Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

JL wrote

Quote:

We must keep in mind, however, that not all Muslims believe in the assassination of Islam's critics, only its Islamists fundamentalists, the muslim equivalents of Robertson.

Are all those people rioting in the Moslem world and calling for murder fundamentalists, are all those Moslems who rejoiced when the WTC was bombed fundamentalist, Are all those people who cheer on the suicide bombings and killing of innocents Fundamentalists.
Of cource not they are only a reflection of the mind of the Moslem street.

Let's be honest and place the blame where it belongs.

0 Replies

Lash, I made one of those crucial omissions. I said in my last post that "I also think that the beliefs of one religion should be binding on the behavior of people who do not share that religion's beliefs." I MEANT TO SAY THAT:

"I also think that the beliefs of one religion should NOT be binding on the behavior of people who do not share that religion's beliefs."
In other words I said the opposite of what I meant. What's new?

0 Replies

au1929, you are first person who has suggested that they are not all Islamic fundamentalists. How would YOU characterize the culprits?

0 Replies

JL
Do you think they are?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Freeduck--

I guess that's one way to look at it.

The way I look at it is we have several religions which have been around since the dawn of time, practically. There's only one that feels they have the right to kill people, who criticise their religion. Following that delusion as if it's credible, is a big mistake.

They should be assimilated into the global community.

I guess that is one way to look at it. I don't think most muslims believe that they have the right to kill people who criticise their religion. I think that some muslims believe that they should kill to defend their religion, and that's of course about as wrong as someone can be. But if you look a few pages back at a survey that I posted a link to, you'll find that attributing some wacked out fundamentalist beliefs to the entire muslim world is a mistake.

They also make up a very large portion of the "global community" so I'm not sure what it would mean to assimilate them, other than to convert them, which of course is what they think we want to do, and one of the things that makes them paranoid that we are trying to obliterate their religion, which makes them defensive, etc...

0 Replies

JL
How would I characterize the culprits.

Moslems

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Lash, I understand and agree. I also think that the beliefs of one religion should be binding on the behavior of people who do not share that religion's beliefs. Christians believe that God CAN be depicted. And if they also believe there is only one God, and "Allah" is one of His many names, they believe that "Allah" CAN be depicted. Muslims, however, SHOULD NOT make visual depictions of Allah for that is a proscription of THEIR religion.
Now, am I in danger for saying that? I do think that Pat Robertson has a hit out on me for my bad thoughts. I have no idea how got into my head, but I AM guilty.
We must keep in mind, however, that not all muslims believe in the assasination of Islam's critics, only its Islamists fundamentalists, the muslim equivalents of Robertson.

We are in complete agreement--and that's cool. Cool

FD--

These people you cite in the previous post: I don't think most muslims believe that they have the right to kill people who criticise their religion.

likely don't react in riots. I recognise their existence, but don't think they are the ones we are talking about. Assimilating them means they know, under no uncertain terms, that their outrage at cartoons, while their right, is moot. Just like mine at Cephus' bobbing Jesus on a Cross avatar, and a zillion other daily personal religious outrages.

When the world stops to erase what upsets Christians, Jews, animists, jainists, Jehovah's Witnesses--I'll see to it we also erase what Muslims don't like.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

These people you cite in the previous post: I don't think most muslims believe that they have the right to kill people who criticise their religion.

likely don't react in riots. I recognise their existence, but don't think they are the ones we are talking about. Assimilating them means they know, under no uncertain terms, that their outrage at cartoons, while their right, is moot. Just like mine at Cephus' bobbing Jesus on a Cross avatar, and a zillion other daily personal religious outrages.

Just to be sure, who are we talking about? Just the rioters? Because when you said "there's only one [religion] that feels they have the right to kill people who criticise their religion", I thought you meant muslims in general. Because otherwise, obviously, we have people in almost all the religions who believe that.

Obviously you and I have a lot more experience with what freedom of speech means, and we understand that taking offense is our right but means nothing. I would hazard a guess that that's not the way it works in some other parts of the world.

Quote:

When the world stops to erase what upsets Christians, Jews, animists, jainists, Jehovah's Witnesses--I'll see to it we also erase what Muslims don't like.

If this is what you think I'm advocating then you've misunderstood me.

0 Replies

Good! I'd rather agree with you. I do have a bad habit of speaking in generalizations, when I don't mean to assail large, monolithic groups.

I am under the impression that large numbers of Muslims feel they have the right to kill people who insult Mohammad. I know their book gives them the authorization to kill those who insult Mohammad. These facts do lead me to make generalized statements about "Muslims," while I do know there are many fabulous Muslims, who don't get a lot of face time on CNN. LOL.

It did seem to me this was our issue:

Quote:
When the world stops to erase what upsets Christians, Jews, animists, jainists, Jehovah's Witnesses--I'll see to it we also erase what Muslims don't like.

If this is what you think I'm advocating then you've misunderstood me.
__________________________

Isn't the censure of cartoons that are objectionable to Muslims what you are advocating?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Isn't the censure of cartoons that are objectionable to Muslims what you are advocating?

No.

FreeDuck wrote:

The cartoonist had a right to draw it, the papers had a right to publish it, but I believe their motive was to offend, to provoke, to flip the proverbial bird to every muslim in the world. And that was stupid. So is rioting.

0 Replies

In a charged situation it would be wiser to mute or reschedule the matter.

0 Replies

Exactly.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Isn't the censure of cartoons that are objectionable to Muslims what you are advocating?

Calling something stupid isn't the same as calling for it to be censored.

FreeDuck called the original publication of the cartoon (or rather, the motivation of the newspaper to do so, provocation) stupid, and I agree.

Thats not the same as calling for it to be censored - as FD already said in the sentence right before.

Funny that this misunderstanding even comes up at all, after, for one, all the discussion we had with Momma Angel's like recently.

She would say that we tried to dictate her what to do or say or pray when one of us said that we thought what she did do or say or pray was stupid. (Example). It made me say,

Quote:

What on earth is it about [fill in: a certain group of Christians, conservatives, truth-out'ers] that they systematically interpret criticism of something they do as an attempt to dictate, silence or stifle them?

Whatever it is, it's something that people across the board seem to have a problem understanding.

I think the action of Jyllands Posten was stupid. I think it was a bad idea. I also think that anyone who tries to prohibit a paper from publishing bad ideas is stupid too. (Let alone those who then want to burn or bomb the newspaper).

0 Replies

censure--harsh criticism or disapproval

0 Replies

Awright, got it.

So OK - I'd "censure" the newspaper's decision to publish a series of cartoons of the Prophet purely to "test the limits of press freedom" on two grounds. One is domestic and the other international.

My criticism in a domestic (Danish) context would be that I think it's impolite/insensitive, and I tend to frown upon impoliteness vis-a-vis a minority that's already much put upon (as Muslims in Denmark are) much more than vis-a-vis an established majority religion (like Christianity in our countries).

My criticism in the international context is that I think it was rather reckless and irresponsible to publish them when they knew that the depiction of the Prophet is considered blasphemy by Muslims and, in the current high tension already prevailing between Muslim and Christian countries, such a thing was bound to provoke uproar and violence all over the place.

Not saying that the uproar or violence is justified in any way - just that it was predictable. And it seems silly to actually go pick a fight with countries in the Middle East over something like a bunch of cartoons, when there's so many weighty things that have to be tackled quite urgently between "us" and "them" already.

So those would be my two problems with the original publication of the cartoon.

Needless to say, my problems with those now burning embassies and the like are much bigger - but one thing at a time.

Now, does any of the above equate, in your view, with thinking that Muslims should be "coddled"? Because I dont see that, myself.

0 Replies

Yes.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

censure--harsh criticism or disapproval

My bad, I read it "censor". In that case yes, I disapprove of the motive behind the cartoons -- having only heard verbal descriptions of the others, which sound worse to me. I also disapprove of rioting and setting embassies on fire.

0 Replies

I don't see how what nimh says equates to advocating coddling muslims either.

0 Replies

This equates with Affirmative Action for me--or some paternalistic hand holding for people who can't do for themselves.

To save us time with unnecessary indignation, there was a time when AA was necessary, but there is also a time for people to stand on their own and make their way.

I think it's 2006, and the Muslims can get used to the world as it is, just like the rest of us.

The longer we act as though they can't tolerate reality, the longer they CAN'T tolerate reality.

Eh. MO, anyway.

0 Replies

There seems to be some kind of disconnect. Both nimh and I have said we disapprove of the muslim reaction, which seems to me that we are saying they should get used to the world as it is, just like the rest of us.

That doesn't excuse the provocation.

0 Replies

Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know