Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

So you're saying that certain skin colours should be made fun of, if it weren't for the fact that people had no choice in the matter? Gotcha.

I think he's saying that criticizing someone based on a physical trait is silly and obviously wrong, since a physical trait in and of itself has no bearing on that person's character. The size of someone's eyes, or the length of someone's fingers has nothing to do with a person's character for obvious reasons. A religion is something that is taught and/or chosen, and most religions consider themselves a type of "philosophy" and/or "way of life" which means that it *does* affect someone's character and how they behave, so it can be discussed in that context.

 

[Chairman Yang]

That is from Ibn Ishaq's Seerah, which isn't considered to be legitimate by Muslim scholars. So if Muslims don't consider it legitimate, it would clearly be wrong for them to follow it.

So if any Muslim were to follow that, they would be doubly misguided. Did I spell doubly right? Is it even a proper word?

It's not particularly important if Muslim scholars consider the murder to be "legitimate" or not. It's what actually happened in history (if you look at the Wikipedia link I posted, there are other sources).

It's not as if Asma bint Marwan's murder was an isolated incident, either. When you look at the other dissenters who were killed in early Islamic history, it makes for a disturbing pattern.

 

[Cooter]

So you're saying that certain skin colours should be made fun of, if it weren't for the fact that people had no choice in the matter? Gotcha.

Did you not read what I said. I said the fact that one person is of a different skin color doesn't matter. I'm saying you look like a fool making fun of a person's skin color because they are no different from you.

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

I think he's saying that criticizing someone based on a physical trait is silly and obviously wrong, since a physical trait in and of itself has no bearing on that person's character. The size of someone's eyes, or the length of someone's fingers has nothing to do with a person's character for obvious reasons. A religion is something that is taught and/or chosen, and most religions consider themselves a type of "philosophy" and/or "way of life" which means that it *does* affect someone's character and how they behave, so it can be discussed in that context.

Yeah, I knew what he meant. I just picked on him because it seems like every time people try to distinguish racism they include that statement, which is retarded (I don't even know if I'm making any sense here).

 

[FightyF]

Sure. I don't read a lot of the anti-Jeweerrrranti-Israeli propaganda that comes from certain "grassroots" origins myself, nor do my Jewish and Israeli friends.

Being anti-Zionist and anti-occupation does not make one anti-Jewish.

Missing the entire point post of the day. You are suggesting not printing something because it offends people. If that were the standard not much would get printed period. The fact that a certain religion is more sensitive than others doesn’t give them special privlages others don’t have. It's a free speech and tolerance issue.

No, I'm suggesting that major papers should be factual. That's all. There can be opinions and editorials, but they must be based on fact, not fiction.

If a paper in Iran or Egypt printed the most vile and disgusting portrayal of Jesus Christians would brush it off and ignore it. Why can’t Muslims do the same? That is the question.

No they wouldn't. Just look at the reaction in one of the links LizardKing posted, and it wasn't even a sizable paper that did it. And the reaction was proper, they sought legal means went for it. What is wrong with reacting if they feel they were wronged?

Heck, I got death threats when I spoke out against the Invasion of Iraq on TV. I mean, I didn't offend anyone, but hey, you still get an extremist reaction from a crazy minority.

And again...why should we ignore bigotry? Ignoring racism, bigotry, and ignorance will only allow it to fester.

Well this is where we both agree. The next step for the Danes are a series of Muslim death camps.

Read more on the history of Nazi Germany and then come back to me. Death camps came years after what initially what you would define as harmless media ridicule. There were many events that led to a widespread intolerance for Jews.

Death Camps were not a result of this intolerance...from what I know it had more to do with Hitler and a few crazies.

What I'm talking about is the extreme intolerance fueled by ignorance, propagated by the media.

Muslims should not ignore this. The whole purpose of that Jyllands Posten piece was to offend Muslims, and claim that they shouldn't be offended as this is part of a democracy.

What's next, purposely offending Hindus with gross inaccuracies and telling them that they should sit well with it?

Here's a few open questions to Cooter, CYang, and MAlien...what's wrong in asking the Jyllands-Posten in having a rational debate about it?

If they did decide to print it, shouldn't they have kept themselves open to dialogue?

If a paper decides to purposely print something false, shouldn't they be held accountable if they refuse to print a correction?

Should people be fine with libel and slander, even if the target it long dead?

 

[FightyF]

It's not particularly important if Muslim scholars consider the murder to be "legitimate" or not. It's what actually happened in history (if you look at the Wikipedia link I posted, there are other sources).

But then you claim that it is an example set by Muhammed, but if clearly no Muslims believe that to be true, how can it be an example?

Start making sense, man.

It's not as if Asma bint Marwan's murder was an isolated incident, either. When you look at the other dissenters who were killed in early Islamic history, it makes for a disturbing pattern.

They were all from the same source. The "pattern" you speak of, is considered fabricated.

And this is what Muslims believe, and so if anyone claimed they did so because this is part of Muslim beliefs, they have no religious backing and no argument.

 

[APF]

Being anti-Zionist and anti-occupation does not make one anti-Jewish.

Exactly! Which is why I made a point to call it anti-Jeweerrrranti-Israeli propaganda, and not anti-Jewish propaganda. Although a lot of that exists as well. And from the same people.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

But then you claim that it is an example set by Muhammed, but if clearly no Muslims believe that to be true, how can it be an example?

Start making sense, man.

This is an excellent point where a lot of arguments fall flat on their face. What's relevant is Muslims' actions. If I can show adequate proof from the muhaddithun and from the fiqh jurists over the last 10 centuries that this report was never considered and that Ibn Ishaq was never a reliable narrator in the chain analysis, then the report has no effectual basis in Islam.

And all history of Islam adopted by Westerners comes from Muslims. We use the same sources as Bernard Lewis or some historical dude, it's just that what we consider an effectual ruling in Islam is much more stringent, provided that you follow the Sunni traditionalist thought stringently.

The only way to attack the argument is attack sanad as a means of verification, and I've had my share of debates with that. I've pretty much read the prominent criticisms in and out (I can't say I read everything, because it would be incorrect to say you know or read everything), and there are general topics that these criticisms fall into.

So if you want to argue on the basis of Sunni Islamic thought, you're pretty much asking to shoot yourself in the foot. But if you don't argue on the basis of that thought, what Muslism are you talking about that act consistently with this story? Some Muslims beleive this, and some Muslims believe that. You'd have to prove a link between the story and the Muslims doing the action, and prove that this is the prime incentive for Muslims reacting violently. And 'Muslims' isn't good enough, you'd have to specify which Muslims are acting consistently, and see if they fall in line?

If you're arguing on the basis of X-line of thought, and I believe Y-methodology based on premises one, two, and three, you won't get anywhere. You'd systematicalyl have to prove my premises wrong for any argument to have any affect on FFF, or even me.

To say Ibn Ishaq is "canonical history" and treat it as an authentic work is just asking for trouble, because if you study historical context and the age in which narrations were authenticated, this is an extremely hard thing to prove.

What CY brought up was the typical polemical argument that's used often for propagandistic purposes (preferably by secular fundamentalists).

 

[Peru]

The Danish cartoon makers are at fault. You don't go around freely insulting things people hold dear without expecting repercussions. Do I agree with the violent response of the Muslims? No. But would their be this sort of reaction without the initial provocative action? No.

The original cartoons were part of a project of depicting Muhammad, inviting cartoonists to do their version freely. The "provocative action" is so weak that the unbelievable magnitude of the responses more clearly than ever show that a few islamic organizations, leaders, figureheads have way too much power; such leaders in Denmark alerted colleagues in the Middle-East who then proceded with blowing the case up to the nth degree to their citizens, provoking reactions not proportional to the actual provocation.

 

[cybamerc]

You have to recognize that there were multiple reactions:

You are as clueless as you are extremist.

You are not Danish, you don't live in Denmark and you have, at best, an extremely distorted view of the actual occurences.

After they printed the cartoons, Muslim leaders and organizations called for an international letter writing campaign to the paper.

The cartoons were published September 30. The first official response came on October 12 when 11 ambassadors wrote the Danish Prime Minister and urged him to take legal action against the news paper. The ambassadors also requested a meeting where these legal actions could be discussed. The Prime Minister responded in a letter on October 21 stating that he is no position to take action against the news paper. He advised the ambassadors to take the matter to court. As such the meeting was denied.

The paper, for months, ignored these letters and acted as if they didn't exist.

This is simply not true.

The reaction to that, was to speak to the Danish government, and the government was unwilling to meet.

The sad thing is, that you could easily find out the proper order of events by looking at Wikipedia for example but instead you decide to regurtitate this disgusting propaganda.

And then some Danish Muslims sought legal action, which was unfairly turned down.

No, what then happened is that during the month of December a bunch of imams and other islamic extremist travel to the middle east in order to stir up trouble. They bring the cartoons published in JyllandsPosten and a bunch of new ones they made up themselves.

As a result of this, we see a boycott against Danish goods in many muslim countries and eventually the situation escalates beyond the control of many regimes in the middle east. There are flag burnings, embassies are set on fire, Danish citizens are being threatened and so on.

Of course the imams deny that this was their intention but among them are several known terrorist sympathisers such as Abu Laban who was spoke favorably of the boycott on Aljazeera. This is what people such as yourself know as taqiyya.

Incidentally the trial against the two responsible editors at JyllandsPosten started this week.

[snip - more BS]

 

[Chairman Yang]

But then you claim that it is an example set by Muhammed, but if clearly no Muslims believe that to be true, how can it be an example?

1. I didn't claim it was "an example set by Muhammad". I simply said that, historically, Muhammad did certain actions, and that some current Muslims do similar actions.

Start making sense, man.

I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting my argument (as you've done in the past) or I'm just explaining it poorly. I'm not saying that Muslims look at Muhammad's killing of dissenters and imitate him. I'm saying that Muhammad, a follower of Islam, did kill dissenters, and that many modern Muslims have similar attitudes.

Again, it's not Muslims imitating Muhammed. It's Muhammad and Muslims both acting from a similar source--namely, that they have exclusive claim to the truth and that any other claims are worthless at best, dangerous at worst.

They were all from the same source. The "pattern" you speak of, is considered fabricated.

According to the Wikipedia link there was more than one source. Could you clarify?

And this is what Muslims believe, and so if anyone claimed they did so because this is part of Muslim beliefs, they have no religious backing and no argument.

They may or may not have any religious backing. That's not particularly my concern. My issue is whether people who claim to follow the Islamic religion have a higher incidence of intolerance or silencing dissenters than average.

 

[Chairman Yang]

This is an excellent point where a lot of arguments fall flat on their face. What's relevant is Muslims' actions. If I can show adequate proof from the muhaddithun and from the fiqh jurists over the last 10 centuries that this report was never considered and that Ibn Ishaq was never a reliable narrator in the chain analysis, then the report has no effectual basis in Islam.

And all history of Islam adopted by Westerners comes from Muslims. We use the same sources as Bernard Lewis or some historical dude, it's just that what we consider an effectual ruling in Islam is much more stringent, provided that you follow the Sunni traditionalist thought stringently.

The only way to attack the argument is attack sanad as a means of verification, and I've had my share of debates with that. I've pretty much read the prominent criticisms in and out (I can't say I read everything, because it would be incorrect to say you know or read everything), and there are general topics that these criticisms fall into.

I don't disagree with your points here. On the other hand, I think you're arguing against something I'm not arguing for.

So if you want to argue on the basis of Sunni Islamic thought, you're pretty much asking to shoot yourself in the foot. But if you don't argue on the basis of that thought, what Muslism are you talking about that act consistently with this story? Some Muslims beleive this, and some Muslims believe that. You'd have to prove a link between the story and the Muslims doing the action, and prove that this is the prime incentive for Muslims reacting violently. And 'Muslims' isn't good enough, you'd have to specify which Muslims are acting consistently, and see if they fall in line?

We discussed the practical difficulties of "proving" someone did something for a particular reason in the last big thread like this. Unfortunately, I only have the imperfect evidence out there to make my judgements on.

There seems to be a clear pattern throughout history of people attempting to silence dissenters to their power. If a group of those in power happens to have the backing of a religion (that claims exclusive truth), it seems dishonest to say that the religion cannot exacerbate that oppression of dissenters. I would be surprised if you disagree with this.

Now, the big issue here is, does Islam follow this trend as well? From what I've seen, it does.

If you're arguing on the basis of X-line of thought, and I believe Y-methodology based on premises one, two, and three, you won't get anywhere. You'd systematicalyl have to prove my premises wrong for any argument to have any affect on FFF, or even me.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Could you rephrase this?

To say Ibn Ishaq is "canonical history" and treat it as an authentic work is just asking for trouble, because if you study historical context and the age in which narrations were authenticated, this is an extremely hard thing to prove.

What CY brought up was the typical polemical argument that's used often for propagandistic purposes (preferably by secular fundamentalists).

All of early history is "an extremely hard thing to prove". All I know is that mainstream historical scholars seem to agree (and Wikipedia does too) that there were at least some killings of those who satirized against Islam.

Can you see why I'd be very skeptical of claims that no such killings happened, when other such killings by other religious groups were regular throughout history? When satire/poetry were both heavily political tools in the Islamic world around that time, and thus would draw a lot of attention and rage? When such events just happen to cast a bad light on Muhammad, a figure obviously revered by an overwhelmingly huge array of historians throughout the region's history?

 

[The Stealth Fox]

1. I didn't claim it was "an example set by Muhammad". I simply said that, historically, Muhammad did certain actions, and that some current Muslims do similar actions.



I can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting my argument (as you've done in the past) or I'm just explaining it poorly. I'm not saying that Muslims look at Muhammad's killing of dissenters and imitate him. I'm saying that Muhammad, a follower of Islam, did kill dissenters, and that many modern Muslims have similar attitudes.

Again, it's not Muslims imitating Muhammed. It's Muhammad and Muslims both acting from a similar source--namely, that they have exclusive claim to the truth and that any other claims are worthless at best, dangerous at worst.

See, this is what I don't get. So alright, let me outline your argument:

1. Muslims do X.

2. Muhammad (based on my opinion and sources) did X.

Now, one would think you're trying to show that they follow Muhammad by doing X. But you're not claiming this. What exactly are you claiming?

Edit: Okay, I'm trying to figure out how it follows that "an exclusive claim to truth" leads to killings as a result of criticism from the following citations.

You're trying to offer a "constructive" critique of Islam, but I have no idea what you're critiquing. If you're trying to constructively critique Islam, it follows that you'd have to define what Islam is. Now, which perspective of Islam are you talking from, Shi'i, Sunni, or whatever? You were previously arguing on the veracity of the source, and you also consistenly brought up Muslims reaction.

Most of us reading this would assume that you're trying to prove a link between Muslims actions and the event. So please, tell me what claim you're trying to prove here? That there are some nutso Muslims that do bad things? That there are some aberrant reports in the corpus of Islamic history? I don't understand.

According to the Wikipedia link there was more than one source. Could you clarify?

Right, but from my knowledge, they follow the same chain. There are numerous cases of branched reports in the corpus of hadith and Seerah, and there have been numerous occurences where the link between the branched chains has been disproven (that is, shown to be unreliable because no one know where that guy's claim to information came from), rendering all reports coming from people after that chain useless. And this isn't "apologetic", it's used for even the most practical rulings that even wouldn't be detrimental to Islam.

In many cases, you'll see jurists rule against something that sounds nice, just because there's no evidence for it.

 

[FightyF]

Again, it's not Muslims imitating Muhammed. It's Muhammad and Muslims both acting from a similar source--namely, that they have exclusive claim to the truth and that any other claims are worthless at best, dangerous at worst.

So now you're claiming a source tells them to do so? What source is this?

They may or may not have any religious backing. That's not particularly my concern. My issue is whether people who claim to follow the Islamic religion have a higher incidence of intolerance or silencing dissenters than average.

Than average? On what basis do you make this claim? There are so many people in this world killed for their beliefs and statements from all sorts of backgrounds, killed by people from all sorts of backgrounds. Heck, in the 1st page of the OT thread you have people over-reacting on a college campus and you have a journalist killed ...and they aren't from Muslim extremists.

The fact that this extreme reaction is only a minority in the Muslim world speaks volumes against your assertion.

Quick GAF Poll (just need one vote), should I waste my time with cybermerc's post or can you all see through it as well? It'll just take one responsing vote from someone not engaged in this thread to get me to respond.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

All of early history is "an extremely hard thing to prove". All I know is that mainstream historical scholars seem to agree (and Wikipedia does too) that there were at least some killings of those who satirized against Islam.

Look, I don't think it was solely done for the satire. But that's not the crux of my argument right now.

What's a mainstream historical scholar? I care about claims and evidence. Keep in mind, I'm not asking for 100% videotape evidence. When dealing with previous claims, I tend to use confidence levels. And this is what sanad analysis does. So if Joe Schmoe appeals to the same sources as Muslims, and both come out with radically different conclusions, well, we'd have to explore the nature of the conclusions, then, wouldn't we?

Sadly though, sanad analysis has gotten a bad rap due to misunderstanding by prominent orientalist scholars. But it's surprising though, some newer orientalist scholars have actually defended sanad as a means of historical authentication recently within the last decade, and they will accept everything short of a miracle. Either way, this is getting off track.

I'm awaiting your response to my previous post, so maybe I can get down what you're trying to prove here.

Can you see why I'd be very skeptical of claims that no such killings happened, when other such killings by other religious groups were regular throughout history?

Well, the issue is not whether killings occured. Sure, Muhammad (pbuh) killed people. What we care about is reasoning.

When satire/poetry were both heavily political tools in the Islamic world around that time, and thus would draw a lot of attention and rage? When such events just happen to cast a bad light on Muhammad, a figure obviously revered by an overwhelmingly huge array of historians throughout the region's history?

Well, you could look at political climate, for one thing. But either way, I really don't care what other historians think about Muhammad. They could say that he was the most perfect being on earth (or the most terrible being on earth) and it still wouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I'm not sure I understand you here. Could you rephrase this?

I'm trying to state that with your current method of argumentation, you won't convince anyone.

Edit: But it seems that you've clarified that you intend to show that "exclusive claims to truth" lead to "killings as a result of satire". So then this makes a twist, because reading your previous posts, this point was not clear. It seemed that you were trying to prove what FFF was saying. At least, within the context of the thread, that's what it seemed like.

Oh wells.

 

[Sonki.]

Chairman Yang's bias is so obvious. It shines through his posts... Much like there is with FFF's.


The fact of the matter is... The cartoon's were done in BAD TASTE.. the reaction was in BAD TASTE.

Let these people die.

 

[Tamanon]

So you actually want to listen to what I have to say?

Look, I've had many "flame wars" or "debates" on forums and NOTHING good comes from it. All I could do is laugh in this situation. I thought what you said was ridiculous IMO. I say "IMO" because a lot of stupid people think the way you do.

The cartoonist's are to blame (notice I say "cartoonist's" as to "Danes" as that would be generalizing). Simple as that.

It's not "Freedom of Speech" to totally disrespect a religion's belief... It's hate speech.

Do I like the way the "Muslims" reacted after many attempts to get the cartoon removed? NO... But then again.. who would listen?

So you would agree that any poster here that disrespects Christianity is a bigot and participating in Hate Speech right?

 

[Sonki.]

So you would agree that any poster here that disrespects Christianity is a bigot and participating in Hate Speech right?

Yes.... if that person is without valid reasoning or facts to back there claim. Much like the cartoonists were implying.

 

[kojacker]

I find jokes about all religions funny, if the joke is actually funny. The original Danish cartoons were lame. But I find it even more funny when stupid people get offended.

OMG This cartoon portrays us as violent murders. Lets form a mob to burn down their embassy and get a fatwa issued.

Personally I think anyone who can believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Budha, etc deserves to be ridiculed. Ofcourse, you will have your revenge when I'm burning in hell/wherever.

 

[jehuty]

The cartoons by the danes are a stupid idea. They made the cartoon for the sole purpose of aggrivating muslims and then saying its their free speech. These cartoons were done in bad taste, period.

And since when did taking something you believed in seriously become a crime? Just beacuse a majority of christians blow off their faith until something bad happens to them doesnt mean that muslims must also act in that manner. It may seem odd to us in the western world to hold some values serious, but the way we operate doesnt translate to much of the world. I'm not saying that violence is the right response to a problem, but sometimes, its the only way to get a response ( i.e palestine, cuba, and even the founding of the U.S). You fight for what you believe in. Thats human nature.

 

[dasein]

The Danes?

The question, sir, should be, "WTF is wrong with the Muslims?"

You should've at least said Islamic extremist fundamentalists. By saying that about all Muslims only reveals your ignorance.

Same applies for any other religion

 

[Sonki.]

I find jokes about all religions funny, if the joke is actually funny. The original Danish cartoons were lame. But I find it even more funny when stupid people get offended.

OMG This cartoon portrays us as violent murders. Lets form a mob to burn down their embassy and get a fatwa issued.

Personally I think anyone who can believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Budha, etc deserves to be ridiculed. Ofcourse, you will have your revenge when I'm burning in hell/wherever.

Personally... your last comment was not needed in this thread...that's a whole different ballpark. (I'm hoping this thread dies, cause it's wasting my time).

 

[Pellham]

Seriously just stfu, do you expect muslims to just stay quiet and listen to the insults against the religion?

If every other major religion stays quiet and doesn't do shit like destroy embassies and murder people when they get insulted, then yes, Muslims should be civilized and do the same. Is it really that hard?

Being anti-Zionist and anti-occupation does not make one anti-Jewish.

Maybe so, but being anti-zionist and anti-occupation means anti-peace and pro-murdering/forceful eviction of the millions of Israelis. Gee didn't we see this when Hitler was around?

Give it up, you're not going to force non-muslims out of the middle east just because you and a billion other people don't think they belong there. Learn to live in mother****ing peace with each other.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

You should've at least said Islamic extremist fundamentalists. By saying that about all Muslims only reveals your ignorance.

Islamic fundamentalists aren't extremists. To be an extremist you have to be part of a tiny minority, by definition. Islamic fundamentalists are mainstream.

Same applies for any other religion

I don't like Christianity much, but at least it's gone through the Renaissance. Christian fundamentalists are extremists in most countries (this is less true in the USA and some Eastern European countries). The same can't be said for Muslims, who, for the most part, still live in the Middle Ages.

 

[kojacker]

Personally... your last comment was not needed in this thread...that's a whole different ballpark. (I'm hoping this thread dies, cause it's wasting my time).

You're probably right, but I was too lazy to think that much about it when I wrote it and I'm too lazy to change it now!

 

[FightyF]

If every other major religion stays quiet and doesn't do shit like destroy embassies and murder people when they get insulted, then yes, Muslims should be civilized and do the same. Is it really that hard?

So your saying that the violence is a result of the religion?

The fact is, the violence comes from poor uneducated areas of the World. The fact that YOU blame religion, rather than their socio-economic condition is pure ignorance.

You didn't see any unreasonable response from Muslim Universities...even in these poor nations. You only saw around 3000 people in one Pakistani city, 8000 in another...in a place that has a population that is half of the States.

So despite knowing this (if you didn't, you certainly should have before typing a post in this thread)...you decide to blame a religion...interesting...

Maybe so, but being anti-zionist and anti-occupation means anti-peace and pro-murdering/forceful eviction of the millions of Israelis.

:lol :lol :lol

The same can't be said for Muslims, who, for the most part, still live in the Middle Ages.

Because they live in poor countries? You'll need to explain your logic here...if there is any.

 

[GSG Flash]

If every other major religion stays quiet and doesn't do shit like destroy embassies and murder people when they get insulted, then yes, Muslims should be civilized and do the same. Is it really that hard?

Ummm I was talking about this thread

I don't know why everyone keeps on arguing as if every muslim went out there and started rioting and killing innocents. I agree that the response by SOME muslims was unnecessary and definitely out of line.

And what you people keep on defending as free speech is pathetic. The fact of the matter is that the drawings were unnecessary provocation without any valid reasoning for it, which would make it hate speech. I'm all for free speech, but if you wanna defend free speech you have to defend other things as free speech too, what if I start spewing out hate against homosexuals on this forum, that's free speech according to most of you guys isn't it? Then why should I face repercussions?

Plus, it is obvious that many muslims are hot heads and they can't take much as you saw from all the rioting and as ashamed as I am to say that, so why go and provoke them even further with that knowledge? I know I was offended with the drawings, but I didn't go out and started blowing up my neighbours cars or start breaking windows, I just vented my frustration out on the internet, so with that, please stop bundling all muslims into one and also please stop attacking Islam with baseless statements because chances are, 99% of you guys don't know almost anything about Islam.

As George Bernard Shaw once said "Islam is the best religion and the muslims are the worst followers"

 

[malek4980]

And what you people keep on defending as free speech is pathetic. The fact of the matter is that the drawings were unnecessary provocation without any valid reasoning for it, which would make it hate speech. I'm all for free speech, but if you wanna defend free speech you have to defend other things as free speech too, what if I start spewing out hate against homosexuals on this forum, that's free speech according to most of you guys isn't it? Then why should I face repercussions?

As George Bernard Shaw once said "Islam is the best religion and the muslims are the worst followers"

People who champion freedom of speech and freedom of expression are usually against hate speech laws. That is if they are consistent. Believing that people should express their opinions, unless those opinions are x, y, z, doesn't make you much of an advocate for free speech. You're for speech unless you really find it distasteful. The problem is what people find distasteful changes over time. Maybe having any opinion that is against organized religion will also be lumped in with hate speech down the road. Can I make cartoons that mock Xenu? You claim that mocking Mohamed is hate speech, so where is your line?

I would personally not ban people for expressing their opinions on a forum (unless they trolled or spammed etc.) but this is a private message board and the people who run it can limit speech all they want. Posting on a private site is not a right.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Because they live in poor countries? You'll need to explain your logic here...if there is any.

Take the average 12th century Christian and the average 21st century Christian, and compare them. You can see how maintream Christianity has changed to accomodate modern ethical values, modern science, modern politics, etc. Countries where Christianity is the dominant religion are almost all democracies where education and information are available to all, where human rights are respected, and where there is a strict separation of church and state.

Now compare the average 12th century Muslim to his 21st century counterpart. The differences are comparatively negligible. Muslim societies have for the most part stagnated for centuries.

 

[GSG Flash]

People who champion freedom of speech and freedom of expression are usually against hate speech laws. That is if they are consistent. Believing that people should express their opinions, unless those opinions are x, y, z, doesn't make you much of an advocate for free speech. You're for speech unless you really find it distasteful. The problem is what people find distasteful changes over time. Maybe having any opinion that is against organized religion will also be lumped in with hate speech down the road. Can I make cartoons that mock Xenu? You claim that mocking Mohamed is hate speech, so where is your line?

I would personally not ban people for expressing their opinions on a forum (unless they trolled or spammed etc.) but this is a private message board and the people who run it can limit speech all they want. Posting on a private site is not a right.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

Ok yes I'm for speech that won't offend anyone because frankly I'm not a shit disturber and if I do say something that might offend someone, I do it with a valid argument, or one that I feel is valid. I believe if you say something offensive without a good reasoning behind it, as these cartoonists did through their drawings, then they should also face any repercussions that come with it because there are people out there who will not like what they expressed and will do dumb shit that will end up costing the lives of innocents.

 

[APF]

The fact is, the violence comes from poor uneducated areas of the World. The fact that YOU blame religion, rather than their socio-economic condition is pure ignorance.

This is a good point. Western nations: if you don't want more violence, first don't say anything we may take as criticism; second, pay us tribute.

$$$


[Edit for GSG Flash: I think their reasoning was validated by the violent reaction to the cartoons; QED.]

 

[The Stealth Fox]

This is a good point. Western nations: if you don't want more violence, first don't say anything we may take as criticism; second, pay us tribute.

$$$

If I had a picture of a straw-man I would most certainly post it here.

 

[APF]

If I had a picture of a straw-man I would most certainly post it here.

It's not so much a straw man as it is an unfair interpretation...

(that has a kernel of truth in it, IMO)

 

[GSG Flash]

[Edit for GSG Flash: I think their reasoning was validated by the violent reaction to the cartoons; QED.]

What about when the cartoons were first published? Was there any valid reason to go after Islam and offend billions of muslims?

 

[malek4980]

Ok yes I'm for speech that won't offend anyone because frankly I'm not a shit disturber and if I do say something that might offend someone, I do it with a valid argument, or one that I feel is valid. I believe if you say something offensive without a good reasoning behind it, as these cartoonists did through their drawings, then they should also face any repercussions that come with it because there are people out there who will not like what they expressed and will do dumb shit that will end up costing the lives of innocents.

It is not likely that all your opinions are somehow inoffensive to every single person. Anyway just because you choose to be inoffensive doesn't mean everyone has to follow your bland lead. If everyone followed your lead we would be an intellectually poorer world. The point of freedom of speech isn't simply to allow speech you agree with. That is no freedom at all.

The original cartoons did have a point. Religions or any belief systems are not above criticism. Islam in particular tries to silence its critics, through whatever means necessary, and the cartoonists would not allow this to happen.

Why must you face any repercussions for drawing a cartoon? Are we so silly?

 

[MrToughPants]

Setting off a nuke is the last thing Al Qaeda wants to do. :lol

 

[GSG Flash]

It is not likely that all your opinions are somehow inoffensive to every single person. Anyway just because you choose to be inoffensive doesn't mean everyone has to follow your bland lead. If everyone followed your lead we would be an intellectually poorer world. The point of freedom of speech isn't simply to allow speech you agree with. That is no freedom at all.

The original cartoons did have a point. Religions or any belief systems are not above criticism. Islam in particular tries to silence its critics, through whatever means necessary, and the cartoonists would not allow this to happen.

Why must you face any repercussions for drawing a cartoon? Are we so silly?

I'm not gonna say all my opinions are inoffensive but some are, but when I express them and argue for them, I do it with valid reasoning. The reason that you stated for the caroons is not in my opinion valid enough and not to mention that images of the prophet are disallowed in Islam and the extra demoralizing of him that the cartoonists did was just insult to injury.

 

[APF]

What about when the cartoons were first published? Was there any valid reason to go after Islam and offend billions of muslims?

The whole thing started as acting-out/a pseudo-protest against censorship (by-acts-of-violence or fear of threats thereof) in the first place!

 

[malek4980]

I'm not gonna say all my opinions are inoffensive but some are, but when I express them and argue for them, I do it with valid reasoning. The reason that you stated for the caroons is not in my opinion valid enough and not to mention that images of the prophet are disallowed in Islam and the extra demoralizing of him that the cartoonists did was just insult to injury.

Neither I nor the cartoonists have any ethical duty to follow the prescripts of Islam. I won't be told that I can't eat pork by Jews or eat meat on Friday by Catholics. The good Muslim doesn't have to draw any cartoons of Uncle Mo, the good Jew doesn't have to eat pork and the good Catholic doesn't have to eat meat on Friday. But the good Muslim, the good Jew and the good Catholic can all **** off if they think I'm following any of their stupid taboos.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I'm not gonna say all my opinions are inoffensive but some are, but when I express them and argue for them, I do it with valid reasoning. The reason that you stated for the caroons is not in my opinion valid enough and not to mention that images of the prophet are disallowed in Islam and the extra demoralizing of him that the cartoonists did was just insult to injury.

One thing you'll tend to learn with people in the West: there are going to be nice, kind and understanding people, and then there are going to be assholes who are protected by the law and mask their vacuous statements in labels such as 'valid scholarship and criticism'.

You'll learn to deal with both. When on campus, I sure as hell deal with both without getting riled up.

Now, if some Muslims act nuts, it's because they don't understand how big of an asshole a person could be. And in turn, they themselves look like assholes.

So in the end, cartoonists win, everyone else loses. We just gotta deal with it and operate within the law of the land.

 

[Boogie]

Neither I nor the cartoonists have any ethical duty to follow the prescripts of Islam. I won't be told that I can't eat pork by Jews or eat meat on Friday by Catholics. The good Muslim doesn't have to draw any cartoons of Uncle Mo, the good Jew doesn't have to eat pork and the good Catholic doesn't have to eat meat on Friday. But the good Muslim, the good Jew and the good Catholic can all **** off if they think I'm following any of their stupid taboos.

Amen

 

[Chairman Yang]

See, this is what I don't get. So alright, let me outline your argument:

1. Muslims do X.

2. Muhammad (based on my opinion and sources) did X.

Now, one would think you're trying to show that they follow Muhammad by doing X. But you're not claiming this. What exactly are you claiming?

1. Muslims and Muhammad did X.
2. Without Islam or another faith-based philosophy (especially any ideology that claims it is true to the exclusion of all else), it is possible they may not have done X.
3. Therefore, Islam may be to blame in certain cases of X happening.

Now you may say that there is no textual support for X. That's irrelevant to my particular argument here, however. Think of a person as a "black box"--you don't know what's going on in their head. You simply see inputs (biological makeup, personality, ideology, etc.) and outputs (the person's actions). Now if one of their actions is something bad, and the only difference in their input from someone else who doesn't commit the bad action is Islam, I think you'll agree that Islam is to blame in that particular case.

The real argument here is whether Islam, in the modern world, is an input which makes people commit more bad acts than if that input didn't exist. You can argue (and you have, and others have as well) that it's not Islam that's the factor here, but other inputs (like poverty, lack of political freedom, etc.). However, I have yet to be convinced that other inputs are responsible for ALL of these bad actions, and that Islam is responsible for NONE.

That's my basic argument. Let me know if you'd like me to clarify further.

You're trying to offer a "constructive" critique of Islam, but I have no idea what you're critiquing. If you're trying to constructively critique Islam, it follows that you'd have to define what Islam is. Now, which perspective of Islam are you talking from, Shi'i, Sunni, or whatever? You were previously arguing on the veracity of the source, and you also consistenly brought up Muslims reaction.

We've talked about this before. My definition of "Muslim" is the only one I think is workable for purposes of this discussion. That is, I consider Muslim those who consider themselves Muslim. That's it.

Most of us reading this would assume that you're trying to prove a link between Muslims actions and the event. So please, tell me what claim you're trying to prove here? That there are some nutso Muslims that do bad things? That there are some aberrant reports in the corpus of Islamic history? I don't understand.

Yes, I think that some Muslims do bad things because of Islam. I don't claim to know the specific thing in the religion that makes them crazy (I've made some guesses, but I'm by no means a scholar of Islam and simultaneously a scholar of psychology, neuroscience, sociology, etc. that would be able to pinpoint such a thing), but the events in the world, and the factors behind them, lead me to believe that at least some of these people would not have committed their crazy acts without the presence of Islam.

I'd honestly be surprised if you didn't agree with me here. Do you think that there's not a single person who committed a bad act because of the presence of the Islamic religion (regardless of whether their act was in accordance with Islam)?

The real argument you should be trying to make, in my opinion, is that although Islam (again, defined as what Muslims THINK is Islam) has negative effects, it's benefits outweigh its disadvantages.

Right, but from my knowledge, they follow the same chain. There are numerous cases of branched reports in the corpus of hadith and Seerah, and there have been numerous occurences where the link between the branched chains has been disproven (that is, shown to be unreliable because no one know where that guy's claim to information came from), rendering all reports coming from people after that chain useless. And this isn't "apologetic", it's used for even the most practical rulings that even wouldn't be detrimental to Islam.

Fair enough. So, in your opinion, based on your information, Muhammad did not kill the satirist I mentioned earlier? What about the other two mentioned in the wiki link?

 

[Chairman Yang]

Chairman Yang's bias is so obvious. It shines through his posts... Much like there is with FFF's.

What bias is that? The whole thing where I think Islam is a crappy ideology, much like most religions and many other ideologies? Because I hope it IS obvious--I've stated it numerous times in many threads like this.

The fact of the matter is... The cartoon's were done in BAD TASTE.. the reaction was in BAD TASTE.

I agree, as you'll see from my first post in this thread.

Let these people die.

Which people?

 

[EBCubs03]

If you believe in God you're part of the problem!

Spoiler

>_>

 

[Chairman Yang]

It's hard for me to keep up with this thread, so it might take me a while to get to all of the replies I want to (if I ever do). Sorry.

So now you're claiming a source tells them to do so? What source is this?

The source I stated right in the sentence you quoted. Namely, Islam's claim to exclusive truth. If you think your ideology is 100% correct, with no chance of ever switching to another ideology, do you see how followers of that ideology might not appreciate those who believe otherwise?

Than average? On what basis do you make this claim? There are so many people in this world killed for their beliefs and statements from all sorts of backgrounds, killed by people from all sorts of backgrounds. Heck, in the 1st page of the OT thread you have people over-reacting on a college campus and you have a journalist killed ...and they aren't from Muslim extremists.

If I wanted to criticize the dominant religion of a country, and if I had to roll a dice, and land either in a random Muslim country or just a random poor country, I'd pick a random poor country every time.

The fact that this extreme reaction is only a minority in the Muslim world speaks volumes against your assertion.

Not really. Extreme reactions are almost always in tiny minorities. But if one religion has a 1% minority of crazies, and another has a 10% minority, it rings alarm bells about the latter religion (I'm not citing those specific numbers, I'm just saying that just because extreme behaviour comes from a "minority" doesn't mean the ideology professed by that minority is blameless).

 

[FightyF]

Take the average 12th century Christian and the average 21st century Christian, and compare them. You can see how maintream Christianity has changed to accomodate modern ethical values, modern science, modern politics, etc. Countries where Christianity is the dominant religion are almost all democracies where education and information are available to all, where human rights are respected, and where there is a strict separation of church and state.

During the same time when these Christian nations were turning into democracies, Muslim nations were being colonized. They had no freedom to turn their government into a democracy or an Islamic state. When these occupying forces left, they didn't leave a democracy, they left monarchies to rule.

With a bit of learning you'll see that it has nothing to do with religion, but rather the politics of that time. Despite being Muslim, Arab nations were split up to many tiny countries. Again, this has NOTHING to do with religion, but rather politics.

Now compare the average 12th century Muslim to his 21st century counterpart. The differences are comparatively negligible. Muslim societies have for the most part stagnated for centuries.

Because of this post-colonization era in most Muslim countries, you see a regression compared to their 12th century counterparts, where the 12th century counterparts at least had a more religious state that guarenteed more human rights and higher standards of education. But again, this has nothing to do with religion...it is not the result of religious teachings that you have all of these monarchies, lack of human rights, etc.

Why must you face any repercussions for drawing a cartoon? Are we so silly?

Because it's based on a premise of hate, designed to propagate hate, and *gasp* it turns out that everyone who likes these cartoons hate Muslims to begin with. That's why.

Neither I nor the cartoonists have any ethical duty to follow the prescripts of Islam. I won't be told that I can't eat pork by Jews or eat meat on Friday by Catholics. The good Muslim doesn't have to draw any cartoons of Uncle Mo, the good Jew doesn't have to eat pork and the good Catholic doesn't have to eat meat on Friday. But the good Muslim, the good Jew and the good Catholic can all **** off if they think I'm following any of their stupid taboos.

Who ever said this? The whole point is to speak out against hate speech. Your post has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Nothing in Islamic teachings state that non-Muslims cannot draw the Prophet Muhammed.

1. Muslims and Muhammad did X.
2. Without Islam or another faith-based philosophy (especially any ideology that claims it is true to the exclusion of all else), it is possible they may not have done X.
3. Therefore, Islam may be to blame in certain cases of X happening.

Now you may say that there is no textual support for X. That's irrelevant to my particular argument here, however. Think of a person as a "black box"--you don't know what's going on in their head. You simply see inputs (biological makeup, personality, ideology, etc.) and outputs (the person's actions). Now if one of their actions is something bad, and the only difference in their input from someone else who doesn't commit the bad action is Islam, I think you'll agree that Islam is to blame in that particular case.

The real argument here is whether Islam, in the modern world, is an input which makes people commit more bad acts than if that input didn't exist. You can argue (and you have, and others have as well) that it's not Islam that's the factor here, but other inputs (like poverty, lack of political freedom, etc.). However, I have yet to be convinced that other inputs are responsible for ALL of these bad actions, and that Islam is responsible for NONE.

That's my basic argument. Let me know if you'd like me to clarify further.

Think logically, if an extreme minority of Muslims respond with violence...how could one blame the faith?

Consider that most, if not all, of these violent reactions came from the same type of Muslims, whereas other types of Muslims reacted differently. Educated Muslims reacted one way, some from poor Muslim nations reacted another.

So the reaction was largely peaceful in the form of massive letter writing campaigns. This was a response largely from the educated Muslims from all over the World. Many student organizations and local Muslim organizations jumped in and got signatures.

On the other side of a World, a couple of demonstrations get out of hand, some get downright nasty and a few individuals get destructive.

And so despite there being a large peaceful reaction, and then literally a few people committing a violent reaction, you blame the religion? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Tell me, if this religion truly was responsible for the violent reaction, if it were a part of it's teachings...and you have this scenario with over 1.5 billion pissed off people, wouldn't you see a lot more than a few burning cars and one attacked embassy?

Think logically.

 

[Phoenix]

Offensive cartoon..

Nail hit on head.

A piece of art can enrage people, I'm not sure why people simply don't get that. If you do things that enrage people and they respond - just don't be surprised by it. That's not to say that the response is JUSTIFIED, there is a difference, but to a large extent it can certainly be expected.

 

[APF]

Nail hit on head.

A piece of art can enrage people, I'm not sure why people simply don't get that. If you do things that enrage people and they respond - just don't be surprised by it. That's not to say that the response is JUSTIFIED, there is a difference, but to a large extent it can certainly be expected.

I too would be offended that the violent reactionary tendencies of my culture were apparently accurately conveyed in political cartoons drafted as a protest against acts of self-censorship in the face of potential threats of physical harm, and then manipulated by members of my own religious leadership in order to greater stoke violent reactionary tendencies my own religious leadership apparently believed were a tendency of my culture, in order to extort political concessions against a foreign or host government and attack an ideal held sacred to Western democracies as a whole.

 

[FightyF]

I too would be offended that the violent reactionary tendencies of my culture were apparently accurately conveyed in political cartoons drafted as a protest against acts of self-censorship in the face of potential threats of physical harm, and then manipulated by members of my own religious leadership in order to greater stoke violent reactionary tendencies my own religious leadership apparently believed were a tendency of my culture, in order to extort political concessions against a foreign or host government and attack an ideal held sacred to Western democracies as a whole.

Wrong, on all accounts.