact that it is a pagan shrine, not one of the main religions therefore you think nobody believes in it "really"? Or do you mean that non Muslims are happier seeing Islam insulted than other religions?

*groans* Really, it is very easy to have one's best intentions misunderstood a lot in here!

Yes, I do think at the moment Islam is the religious system at the forefront of the western world's minds, mostly due to the actions of terrorist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram. I also think that Islam has been corrupted by radicalized idiots at the behest of some very dark and dubious individuals with far too much power, but that there are also an awful lot of people that just want to get through the day as a community and don't like what these groups claim they act for.

Yes, I also think that, having read through numerous threads in which Islam comes up, vs. a couple of threads in which Judaism is mentioned, and the one thread on Kinabalu, that there is a very different "feeling" to how these subjects are approached, hence "emotive". I was giving a different example without the mention of Islam and Islamic customs specifically to get a new perspective on it.

I am pretty live-and-let-live myself. The rights of another belief system are like the rights of a fist - they end at the tip of someone else's nose, so to speak. I don't like deliberate provocation of neighbours and friends. I wouldn't insult those of another religion or belief lightly, and that includes atheism and Christianity too. Have you seen the Egyptian photos of ordinary people, Muslims and Christians holding hands around each other's shrines and worshipers to protect them? Now that is true, courageous, defense of free speech. An art exhibition specifically to provoke and mock another religion? Not so much. That is my gut instinct on the matter.

Sure, I'm a liberal

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

It's just...I don't know really. It just seems like taking a wild swipe at a lot of people for the sake of the specific lunatics that aren't supported by the majority of those they claim to represent.

Just on this point.
Here's a statistics I find very worrying.
From the UK's National Secular Society.

Opinion was divided nearly in half when respondents were asked if "Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified" were out of touch with "mainstream Muslim opinion". 49% said that they were, whilst 45% indicated that they were not.

Samaris wrote: »

I really don't see it as a curtailment of freedom to not do something as weirdly specific as draw one bloke from history, that's only important in someone else's religion.
Or indeed strip naked on a mountain halfway across the world for the luls.

It is a curtailment of freedom though.
And for what, fear of Idolatry? Is that really worth killing someone over?
Are some Muslims really worried that non-Muslims drawing Mohammed could lead to them worhshiping Mohammed instead of Allah?
What about Muslims naming their children Mohammed, should that be questioned as well?
We really need a debate on this issue addressing the above points.

It's the fact that the outrage extends to even the fairest and most neutral of drawings as well.
Islamic countries do a lot of things that I find unacceptable and provocative.
That doesn't mean though that I will demand that they subscribe to our cultural norms.
Just like I'll ignore them when they ask us to conform to theirs.

IrishTrajan

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, I do think at the moment Islam is the religious system at the forefront of the western world's minds, mostly due to the actions of terrorist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram. I also think that Islam has been corrupted by radicalized idiots at the behest of some very dark and dubious individuals with far too much power, but that there are also an awful lot of people that just want to get through the day as a community and don't like what these groups claim they act for.

Just as an aside: I'm not sure you can even assert that belief, considering Islam has always promoted tribal warfare and sectarian conflict. Even during the "Golden Age", the Muslims/Arabs left the scholarly works to minority groups while they fought expansionist campaigns, or slept with their Harems.

TomBtheGoat

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Even during the "Golden Age", the Muslims/Arabs left the scholarly works to minority groups while they fought expansionist campaigns, or slept with their Harems.

Meanwhile Europe resided in the Dark Ages and brother married sister.

Wibbs

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Meanwhile Europe resided in the Dark Ages and brother married sister.

Eh no. No they didn't. The "dark ages" were anything but dark and what darkness kicked in after the fall of the Roman western empire didn't last long. The dark ages have been horrendously misrepresented and that idea still holds sway in the public mind.

It likely kicked off because later 18/19th century classical scholars mourned the loss of "their" classical world and until it was revived in the renaissance and considered the middle bit as "problematic". Plus European 18/19th century classical scholars had the hard on for empire, with many nations vying for the title of "Nova Roma". This also meant they tended to look upon the Islamic empire of the time more favourably. English scholars saw Rome leaving Britain(where it did have a huge effect, temporarily at least) as a major downturn.

So the Dark Ages? Well for a start the Eastern Roman empire, Byzantium didn't fall until much later, so there was classical continuation there. After a time new centres of learning sprang up throughout Europe, especially in this little island. Monumental structures like the cathedrals started to spring up, structures that would have sorely taxed the Romans even at their peak. Militarily Europe was on par with the Islamic world pretty much throughout. There were quite the number of "renaissances" too. Food production massively increased over the Roman levels. Inventions like the modern plough, clocks and blast furnaces were invented in this period. Dark ages my arse.

Yes the Muslim world came up with some serious scholarship, but much of it was classical in origin as they had more access to it in the conquered lands. They also didn't come up with well over half of the "muslim inventions" of that list that was doing the rounds a few months ago. Later on they almost completely ignored the printing press, even though the knowledge of the tech would have come through their lands before it got to europe. The first printed Koran doesn't show up until the 18th century and it was printed in Russia.

Eugene Norman

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

Meanwhile Europe resided in the Dark Ages and brother married sister.

Where did the latter bit even come from? The church actually banned even cousin marriage, very common elsewhere.

DeadHand

Every home should have a Wibbs.