Dealing with criticism of, and insults to, Islam

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

Yes we do! when it comes to the Crucifix (we dont believe in it) and the image of Christ being displayed on statues.

* There's a good point. You don't believe jesus was crucified. Is this not an insult to Christians who believe this very strongly, as much as a cartoon of the Prophet is to you? When Islam proclaims from every minaret that "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger" they are effectively saying that the Hindus, Christians, Pagans, Jews, Atheists etc are all wrong. As a book the Quran itself is a blasphemy to christians, jews and pagans as it states over and over that they are wrong. Is this not insulting to those of other beliefs? If every Jew freaked out when Christians called Jesus the messiah(as they don't believe that), the world would go mad. Do you see my point?


*
I posted this pretty much verbatum on News/Media that may be more relevant here. Hobbes delete it if it's not allowed to cross post.

Hobbes

desiredbard wrote:

I have not seen the pictures so I cannot really talk here, but to post something like that as retaliation is pathetic

You have a link to the news stories? It is pathetic because you take offense to it?

btw, heads up to anyone thinking my request for a link to offensive pictures (regardless of who it is slagging off). It isn't and please don't attempt to post any here. I'm leaving the ADL link as it is on topic with the discussion.

Talliesin

larryone wrote:

Do muslims reject icons or depictions of Jesus as being offensive representational idolotry?

When churches were captured by Muslim forces during the crusades a common result was that they would view the statues and pictures as idolatry and so couldn't leave them, but that to destroy them would be an insult to Jesus, Mary, or whoever was portrayed so they couldn't do that either, and so they merely covered them up. This shows that Muslims have indeed considered such depictions to be representations of prophets and holy people.

For my part I believe we have the right to say what we want, even so far as to engage in outright insults of Mohammed. That does not mean this forum, where the focus is Islam, should host such insults and I will back up Hobbes' policy about posting the cartoons or similar posts with category bans.

As for the original publication in Denmark, I believe the newspaper had the right to publish them, but that they shouldn't have done so (the right to free speech does not make every act of speech commendable).

desiredbard

Hobbes wrote:

You have a link to the news stories? It is pathetic because you take offense to it?

btw, heads up to anyone thinking my request for a link to offensive pictures (regardless of who it is slagging off). It isn't and please don't attempt to post any here. I'm leaving the ADL link as it is on topic with the discussion.

It is offensive since she is an innocent victim and she has never harmed anyone nor has anyone been harmed in her name. Read the diary I suggest. Whereas Mohammed, historically and recently is completely different ketle of fish.

For me it shows the level of intelligence involved with those (=AEL) people. The only meaning of these cartoons must have been to hurt and offend. Why not place a couple of good GW Bush Cartoons or Some Israeli cartoons?


regertfully I cannot do you the links either there, They would not be much good, since they are either flemmish or dutch,

desiredbard

Talliesin wrote:

When churches were captured by Muslim forces during the crusades a common result was that they would view the statues and pictures as idolatry and so couldn't leave them, but that to destroy them would be an insult to Jesus, Mary, or whoever was portrayed so they couldn't do that either, and so they merely covered them up. This shows that Muslims have indeed considered such depictions to be representations of prophets and holy people.

For my part I believe we have the right to say what we want, even so far as to engage in outright insults of Mohammed. That does not mean this forum, where the focus is Islam, should host such insults and I will back up Hobbes' policy about posting the cartoons or similar posts with category bans.

As for the original publication in Denmark, I believe the newspaper had the right to publish them, but that they shouldn't have done so (the right to free speech does not make every act of speech commendable).

Fully agree with this however
The fundamentalism that shows his head in this society is something different then the wars during the crusades. before England decided to Liberate Jerusalem, christians, Jews, and Mulims lived together and it was a centre of knowledge.

Denmark had the right and should have posted these pictures, to start a discussion.
France should be at liberty to show them in le soir without an editor getting fired.

Hence the change from image to link, someone has the choice to look or not.

I do not think that the west should (be allowed) to force our western emancipated democratic values on countries like Iran Afghanistan etc. But Let Muslims in the west respect our freedom (of opinion) our emancipation and respect for others (gay straight atheist or devout) and not force their Moral values upon us.

desiredbard

rsynnott wrote:

Nope. It's LOCAL.

Even more surprising that there is sencorship here....since free speech in the states is limmited as well under that terrorist there

Hobbes

desiredbard wrote:

It is offensive since...

Hang on a second you were all for free speech earlier and according to the website in question it says

"The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content – just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons."

Clearly if you agree with the freedom of the press then these cartoons can't be offensive to you and your just over-reacting.

One of the cartoons shown as tit-for-tat is even illegal in many European states (showed that holocost never happened). But then as with the Danish cartoons it wasn't in the country in question so its perfectly ok. Do you not see the hypocritsy here?

To quote..
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=18003460&p=y8xx3534
“Europe has its sacred cows, even if they’re not religious sacred cows,”

rsynnott

desiredbard wrote:

Even more surprising that there is sencorship here....since free speech in the states is limmited as well under that terrorist there

What censorship is this? You don't have freedom of speech here; it's a private system.

And on most points the US has much free-er speech than we do; possibly too free.

desiredbard

Hobbes wrote:

Hang on a second you were all for free speech earlier and according to the website in question it says

"The site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content – just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons."

Clearly if you agree with the freedom of the press then these cartoons can't be offensive to you and your just over-reacting.

One of the cartoons shown as tit-for-tat is even illegal in many European states (showed that holocost never happened). But then as with the Danish cartoons it wasn't in the country in question so its perfectly ok. Do you not see the hypocritsy here?

To quote..
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=18003460&p=y8xx3534
“Europe has its sacred cows, even if they’re not religious sacred cows,”

Which cartoons are you talking about, the ones on the AEL website? or The mohammed ones. Its fine to provokle a reaction...by all means .... but insulting without reason is something different. Like I said take Sharon any westbank settler.... but no the AEL had to show its islamofascitoid side yet again.

No Hypocrisy there since Anne Frank actually lived in Holland and AEL dutch department carried a copy of it as well.

I keep forgetting the name of this sauodi all the time, he did a verse in there is two types of people in the world: Those who with brains and those with religion...... Its true though.

I have no problem discussing the fact weather Jesus was married or maybe gay, It was for a Jewish lecturer those days common to be married.
There are certain historical facts surrounding both Jesus and Mohammed.
Personally I like the facts around Jesus better. But lets not get into a my religion is better than yours.

All differences aside.
To go back to the post you warned me for
I believe...i might be mistaken
That if there is one catholic / protestant who in name of his/her religion deems it nescesarry to bomb a mosque or a muslim area in an act of terrorism that evrybody wopuld speak out and protest, not last his "brothers and sisters" in faith.

I ask again why do moslim not do the "en masse"
Is it surprising that if one shows so little respect for your own prophet (like I said he is more ridiculed by these muslim-fundi-iejits) you should not expect it from a non-believer at all.

To be honoust I do not see Mohammed as a prophet at all. I see him more as a theological student who tried to bridge judaism and christianity and now has a bunc of followers who would like to destroy both...

desiredbard

rsynnott wrote:

What censorship is this? You don't have freedom of speech here; it's a private system.

And on most points the US has much free-er speech than we do; possibly too free.

Aye if you agree with GWB yes
Do not protest against him.... remember california?

Talliesin

The US has stronger guarantees in law of Free Speech. Europe has a stronger tradition of actually allowing media access to dissenting voices. This isn't particularly on-topic here though, where the issue is how the Muslim community deals with criticism and/or insults.

desiredbard

Talliesin wrote:

The US has stronger guarantees in law of Free Speech. Europe has a stronger tradition of actually allowing media access to dissenting voices. This isn't particularly on-topic here though, where the issue is how the Muslim community deals with criticism and/or insults.

It seems that answer to that we can see in the media everyday. And in a way I feel they call it upon themselves.

A couple of months ago i started a topic on that piglet ban.
To my utmost delight there were muslims actually agreeing with me.
In Holland, I'm dutch, on several fora one after another extremist view was posted, everybody needs to have respekt for the islam but these so called muslims do not now how to show it themselves.

This leeds to more and more extreme views on either side, and from my non-muslim point of view i can fully understand this. Although catholic myself any form f strict religious thinking is very very scary, and it appears to me that muslims are less capable of thinking and forming an own opinion.

This is not ment as an insult since I know there are moderate muslims here and I do not intend to intentionally hurt their feelings. (I do care less about some fundi's).

Weather you call the supreme being Allah, JHW or God is the same to me although the sound of Allah has due to recent events got a bitter taste on the side.

But back on topic, How to handle criticism or how its handled.
The latter, its not handled very much by either the loudest group or the biggest group (or both)

Misunderstanding and uncarefully formulated reactions to the islam are met with rage and hatred.
Maybe it is time that muslims realise that people do not set out to hurt intentionally. I agree there are those who would but I hope that is the same minority as thos scary islamo-fascist fundi's

If I state that Mohammed in these days would be considdered a pedofile, that does not entail the same as that he was.
Merely to date that society around us has changed, and I doubt it that Mohammed if he lived today would have done the same , in which case he would have been.

The fact that jesus was jeweish and the son of God, and not his prophet, is true (for me) and although I think muslims and jews are missing out by their religion I do not take it as an insult that you do not see it like that.
(I mean If God=Allah+JHWH i pray we are all forgivven for our mistakes and believing in Jezus might be a mistake in some views)
_{Great now I pissed of the christians as well as the muslims, how in God's Allah's JHWHs name are you supposed to get an understanding?}

The fact that from every mosq they shout Great is Allah and Mohammed his Prophet can be considdered an insult as well since both Torah and Bible do not aknowledge Mohammed as such. So get over the fact that a couple of non-muslims made a drawing from a guy with a beard and a turban.
Caus if one of them would be the image of Mohammed the others cannot even be related, so different they are.

Oh and one last question.
Can anyone tell me if the "bomb-head" actualy has a text on its turban?
and translate it for me, and post a translation here, if it would not upset any of the people here with shorter fuses.

Blub2k4

desiredbard wrote:

Misunderstanding and uncarefully formulated reactions to the islam are met with rage and hatred.
Maybe it is time that muslims realise that people do not set out to hurt intentionally. I agree there are those who would but I hope that is the same minority as thos scary islamo-fascist fundi's

It appears that there was a concerted effort to offend in the release of the cartoon, I dont think there was anything "uncarefully formulated" nor was it unintentional.
If you were on the Dutch boards you would agree that after the death of Van Gogh that there were enough NL fundamentalists calling for nuking all arabs etc, on some boards it would have been a majority, one sees in your own writing too bas that you are holding back and if among Dutch (and not on an Islam board) people your language would not be so restrained.

Hobbes

desiredbard has a weeks holiday.

This thread has run its course. If you wish to continue to discuss about the cartoon please pick a thread in AfterHours/Media or politics or take it up in Private messages with the poster in question.