Dealing with criticism of, and insults to, Islam

Suff

Freddie59 wrote:

So how are we having this discussion then? If Muslims practiced their 'non-violent' religion according to the Koran then there would be no suicide bombings. Correct?

Islam doesnt have a violent teachings, you need to look into the actual law and when/how to practice it before judgging the religion.

before saying anything about suicide bombings, ty to search why are they doing it.
Most muslims oppose suicide bombings.

I truly beleive that the actual teachings/nature of Islam are still unclear to many people (Wibbs, you might like to start one!) so I'll start a new thread for answering them directly from the sunnah and the qurann with refrences.

fly_agaric

rsynnott wrote:

Are you aware that that thread was a joke?

Well, the first post was nonsensical alright but it developed in an interesting direction.:D
When I made reference to the thread I wasn't thinking about the rubbish post that started it going.

Tom Dunne

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, so I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I have no doubt what so ever that these images are offensive to Muslims, and I can understand why.

But I would like to draw parallels to the recent Paddy Power adverts. Yes, people were outraged in Ireland. Yes, people were offended. Yes, it was crude an in very poor taste. But people didn't grab their nearest AK-47 and start surrounding their local Paddy Power office. They didn't start burning Paddy Power leaflets/posters in the street.

They phoned radio stations to vent, they wrote letters to papers, they debated it on TV. All very hot, but very civilised.

Contrast this to the hysteria in Middle East. Shooting, kidnapping Europeans, embassy closures, bomb threats and flag burning. Given the number of papers in Europe that re-printed these images, protesters are soon going to start running out of flags to burn.

A very good point was made on the Matt Cooper show today - where was the Muslim condemnation when the Taliban destroyed the ancient statues in Afganistan?

Suff

tom dunne wrote:

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, so I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I have no doubt what so ever that these images are offensive to Muslims, and I can understand why.

But I would like to draw parallels to the recent Paddy Power adverts. Yes, people were outraged in Ireland. Yes, people were offended. Yes, it was crude an in very poor taste. But people didn't grab their nearest AK-47 and start surrounding their local Paddy Power office. They didn't start burning Paddy Power leaflets/posters in the street.

They phoned radio stations to vent, they wrote letters to papers, they debated it on TV. All very hot, but very civilised.

Contrast this to the hysteria in Middle East. Shooting, kidnapping Europeans, embassy closures, bomb threats and flag burning. Given the number of papers in Europe that re-printed these images, protesters are soon going to start running out of flags to burn.

A very good point was made on the Matt Cooper show today - where was the Muslim condemnation when the Taliban destroyed the ancient statues in Afganistan?

the muslim community in denmark went the "Civilised" route on the first time of publication, but neither the newspaper nor the goverment gave them the time.
I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.
people are angry and I can understand sure I'm angry, they are showing their anger in a way that would attract the worlds attention.

sadly it is the wrong way to deal with this situation.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

the muslim community in denmark went the "Civilised" route on the first time of publication, but neither the newspaper nor the goverment gave them the time.

Then get the Muslim community together and sue both their arses. There's enough learned lawyers among the Muslim community that would destroy them in court. The boycott of the products is a good plan. Hit them in the pockets. I get irritated when they go from civilised behaviour to crazy madness, chanting in the streets, calling for violence too damned quickly. There exists other options as tom dunne pointed out

I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.

Man, I hope you're right. If it does get ugly I suspect it won't be in the ME either, it'll be in the far east or Pakistan where it'll kick off.

sadly it is the wrong way to deal with this situation.

Yes exactly, because it seems to prove to many that the Muslim way is reactionary and incompatible with western practice and thought on a very fundamental level.

John Doe

Someone said a while back that the right to free speech is (or should be) an absolute right. Maybe it should be, but it isn't and it won't be any time soon. I think there are no absolute rights any more. For instance, that decisions have been made in history (and are being made today) to sacrifice people's lives for the perceived greater good of others shows that the right to life, the ultimate of all rights, is no longer absolute. The right to free speech has similarly been denied multiple times throughout history, and when you think about it no-one here could go out into the middle of a supermarket and scream whatever they liked (for instance "I'm a raging paedophile" or suchlike) without facing legal and social consequences, that effectively deny them the right to do so.

Tom Dunne

Suff wrote:

I agree it's looking violent at the moment but no one were killed or kidnapped! and I dont think it will go that route.

A German national was kidnapped earlier in the week. He was released after a couple of hours unharmed.

Suff wrote:

people are angry and I can understand sure I'm angry, they are showing their anger in a way that would attract the worlds attention.

I often think Muslims are their own worst enemy sometimes. They do themselves no favours. This situation is a prime example of it.

John Doe wrote:

and when you think about it no-one here could go out into the middle of a supermarket and scream whatever they liked (for instance "I'm a raging paedophile" or suchlike) without facing legal and social consequences, that effectively deny them the right to do so.

I don't want to drag this thread off into free speech, but I disagree with your point on going into a supermarket and making such a declaration. What ramifications would it have? Social, yes, legal, no. On what grounds could you be arrested/fined for making a declaration in a public place? (I am no legal eagle - if there is some such law, please educate me)

I utterly loathe tabloid newspapers, but they have the freedom to print essentially what they want. If I disagree with any material that they print, I can take action to have the matter rectified. Action such as those already suggested by Wibbs - boycott, legal action, and if it was bad enough, peaceful demonstrations.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

This is free speech? Try posting on where to get warez on boards and see how free your speech is then.

I presume by Warez you mean software obtained without paying for it. That is theft - where does it come into free sepeech?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

Similarly, if all Christians practised their 'non-violent, forgiving' religion according to the Bible, they would no doubt refrain from blowing up gay bars and similar. Mad people are not by any means restricted to any one religion.

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children. As you are very obviously either Islamic, or lean towards their viewpoint, then you must agree that this is a struggle between two cultures and social ideals, which has been caused by one (Islam) wanting to foist it's values and ideals on the other.

One (Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

The other (Islamic totalitarianism) does not. Radical Islamics are no different to Hitler - they just hide behind the facade of religion to justify similar actions. The President of Iran,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, inaugural statement to the UN caused uproar when he spoke of 'ushering in' Armageddon, along with a statement that the Holocaust was a myth, and that Israel was a 'blot'.

Need I say more? Religion, fascim, socialism - whatever they have been called - behind them all lay a dictator with his own agenda who ultimately led his country down the path to destruction.

This time will be no different.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children. As you are very obviously either Islamic, or lean towards their viewpoint, then you must agree that this is a struggle between two cultures and social ideals, which has been caused by one (Islam) wanting to foist it's values and ideals on the other.

Me? No, I'm a filthy atheist. I'm simply surprised that you are willing to use examples of violence perpetrated by isolated (and probably mad) people of the Islamic faith while ignoring that isolated mad Christians also do unpleasant things. Flying planes into buildings is not, as far as I'm aware, a tenet of Islam.

Freddie59 wrote:

One (Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

This is not an issue of Christianity versus Islam, but rather a case of secularism versus theocracy. Go back to the middle ages and see how much freedom of speech you get, see how women are treated. Hell, go back to 50s Ireland. IMO, secularism is better. Christianity fought against secularism tooth and nail, as Islam is doing now.

Freddie59 wrote:

The other (Islamic totalitarianism) does not. Radical Islamics are no different to Hitler - they just hide behind the facade of religion to justify similar actions. The President of Iran,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, inaugural statement to the UN caused uproar when he spoke of 'ushering in' Armageddon, along with a statement that the Holocaust was a myth, and that Israel was a 'blot'.

Obviously, holocaust denial is a little silly (I have ranted on about this before). Why do you feel, though, that the Iranian president represents Islam? When Bush goes on about the "Axis of Evil" and doing god's work, and so on, is he representing all Christians?

Freddie59 wrote:

Need I say more? Religion, fascim, socialism - whatever they have been called - behind them all lay a dictator with his own agenda who ultimately led his country down the path to destruction.

This time will be no different.

I fail to see where socialism comes into this? Reasonable doses of socialism have shaped modern Europe, and I think we're the better for them.

Tom Dunne

Freddie59 wrote:

Christians did not fly two plane loads of innocent people into two buildings containing more innocent men, women, and children.

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

Freddie59 wrote:

(Western Democracy) allows it's citizens frredom of speech, choice, movement, etc and does not treat it's womenfolk as some kind of sub-human to be ignored or used/discarded when needed.

In addition to rsynnott extremely lucid points on this matter - look at the status of women in Japan. Are they of equal stature to men? I don't believe they are.

Hagar

tom dunne wrote:

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

That wouldn't be the same dictator that had previously invaded a neighbouring sovereign muslim state, looted it, killed inocent people and set fire to its oilfields?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

Me? No, I'm a filthy atheist. I'm simply surprised that you are willing to use examples of violence perpetrated by isolated (and probably mad) people of the Islamic faith while ignoring that isolated mad Christians also do unpleasant things. Flying planes into buildings is not, as far as I'm aware, a tenet of Islam.

Try telling that to the Middle East radical despots hiding behind 'Islam'.

rsynnott wrote:

This is not an issue of Christianity versus Islam, but rather a case of secularism versus theocracy. Go back to the middle ages and see how much freedom of speech you get, see how women are treated. Hell, go back to 50s Ireland. IMO, secularism is better. Christianity fought against secularism tooth and nail, as Islam is doing now.

It may be so. But I thought we were discussing (and comparing) current events, like the current treatment of women?

rsynnott wrote:

Obviously, holocaust denial is a little silly (I have ranted on about this before). Why do you feel, though, that the Iranian president represents Islam? When Bush goes on about the "Axis of Evil" and doing god's work, and so on, is he representing all Christians?

Many Christians would identify with him in his quest. We cannot allow our Western freedoms (hard won and paid for in millions of lives) to be undermined by medieval religious barbarity and thinking.

rsynnott wrote:

I fail to see where socialism comes into this? Reasonable doses of socialism have shaped modern Europe, and I think we're the better for them.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yes a great contribution to modern history. Half the continent imprisoned for over 50 years.

Freddie59

tom dunne wrote:

A muslim superpower did not invade a sovereign state half way around the world under the guise of removing a dictator.

That's open to debate. Many agree with the invasion - many don't. But more people now enjoy freedom in Iraq than ever. And hopefully the bully-boy 'martyrs' will have their card marked soon.

I ask you this: if the roles were reversed, and the Arabs had the nukes, and, let's say, atrocities were committed in Middle Eastern Countries by Westerners, do you think they would show the restraint that the West has? I don't think so.

tom dunne wrote:

In addition to rsynnott extremely lucid points on this matter - look at the status of women in Japan. Are they of equal stature to men? I don't believe they are.

That is an extremely obscure comparison. While Japan likes to think of itself as 'Western' they really aren't. Their roots (particularly with women) still lie in the middle ages. Show me another Western country where women are treated with such disrespect as in the radical Muslim countries. It's worth bearing in mind that when Osama bin Laden was asked what his idea of the perfect Islamic State was, he replied with 'the Taleban have it just right in Afghanistan'.

Hobbes

I will say this once and once only. For the new people read the charter.

This thread will be locked if it continues on this track.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

It may be so. But I thought we were discussing (and comparing) current events, like the current treatment of women?
.

You're confused. I'm simply pointing out that it is NOT an issue of Islam versus Christianity, it is an issue of secularism versus theocracy. Western states are generally not Christian states (fortunately); many Middle Eastern states ARE Islamic states. The problem is not with the religion, but rather with the religion's interference with public policy.

Freddie59 wrote:

That's open to debate. Many agree with the invasion - many don't. But more people now enjoy freedom in Iraq than ever.

Can women walk the streets without veils again, then? And surely the invasion has led to Iraq becoming MORE Islamic, not less?

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

You're confused. I'm simply pointing out that it is NOT an issue of Islam versus Christianity, it is an issue of secularism versus theocracy. Western states are generally not Christian states (fortunately); many Middle Eastern states ARE Islamic states. The problem is not with the religion, but rather with the religion's interference with public policy.?

Far from confused. You can dress it up any way you like. Call it Islam, Nazis, Communism, etc, you still end up with tinpot dictators straight out of a bad James Bond movie trying to take over/destroy/convert the world.
No amount of pussyfooting around the issue changes that.

rsynnott wrote:

Can women walk the streets without veils again, then? And surely the invasion has led to Iraq becoming MORE Islamic, not less?

Agree with you on the veil. But at least they are free to walk down the street. I'm sure the vision of people being whipped on a street corner in Afghanistan for 'defiling religion' is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

I will say this once and once only. For the new people read the charter.

This thread will be locked if it continues on this track.

May I respectfully ask how it is going off track?

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Agree with you on the veil. But at least they are free to walk down the street. I'm sure the vision of people being whipped on a street corner in Afghanistan for 'defiling religion' is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Please do try to keep Iraq and Afghanistan separate in your mind. They're not at all the same place.

larryone

Freddie59 wrote:

May I respectfully ask how it is going off track?

starting to get less religious or social and more political methinks.

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

Please do try to keep Iraq and Afghanistan separate in your mind. They're not at all the same place.

Not really - especially in the minds of the fanatics. When Osama bin Laden was asked as to what his vision of the perfect Islamic state was he replied with 'The Taliban have it just right in Afghanisatan'. You must look at the problem as a whole.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

Not really - especially in the minds of the fanatics. When Osama bin Laden was asked as to what his vision of the perfect Islamic state was he replied with 'The Taliban have it just right in Afghanisatan'. You must look at the problem as a whole.

Okay. What does that have to do with Iraq, though? Saddam and bin Laden, again, are not the same person.

Hobbes

Freddie59 wrote:

Not really - especially in the minds of the fanatics. When Osama bin Laden was asked as to what his vision of the perfect Islamic state was he replied with 'The Taliban have it just right in Afghanisatan'. You must look at the problem as a whole.

That might be to do with the fact the Taliban where shacking him up. Even so they are not the same. For starters the taliban followed a version of Shari'ah (Islamic law). Iraq is Sunni and Shi'ite (AFAIR).

It is like saying Roman Catholics are the same as Church of England.

Btw, As I said I do not want this thread to continue on politics. You can take it to the forum in question. Also if you are making accusations it is for you to back them up.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

That might be to do with the fact the Taliban where shacking him up. Even so they are not the same. For starters the taliban followed a version of Shari'ah (Islamic law). Iraq is Sunni and Shi'ite (AFAIR).

It is like saying Roman Catholics are the same as Church of England.

Btw, As I said I do not want this thread to continue on politics. You can take it to the forum in question. Also if you are making accusations it is for you to back them up.

Accusations? I don't think so. I think ANYONE watching these events unfold would want to have a very closed mind if they think that the virus that is Al Qaeda is not intertwined with every despot and crank regime in the region.

I have done what I can to provide links where necessary and quoted from them. Maybe I'm just touching some nerves in saying a lot of things that people are usually unafraid to say for fear of 'offending' someone.

Hobbes

No I see stuff spouted like "Iraq and Afganistan are the same" but nothing to back it up.

While you may feel the need to not back up opinions the charter strictly says otherwise. The rules are not open for debate in this thread.

Now bring the thread back on topic.

Son_of_Belial

Something tells me Mr. Westergaard is sorry he signed his work.... He's a dead man walking....

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

That might be to do with the fact the Taliban where shacking him up.

Exactly. He wasn't about to bite the hand that feeds. I seem to remember a similar quote from him about the Sudan when he was living there. Also I saw various interviews over the years with Taliban types and while vaguely backing him as he was a fellow Muslim, you were left with the distinct impression that he was a bit of an embarrassment(sorry for the drift into politics stuff there)

For starters the taliban followed a version of Shari'ah (Islamic law). Iraq is Sunni and Shi'ite (AFAIR).

I could be wrong, but I understood that Shari'ah law was just the name for the Islamic codes of law set down in Quran and Hadeeth, regardless whether Sunni or Shi'ite.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

I could be wrong, but I understood that Shari'ah law was just the name for the Islamic codes of law set down in Quran and Hadeeth, regardless whether Sunni or Shi'ite.

No your probably right, however Talibans interpretation was different to Iraqs.

rsynnott

Son_of_Belial wrote:

Something tells me Mr. Westergaard is sorry he signed his work.... He's a dead man walking....

I would hope that Denmark will extend him the same protection that the UK did to Rushdie, if it comes to it.

Hagar

There is a certain irony in muslim states boycotting danish produce when one of their biggest exports is pork and bacon. I wonder would a discount attract back the business?