Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The great big "Ask about Islam" thread

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Thank you for the response. I would imagine it would depend on the Mosque. Shia opposed, especially in the case of Syria and Sunni for, especially the Mosques funded by the petro-monarchies.

    I don't know if you can read Arabic, but Al Harati, Libyan-Irishman, the former Deputy leader of the Tripoli Military Council outlined his vision for Syria here. http://theflowerthrowers.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/mercenary-in-syria-al-harati-names-his-donors-in-kuwait/


    This is the same al Harati who according to the Sunday world had 200,000 dollars stolen from his home which he was given by the Americans, and according to Wikileaks was a Stratfor (private CIA) informant and was close to Belhaj, the leader of the LIFG, offical partners of Al Qaeda.


    I don't really understand how the reaction to his homecoming could be indifference. I can see celebrations for a war hero or suspicion and condemnation.


    +++++++


    On a seperate note I would be really interested to find out if the series of spying and FBI entrapment cases targetting Muslims has made the Irish Muslim community more suspicious or insular.

    Syria isn't a Sunni v Shia struggle (even though much of the western media may be portraying it as such), so I don't think it'd be a case of either sect supporting or disapproving of somebody going to fight.

    Regarding Al Harati, I know very little about him (and I don't understand Arabic) and certainly know not to rely on newspapers to get information about him. Most Irish Muslims were probably unaware of his homecoming - I would have assumed he was still out there fighting. People might have an opinion about him and his actions, but unless someone is very passionate about that opinion, the usual physical reaction for most people will be indifference. In the same way that people may have an opinion on a government policy - but they'll only rarely take to the streets over it.

    FBI goings-on are a far cry away, I doubt any of us worry much about it in Ireland.


  • Options
    #93
    niamhstokes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 136 ✭✭niamhstokes


    Why do you think mohammad is a prophet? i've read stuff about his actions in life that were pretty bad, I won't repeat them here as i don't want to insult ye all about it.

    Also why do you think mohammad recited the quran? didn't he have a bunch of scribes that jotted down his recitation? how do u know they themselves didn't write the content down and then said mohammad was the recitor so they could make him out to be a prophet for the new religion?

    Finally, why do you limit God ? You tell God he can and cannot do stuff. For example, why can't God take on a human body and live among us? why are you telling God what he can't do? Isn't that blasphemy? Especially when Jesus always existed in heaven before coming to earth. And you have the 3 divine persons in the old testament and the translation of echad in deuteronomy which doesnt rule it out?

    Islam seems very questionable, very complex (unlike Christianity) and illogical as to its authenticity to me.


  • Options
    #94
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    niamhstokes wrote: »
    Why do you think mohammad is a prophet? i've read stuff about his actions in life that were pretty bad, I won't repeat them here as i don't want to insult ye all about it.

    Howdy, and welcome to the forum. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a prophet because Allah (swt) chose him to be one. He was chosen because he was the most sincere and devoted person. Regarding his "pretty bad" actions, all I can say is that you shouldn't believe everything you read without thoroughly examining it - things should be read in context, and there are always two sides to every story.
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    Also why do you think mohammad recited the quran? didn't he have a bunch of scribes that jotted down his recitation? how do u know they themselves didn't write the content down and then said mohammad was the recitor so they could make him out to be a prophet for the new religion?

    You've sort of answered your own question there. Firstly, I'm not sure how else the scribes would have known what was revealed to the prophet (peace be upon him) if it wasn't recited out loud to them, and secondly, the verses being recited out loud to others (who also committed the verses to memory) served as a fail-safe to ensure the scribes had recorded them accurately - even though the scribes did read their writings back to the Prophet, who would check for mistakes.
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    Finally, why do you limit God ? You tell God he can and cannot do stuff. For example, why can't God take on a human body and live among us? why are you telling God what he can't do? Isn't that blasphemy? Especially when Jesus always existed in heaven before coming to earth. And you have the 3 divine persons in the old testament and the translation of echad in deuteronomy which doesnt rule it out?

    We don't limit God. Allah (swt) is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and our minds can't comprehend his abilities. However, there is a difference between saying He cannot do something and saying He chooses not to do something. I'm sure Allah (swt) could take on a human body and live among us, if He chose to, but we don't believe He did that. We believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was a human being and a prophet, just like Muhammad (peace be upon him).
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    Islam seems very questionable, very complex (unlike Christianity) and illogical as to its authenticity to me.

    Matter of perspective. In comparison to the trinity, I find the concept of one God (without any partners/equals) speaking to humanity through His many messengers less complex and more logical.


  • Options
    #95
    niamhstokes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 136 ✭✭niamhstokes


    You've sort of answered your own question there. Firstly, I'm not sure how else the scribes would have known what was revealed to the prophet (peace be upon him) if it wasn't recited out loud to them, and secondly, the verses being recited out loud to others (who also committed the verses to memory) served as a fail-safe to ensure the scribes had recorded them accurately - even though the scribes did read their writings back to the Prophet, who would check for mistakes.

    The point i was trying to make is that it's more logical the 40 'scribes' actually wrote the content of the book. They would have been amazing highly skilled poets/writers/scholars at that time in arabic. We all know the arabs invented mathematics so surely they could write a good prose/poetry book that others can't replicate in this day and age. It is just more logical to me that the book's content was put together by them than an angel telling mohammad and him reciting it off. It reminds me of the Book of Mormon and your man Joseph smith. Very similar.


    We don't limit God. Allah (swt) is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and our minds can't comprehend his abilities. However, there is a difference between saying He cannot do something and saying He chooses not to do something. I'm sure Allah (swt) could take on a human body and live among us, if He chose to, but we don't believe He did that. We believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was a human being and a prophet, just like Muhammad (peace be upon him).

    well how do you know what God chooses and doesn't choose then? It's obvious the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always existed as one God and the son came to dwell among us. It's not rocket science :) I really think that mohammad needed to downgrade the son of God to make himself out to be a prophet for the new religion. That's my take on it as a Catholic Christian :)


    Matter of perspective. In comparison to the trinity, I find the concept of one God (without any partners/equals) speaking to humanity through His many messengers less complex and more logical.[/QUOTE]

    St Patrick came to Ireland and taught the Holy Trinity using the shamrock. It has 3 leaves but it's one. Again kids of 3 and 4 years old understand this. That's why i think it's really so simple.

    On a final note, i don't know if you have checked out the archaeological studies on how islam was created back in the day (i know you would say it is from the beginning of time etc... which of course we don't believe) but if you look at the evidence on how it was created i think you would be very shocked and even leave islam maybe? I know one canadian muslim woman who is a doctor and she studied this stuff and well she is Christian now. It's not often muslims or converts 'reverts' know about this stuff and that's why they think islam is from allah/god.

    Anyway, best of luck to you. Peace :)


  • Options
    #96
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    niamhstokes wrote: »
    The point i was trying to make is that it's more logical the 40 'scribes' actually wrote the content of the book. They would have been amazing highly skilled poets/writers/scholars at that time in arabic. We all know the arabs invented mathematics so surely they could write a good prose/poetry book that others can't replicate in this day and age. It is just more logical to me that the book's content was put together by them than an angel telling mohammad and him reciting it off. It reminds me of the Book of Mormon and your man Joseph smith. Very similar.

    Had the scribes actually written the content of the Quran themselves, it would have taken either Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself to have conspired with them (by reciting to the rest of his followers what the scribes had written, and pretending it was a revelation from an angel), or for all of Prophet Muhammad's companions to have conspired with them after his death in the collection and assimilation of the Quran. Considering how loyal his companions were to him, I doubt the latter would be the case. Nor does it make any sense to me that the prophet would have had a quick word with the scribes in private to get the prose for the day and then recite it out loud to everyone else. Belief in any religion means a belief in the unseen - God, His angels, revelations etc. The atheistic arguments are that the unseen is illogical - be it revelations to the prophets Muhammad, Jesus or Moses (peace be upon them), and atheism vs theism is a huge debate in itself, but when you already do believe in a God and His limitless powers, you can't on the one hand question people for limiting God and then say it's not logical that He would have commissioned an angel to reveal His word to a prophet of His. But of course it ultimately comes down to a matter of individual belief, and makes more sense to you.
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    well how do you know what God chooses and doesn't choose then? It's obvious the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always existed as one God and the son came to dwell among us. It's not rocket science :) I really think that mohammad needed to downgrade the son of God to make himself out to be a prophet for the new religion. That's my take on it as a Catholic Christian :)

    We believe the Quran to be the literal word of Allah (swt), and when He himself makes a point to highlight He has no partners and makes no reference to taking on a human body and living among us, that gives us a fair indication of what He chooses to do and not do. We believe prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) never himself claimed to be the son of God, and it was a title ascribed to him by his followers after his death as the message of Christianity became corrupted over time. Hence the need for another messenger to set the record straight. That's my take as a Muslim :)
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    On a final note, i don't know if you have checked out the archaeological studies on how islam was created back in the day (i know you would say it is from the beginning of time etc... which of course we don't believe) but if you look at the evidence on how it was created i think you would be very shocked and even leave islam maybe? I know one canadian muslim woman who is a doctor and she studied this stuff and well she is Christian now. It's not often muslims or converts 'reverts' know about this stuff and that's why they think islam is from allah/god.

    Aside from watching the odd documentary, I can't say it's an area I've extensively looked into. I'd be happy to look into it if you could recommend any websites/sources, and would equally encourage you to look at Muslim perspectives on these studies before making your mind up - as I said earlier, it's important to look at both sides of the story to get a full picture. For every story of Muslims converting to Christianity, there are stories of people going the other way, so each to their own.
    niamhstokes wrote: »
    Anyway, best of luck to you. Peace :)

    Likewise :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    Whats it like to be an Irish muslim ? Is it difficult assimilating with people who come from traditional muslim countries who now live here ? do you need to learn Arabic ? do you observe the christian holidays ?


  • Options
    #98
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    MRnotlob606 wrote: »
    Whats it like to be an Irish muslim ? Is it difficult assimilating with people who come from traditional muslim countries who now live here ? do you need to learn Arabic ? do you observe the christian holidays ?

    Being an Irish Muslim is a different thing for different people. Most of us are embroiled in the usual rigmarole of life - study, work, family, hobbies etc. Main differences would be in how we incorporate religion into our daily lives. In general terms, most of us don't drink, try to eat only halal food, fit in as many of the 5 daily prayers as we can, and have a different approach to dating/marriages. There's obviously more to it, but that's a quick snapshot - feel free to ask any more specific questions about our routines. Not everyone takes the religion seriously and I know Muslims who drink, go clubbing and have girlfriends/boyfriends, etc.

    I can't say I've had any issues assimilating with Muslims who have moved here from traditional countries - but that said, I've only had to minimally assimilate with them anyway. You meet people at the mosque, say a quick hello and that tends to be it.

    Most of us are taught to read Arabic, but aren't always taught to understand it. Reading the Quran in Arabic, even if you don't understand it, is a type of prayer/worship. English translations are readily available and often side-by-side with the Arabic, so that's where most of us non-Arabs get the meanings from.

    We don't observe Christian holidays as such, but are obviously very happy to take the days off :-) .. Christmas is nice as it's one of the few days in the year where everyone is off work, and so tend to spend time with the extended family, which I suppose is what it is for most Irish families. My wife's family even do an annual big Christmas dinner for their extended family as everyone's off that day, so whilst not technically "observing", it's very much in keeping with the spirit of it.


  • Options
    #99
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    biko wrote: »
    ^^ It depends, some Muslims will be ok with stunned meat but some will not.
    European regulations require animals to be stunned before they are slaughtered, but exemptions can be made on religious grounds.
    Some countries like Denmark have now banned all non-stunned slaughter, getting criticism from Jews and Muslims.
    Muslims in Scandinavia are often ok with stunning since it doesn't actually kill the animal, the cut kills it.

    Are there widely different interpretations of Islam among Muslims then, apart from the differences between Sunni, Shia, Ismaili etc..
    And if so, why do some Muslims have such difficulty co-existing with those who don't share their views?


  • Options
    #100
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    feargale wrote: »
    Are there widely different interpretations of Islam among Muslims then, apart from the differences between Sunni, Shia, Ismaili etc..
    And if so, why do some Muslims have such difficulty co-existing with those who don't share their views?

    It's not so much a case of different interpretations of Islam itself - there's little disagreement over the core aspects of the religion (belief in Allah swt, prayers, fasting, pilgrimage, charity etc.) but there can be different interpretations of some specific issues within it - such as halal slaughtering, and people decide on those issues by consulting scholar opinions on a case by case basis.

    Tom mentioned earlier in another thread that a big difference between modern day Islam and Christianity is the absence of a pope-like figure in Islam who would have the final say on matters of disagreement. The Caliph in Islam plays a similar role and had been in existence up until the early 20th century, but that ended with the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and that has allowed a lot of these extremist groups (and indeed countries) to form their own ideologies and methods without having to answer to anyone. The current ISIS "caliphate" is a farce and it pains me to have to listen to "Islamic" state every time it comes on the news, because they are anything but.

    I assume you are referring to them and their actions in your last line, but the vast vast majority of Muslims in the world have no problem co-existing with people who don't share their views, and Muslims have peacefully co-existed with Jews and Christians for centuries. The only time the issue does get highlighted in the media is when the likes of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda etc. go ahead and do something barbaric - they use religion to further their specific agendas (be it for political means, for power/greed etc.)


  • Options
    #101
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    confusedquark wrote: »
    Tom mentioned earlier in another thread that a big difference between modern day Islam and Christianity is the absence of a pope-like figure in Islam who would have the final say on matters of disagreement. The Caliph in Islam plays a similar role and had been in existence up until the early 20th century, but that ended with the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and that has allowed a lot of these extremist groups (and indeed countries) to form their own ideologies and methods without having to answer to anyone.

    Yes, I understand that for centuries the offices of Caliph and Sultan were combined in the one man, and that the Caliphate ceased to exist when the Sultanate was abolished. But it's difficult to understand why the Caliphate couldn't have continued independently,
    confusedquark wrote: »
    I assume you are referring to them and their actions in your last line, but the vast vast majority of Muslims in the world have no problem co-existing with people who hdon't share their views, and Muslims have peacefully co-existed with Jews and Christians for centuries. The only time the issue does get highlighted in the media is when the likes of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda etc. go ahead and do something barbaric - they use religion to further their specific agendas (be it for political means, for power/greed etc.)

    We in the non-Muslim world just don't hear prominent Muslim imams etc. uttering condemnations of atrocities committed by extremists in the name of Islam. Is this because 1. the western media just don't report these, 2. the Muslim world isn't good at getting such condemnations across to non-Muslim media or 3. such condemnations simply don't happen? I raised this here before concerning Boko Haram and you gave a good answer. I'm sorry for raising it again but I just continue to be perplexed, particularly now that Isis has raised its head.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    feargale wrote: »
    Yes, I understand that for centuries the offices of Caliph and Sultan were combined in the one man, and that the Caliphate ceased to exist when the Sultanate was abolished. But it's difficult to understand why the Caliphate couldn't have continued independently.

    Yeah, ideally it should have continued. I don't know enough about the specific history to give you an answer as to why it didn't. With the fall of the Ottoman empire was the rise of a very anti-Islam and pro-secular Ataturk (who ironically himself as a military leader previously had used Jihad as a means to lead and recruit Turks against during world war 1 - not the first or last person to use religion when it suited him), so that conflict of interests probably had much to do with it not continuing. A lot of Muslims would like to see the re-establishment of a proper Caliph, but the Muslim world has become very fragmented, so I'm not sure how exactly that would happen today.
    feargale wrote: »
    We in the non-Muslim world just don't hear prominent Muslim imams etc. uttering condemnations of atrocities committed by extremists in the name of Islam. Is this because 1. the western media just don't report these, 2. the Muslim world isn't good at getting such condemnations across to non-Muslim media or 3. such condemnations simply don't happen? I raised this here before concerning Boko Haram and you gave a good answer. I'm sorry for raising it again but I just continue to be perplexed, particularly now that Isis has raised its head.

    If I'm honest it's probably a combination of those three. Condemnations do happen, and they don't get as much air time as they should (I only saw on another thread yesterday that there have been many worldwide protests by Muslims against ISIS). Many prominent imams aren't as media-savvy as they should be, so whilst they might talk about an issue to a congregation in the mosque, they probably won't go out of their way to contact media outlets to get their message across to the masses (and the media often won't actively go to seek their opinions) - and in many cases they probably feel it's nothing to do with them if it's something happening in a different country or continent. But more of them probably should become more vocal with the media, or start using the likes of facebook/twitter - no harm in getting your opinions and condemnations out there.


  • Options
    #103
    Randy Anders
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Randy Anders


    Good read

    I am an agnostic person but live my life in what I believe to be a moral way. I treat people as I would like to be treated, pay my way and generally be helpful in all walks of life. I do drink alcohol once a week and I have experimented with recreational drugs in the past as I belive it is a good way to experience different stages of consciousness. Otherwise, I'm a good person all round

    My question is, what would happen to me after death if I was to go by the Muslim beliefs? Does the fact that I have never prayed to Allah render me a lost soul or could I redeem myself?


  • Options
    #104
    Sam Mac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,227 ✭✭✭Sam Mac


    why are Muslim women treated the way they are? Men seem to be considered the more important ones in Islamic/Muslim culture.


  • Options
    #105
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Sam Mac wrote: »
    why are Muslim women treated the way they are? Men seem to be considered the more important ones in Islamic/Muslim culture.

    There's a whole thread on this subject. Have a look at it and form your own ideas.


  • Options
    #106
    nomeban
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 115 ✭✭nomeban


    What's your opinion on Dr. Ali's threat to the Irish press regarding the printing of Charlie Hebdo comics?


  • Options
    #107
    Neeson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,909 ✭✭✭Neeson


    How do Muslims wash their penises and vaginas after using the toilet and why do they do it?


  • Options
    #108
    nomeban
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 115 ✭✭nomeban


    Neeson wrote: »
    How do Muslims wash their penises and vaginas after using the toilet and why do they do it?

    They usually have a small bottle of water beside the toilet - for washing their bum too. It is actually cleaner than using dry toilet paper, although I'm afraid to try it.


  • Options
    #109
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    Randy Anders wrote: »
    Good read

    I am an agnostic person but live my life in what I believe to be a moral way. I treat people as I would like to be treated, pay my way and generally be helpful in all walks of life. I do drink alcohol once a week and I have experimented with recreational drugs in the past as I belive it is a good way to experience different stages of consciousness. Otherwise, I'm a good person all round

    My question is, what would happen to me after death if I was to go by the Muslim beliefs? Does the fact that I have never prayed to Allah render me a lost soul or could I redeem myself?

    From an Islamic perspective, belief in Allah (subhana wa'tala) is the most crucial aspect of the religion. Beyond that, it's about following what Islam teaches - prayers, fasting, charity, avoiding alcohol/drugs etc. etc. Nobody's perfect, and no Muslim will live life 100% perfectly, and so none of us claim that we're guaranteed heaven. In general terms, the more good you do vs bad, the more likely you are to get into heaven. But without the basic belief in Allah (subhana wa'tala), we're told there's not much hope on the day of judgement - although I'm nobody to say that anybody is a lost soul. Obviously it's not an equally fair test for everyone, because people who are born in Muslim families get a head start, but we believe that everyone is judged according to their individual circumstances, and Allah (subhana wa'tala) is the best of judges, and knows what is in our hearts.


  • Options
    #110
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Would you support Ireland adopting sharia law?


  • Options
    #111
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    nomeban wrote: »
    What's your opinion on Dr. Ali's threat to the Irish press regarding the printing of Charlie Hebdo comics?

    Firstly, I'll echo what he said about the killings being an atrocity - there can be no justification for such violence. I don't particularly have any issues with him threatening legal action against the Irish press for printing the comics. He's well within his rights to pursue legal means against something which he considers offensive and inappropriate.

    The issue of cartoons and jokes has come up earlier in the thread and I'll copy and paste my response from there: I don't think it's ok to make derogatory jokes about any religion. I use the word "derogatory", because there are many different types of jokes, and there are many jokes about Muslims and Islam that I'd find genuinely funny. But then there are a lot of jokes which aren't in good humour, and have a more racist/belittling tone behind them. We're developing a South Park (tv show) mentality, where the more offensive something is, the funnier it is, and it's ok to say anything. Personally I disagree with that mentality, because people have a right to be aggrieved by certain types of jokes, e.g. ones that fuel stereotypes, and expecting people to "just take it and see the funny side" doesn't foster mutual respect, especially in multicultural societies.

    It's unfortunate that it should have to come to legal action (and I doubt he'll get very far with it), but sure when have the press ever cared about fostering mutual respect in societies? It's mostly about publicity and money for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Would you support Ireland adopting sharia law?

    You can't enforce sharia law on a non-Muslim population. It just wouldn't work.


  • Options
    #113
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    confusedquark wrote: »
    You can't enforce sharia law on a non-Muslim population. It just wouldn't work.

    I can see it would be virtually impossible but is it something you would prefer.

    Also for those who converted what was the hardest part of the conversion to Islam and what, if anything, of your old life do you miss most.

    What has been the attitude of family and friends?


  • Options
    #114
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I can see it would be virtually impossible but is it something you would prefer.
    I think there are aspects of Sharia that would bring benefits to Ireland, such as Financial and economics laws of Sharia, the Sharia law with regard to abortion are also less strict then and priority is given to the mothers life, under Sharia law Savita would have survived. It's under Sharia as well that when a thief stole due to his poverty and starvation he would not be punished but rather it's the ruler that takes responsibility for not providing his citizens with the bare minimum standard of life that would prevent him from such theft.

    This is based on the actions of Umar -2nd Caliph-When the Islamic state was stricken by famine, Caliph Umar suspended the Hadd punishment being applied to theft.
    Hatib ibn Abu Baltt’ah’s-A companion- servants stole a camel that belonged to a tribe. On learning that they were guilty of the charges, Caliph Umar ordered them to be punished.
    However Umar stopped the enforcement of the punishment upon learning that their master kept them hungry. In fact, he punished their master, imposing a fine on him equivalent of the price of two camels.

    Most people when they think of Sharia they think of the punishment aspect of Sharia but these represent less then 1% of what Sharia actually is.


  • Options
    #115
    Not G.R
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Not G.R


    confusedquark wrote: »
    You can't enforce sharia law on a non-Muslim population. It just wouldn't work.

    Right. So then why try stop people publishing whatever cartoons they want. If you dont want to or are provented drawing certain cartoons, fine. Limiting others capacity to do so is a HUGE no no. If you're offended, so what.

    The guy threating leagal action against anyone exercising free speech is an out and out scumbag. He should be ridiculed by every section of Irish society.


  • Options
    #116
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    Not G.R wrote: »
    Right. So then why try stop people publishing whatever cartoons they want. If you dont want to or are provented drawing certain cartoons, fine. Limiting others capacity to do so is a HUGE no no. If you're offended, so what.

    The guy threating leagal action against anyone exercising free speech is an out and out scumbag. He should be ridiculed by every section of Irish society.
    As the previous poster have said:
    "I don't particularly have any issues with him threatening legal action against the Irish press for printing the comics. He's well within his rights to pursue legal means against something which he considers offensive and inappropriate."

    If you want to blame something here blame your laws for giving him the right to pursue legal action for something like this, however doesn't this not contradiction with liberal laws? just like you have the right to publish something I find insulting, I have the right to seek the help of the law to prevent it from publishing.

    Dr. Ali is not using Islamic Law in this issue he's using Irish laws


  • Options
    #117
    Not G.R
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Not G.R


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    As the previous poster have said:
    "I don't particularly have any issues with him threatening legal action against the Irish press for printing the comics. He's well within his rights to pursue legal means against something which he considers offensive and inappropriate."

    If you want to blame something here blame your laws for giving him the right to pursue legal action for something like this, however doesn't this not contradiction with liberal laws? just like you have the right to publish something I find insulting, I have the right to seek the help of the law to prevent it from publishing.

    Dr. Ali is not using Islamic Law in this issue he's using Irish laws

    The only declaration under Irish law which enshrines a right to not be offended is our archaic blasphemy law which, by the way the last person convicted under was in 1850ish. But you're right, the fault lies with our joke of a constitution. Hopefully it will be amended when put to referendum this year. (Intrestingly, one of two group to oppose the abolition of the blasphemy law was the centre of Islamic studies)

    This guy is using terrorism (fear and intimidation to get his own way) to circumvent free speech. In a 21st century Republic (which enables his freedom of religion) is not ok and something which just doesn't sit right with me. He should be ashamed of himself.


  • Options
    #118
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    Not G.R wrote: »
    This guy is using terrorism (fear and intimidation to get his own way) to circumvent free speech. In a 21st century Republic (which enables his freedom of religion) is not ok and something which just doesn't sit right with me. He should be ashamed of himself.

    Right... I suppose Jews who oppose bad humoured publications about the Holocaust would also be considered to be using terrorism? And there are Holocaust denial laws in some countries which could facilitate such "terrorism".

    Freedom of speech is not absolute and it has it's limits, e.g. when it becomes hate speech. Offence is a difficult topic to rule on, and it's hard to draw a line on what is acceptable and what isn't in the public domain, and whether somebody is being ridiculous in claiming offence (and there's been a lengthy discussion dedicated to the topic here - feel free to contribute on it), but there always is a line.


  • Options
    #119
    confusedquark
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭confusedquark


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I can see it would be virtually impossible but is it something you would prefer.

    I believe in my religion, so I would prefer to live under sharia law (although maybe not what the likes of ISIS and The Taliban consider "sharia law"!) - but your question was about sharia law specifically in Ireland, and so I gave my opinion on that.

    But as Defender of Faith mentions, there are parts of sharia law that could benefit modern-day Ireland, but I suppose that's something you have to look at in depth on a rule by rule basis.

    Btw, I do object to the claim that Savita would still be alive if Ireland had the sharia abortion laws. The current laws in Ireland would have been sufficient, and a baby can still be aborted if the mother's life is at risk (as happens in cases of ectopic pregnancies), and so I see her case more of a case of medical mismanagement, and failing to spot that she was at risk soon enough, than anything else.


  • Options
    #120
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,052 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Not G.R wrote: »
    Right. So then why try stop people publishing whatever cartoons they want. If you dont want to or are provented drawing certain cartoons, fine. Limiting others capacity to do so is a HUGE no no. If you're offended, so what.

    The guy threating leagal action against anyone exercising free speech is an out and out scumbag. He should be ridiculed by every section of Irish society.

    That is a very counter-productive attitude. He is not 'threatening legal action against anyone exercising free speech', he is objecting to something he finds offensive. If he feels he has a case, or even if he doesn't, he is entitled to get a legal opinion on something he feels strongly about (though it could be expensive if the court does not agree). Would you prefer if he just lost it and started shooting people to make a point?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Not G.R
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Not G.R


    confusedquark wrote: »
    Right... I suppose Jews who oppose bad humoured publications about the Holocaust would also be considered to be using terrorism? And there are Holocaust denial laws in some countries which could facilitate such "terrorism".

    Freedom of speech is not absolute and it has it's limits, e.g. when it becomes hate speech. Offence is a difficult topic to rule on, and it's hard to draw a line on what is acceptable and what isn't in the public domain, and whether somebody is being ridiculous in claiming offence (and there's been a lengthy discussion dedicated to the topic here - feel free to contribute on it), but there always is a line.

    Oppose is a bit vague. Opposing by saying 'I dont think this is in good taste I wont listen/watch/read your stuff again', No. Opposing by threating legal action or violence against every holocaust joke or cartoon. Yes.

    Of course it's not and of course it is and has to be. Inciment to hatred, blatent racism or discrimination isn't ok and free speech stops at those points. I dont include offence in there as it's just not a vaild stand point in my opinion. If everyone was to take legal action against anyone who offended them society wouldn't work.

    Drawing a picture of Muhammed and slapping it on a Mosque is inciting hatred. Not ok.
    Drawing a picture of Muhammed and publishing it in a private newspaper. All good.

    The guy has every right to be offended by the publication. He doesn't (or at least shouldn't and hopefully, soon won't ) have the right to legally stop someone from saying/doing/writing whatever they want. Within reason.


Advertisement