'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

The London bombers were practicing a particulary lethal kind of autoerotic asphyxiation. Allowing that act to gain a political significance has massive implications.

I agree of course on how glaringly unnecessary such terrorist acts are when a democratic model as you have descrived exists for us all (everyone) to air their grievances.
The question of whether we allow the bombers' actions to gain political significance or, to be blunt, a "backing down", all boils down to who can out-destruct the other.
Terrorism is like guerilla warfare on a much grander and more public (therefore magnified) level. These kinds of wars are, by nature, awfully difficult to ever win. Particularly so for the side who is suffering the attack.
Look at the Irish war of Independence - it was such guerilla tactics that eventually got the Irish... er - terrorists? to go to London and be engaged in negotiations. There was an excellent documentary about Kilmichael this evening on TG4 that showed how the British eventually realsied they were not going to beat the Irish guerillas with force. I think we are in a very similiar situation with terrorism.
A realisation of the hopelessness of fighting fire with fire was also what got David Trimble into the same room with Gerry Adams (well, maybe not the same room, but certainly down the corridoor:) )

In every indirect combatting conflict that I can think of, nuking or shooting into extinction the opposition not being viable, they end up with two sides sitting across a table from one another and fixing the issue by negotiation. When exactly both sides will stop firing and start talking, remains to be seen. It could be two years it could be twenty.

I dont think either side will ever win this war with violence. At some point, the US-UK will change tack and realise that they have to stop their aggression, hold some form of negotiations, which will probably involve making an effort to ally themselves with some of the Muslim nations on a greater economic and social scale than exists currently.

Yes, that would be giving political weight to the acts of terrorism, but why must the west always try to be the harder, bigger man. Everyone's so sick of putting up with the mortalities on both sides. Can't we just be the geeky younger brother with red rim spectacles who outsmarts his burly older brother with brains instead of brawn?

I am that geek! It works!

By the same token, trying to spin that the root cause of all this is foriegn policy does look like a handy way for leaders of the UK Islamic community to avoid reflecting on whether the existance of these few bad apples raises more searching questions.

Yes it is a pity that the people who wrote that letter to Howells didnt add some credibility to their protestations by recognising their own responsibility as Muslims and indeed as Muslim leaders to guide the young followers of Islam.
The Muslim community has an enormous burden of responsibility here. Islam thrives on the foundations of family and the community, and God willing that is something that will continue to help it with the current tribulations.

Hopefully I won't have to keep repeating that in saying this I'm not trying to add to the tabloid view of Muslims as Daleks, utterly beyond our understanding and committed only to taking over the planet. Quite the opposite. I feel there are many parallels from our own experience that make the issues involved understandable.

No theres no need to have to repeat that at all, its quite obvious, and indeed Im sure most Irish people can appreciate the difficulties of being identified with a radicalism that steals your identity as a thing of its own and attempts to ruin it.

Schuhart

Even without any domestic terror agenda, all any objective analysis of the Iraq war could say is ‘what did you do all that for?’

The domestic terrorist agenda raises a different set of issues. But, again, high on the agenda for dealing with it would be to ensure that Muslims are not corralled into a position where terrorism seems like a reasonable method of expression. In this context, remarks about Islamic fascism are obviously dangerous.

The much discussed Danish cartoons/ Theo Van Gogh events also look to have relevance here. Put simply, it has to do with the expectation that as Islam becomes commonplace, its going to find its beliefs subject to discussion, including scorn and ridicule, because that’s what we do. We'll also have Governments following policies that are loathed.

Some of these thoughts came to me again after reading that article in the Tribune yesterday by someone described as the 'chief religous leader to the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland' - although I'm unsure what status that gives him in the scheme of things. Leaving aside whether the man was fully aware he was destined for the front page, he made one remark in particular that I felt was significant

"There is an urgent need for the Irish government to introduce strict guidelines on foreign travel. Young people [should not] go to foreign places where they are being brainwashed and where they are told to reject moderate Islam, " he added.

I don’t doubt the man is sincere, and motivated by a desire to preserve the true values of Islam. But the appeal to censorship and restriction as the tool struck me as significant. Its only the view of one man, but it still made me feel that Islam has a journey to make.

I know its not necessary, but I think we need to keep reminding ourselves that we’ve been here before. Ireland practiced censorship on a massive scale to protect the ‘faithful’. I think the results of that are still present in the way that many Irish people are unable to formulate a coherent argument. For example, the way that compulsory Leaving Cert Irish assumes an iconic significance to some. They seem unable to get beyond a Pavlovian ‘Irish language is good, therefore anything tenuously related to Irish must be good too’. If someone with a leadership role the Islamic community sees censorship as a useful tool in this context, it actually suggests a need for questioning and open debate.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

At some point, the US-UK will change tack and realise that they have to stop their aggression, hold some form of negotiations, which will probably involve making an effort to ally themselves with some of the Muslim nations on a greater economic and social scale than exists currently.

I think things may be too far gone for that. Who will they negotiate with?
Many [well all really] of the countries are not democracies.
If the dictators/kings do get violently booted out anytime soon it is very likely that the policies which are generally approved of by Blair and Bush [selling oil to Western countries, cosy peace deals with the US's special friend in the ME - Israel, locking up and torturing extremists] will end up in the dustbin and things will probably get even worse in the short term.

meepins

When I first saw this story I immediately thought : More fear mongering propaganda garbage from a group of people with zero credibility.
I haven't wasted my time following up on it . Is there any evidence to contrary yet ?

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

as Islam becomes commonplace, its going to find its beliefs subject to discussion, including scorn and ridicule, because that’s what we do. We'll also have Governments following policies that are loathed.

I'm not sure that most religions anywhere are subject to discussion, scorn and ridicule (outside of informed theological debate). I don't think such a thing is inevitable.
Here in Ireland, whilst the actions of the actions of the Christian church comes under scrutiny - child sex abuse, compensation to victims and sale of assets, etc - I cannot remember Catholic beliefs or biblical ideology ever coming under scrutiny or ridicule.
So while it is to be expected (rightfully so) that Muslims' actions should be subjected to just the same examination and criticism as anybody else's, I fail to see why Islam itself should have to endure a sort of public inquiry.

That article in the Tribune yesterday by someone described as the 'chief religious leader to the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland' - although I'm unsure what status that gives him in the scheme of things. Leaving aside whether the man was fully aware he was destined for the front page, he made one remark in particular that I felt was significant. I don’t doubt the man is sincere, and motivated by a desire to preserve the true values of Islam. But the appeal to censorship and restriction as the tool struck me as significant. Its only the view of one man, but it still made me feel that Islam has a journey to make

.

Sheikh Dr Satardien is well known cleric amongst the Muslim community in Dublin, he was quite vehement about the repugnancy of the July 7 attacks to Islam last year also, and is someone that quite a lot of Muslims, and no doubt non Muslims, have respect for.

Regarding foreign travel, I was also quite surprised by his suggestion myself. What about all of the young Muslims who have genuine family and personal reasons for going on visits to the Middle East? Those doing TEFL? Going backpacking or on holiday? However I don't think this Sheikh would have a different opinion whether he knew it was for the front page or not, he is not afraid of criticism, even from amongst his own community as has happened in the past. The opinion he gave struck me as more parental than authoritative or demanding, and I think there is no doubt but that he is thinking of what is best for young people and is genuinely concerned about maintaining the healthy relationship that most Irish Muslims currently have with their communities. Overall, I thought there was a lot to think about in his contribution, and I think he is the greatest ambassador for Islam this country has, and in fact is heading the Irish participation for the International day of Peace next month.
Personally I think that restricting young Muslims from traveling back to the Middle East or Asia would only further alienate those communities which many Muslims feel a bond with.

If someone with a leadership role the Islamic community sees censorship as a useful tool in this context, it actually suggests a need for questioning and open debate.

He didn’t go into detail about what he meant by 'restricting'. Interpreting this article literally, I think that most Muslims here would disagree with him. If it is his opinion, he is allowed it. I don’t want to suggest he is old fashioned because he has shown himself to be such a dynamic and forward thinking person, but these kind of opinions are not unlike those you would get from older people in any community, state, or religion. I think the opinion is a bit outdated.
None of this should take away from the very valuable and welcome opinions that he did get across, and his willingness to speak out and recognize the responsibilities Muslim leaders have to their community is welcomed I’m sure.

I think things may be too far gone for that. Who will they negotiate with?
Many [well all really] of the countries are not democracies.

The aim is to reach Pakistani and British and Afghan and Iranian (etc) Muslims at the level of the community, and prevent them from being lured into extremism. To do that, you need the support of the 'host' country. Allying themselves with Muslim leaders is also necessary. Many of them are not democracies, that is correct, but it doesn’t make us incapable of dialogue with them.
I think that an approach similar to the US and Europe's attitude to China would be extremely beneficial. Make them rich, with Western money. If you control the country with money you will inevitably bring governments and communities around to your side. (á la The Marshall Plan)
It's very hard to be anti Western if you work for Microsoft or if you are reaping sugarcane in Pakistan with a machine paid for with a US grant.
Al Gore wrote a book about called "Earth in the Balance" which although focused heavily on environmental questions, showed how governments can change and unite the world using economics.
I wonder how different the current threats of extremism would be if Gore had been victorious in 2000 and this economic philosophy were employed.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I cannot remember Catholic beliefs or biblical ideology ever coming under scrutiny or ridicule.

Most certainly there has been scrutiny of Catholic beliefs, and I don't just mean Protestant fundementalists saying the Pope is Anti-Christ. Its probably an understatement to say that people have mixed opinions about John Waters, but I think his book 'Jiving at the Crossroads' paints a recogniseable picture of 1980s Ireland that gives a flavour of some of the debates of that time. His vignette about the incongruous sight of a drunken priest at a gig comes to mind particularly. We've had debates on divorce, contraception and abortion which largely centred on the extent to which State laws would reflect Roman Catholic ethics - in a context where the bulk of the population counted themselves as Roman Catholic.

In more recent times, the child sex abuse issue very much raised the topic of to what extent the Church could take upon itself the job of dealing with any accusations made, and the primacy of the law of the State.

On the ridicule front, could we envisage in the current climate an Islamic version of Father Ted, where Imam Dougal makes remarks to the effect 'its only a bit of a laugh, like all that stuff in Quran'. And that's relatively mild, compared to the Life of Brian. So, yes, the prospect of Monty Python's Life of Mickey, recounting the whacky adventures of a polygamist who inadvertently gets mistaken for a prophet, and who's pronouncements people take to be the word of god, seems to me to be perfectly allowable.

I think we might be hitting on that thing of the different meanings of respect. Respect means I don't go into a Church while mass is in full swing, and start heckling the celebrant. But outside I can and do express the view that whats going on there and in the Mosque is all so much chin music.

InFront

Firstly, there is a big difference imo between criticising human religious leaders (pope as the antichrist) and criticising the actual worded faith itself.

I would take your point about The Life of Brian on the other hand. However - Jesus Christ p. is a Muslim Prophet too, don't forget. The respnses to that were not excessive on behalf of Britain's Muslim community, who would have been very exposed to it.

It is a whole another debate and Im not even sure how we got talking about it. But just because there is currently an allowance of such artforms condemning religious ideologies and faiths, does not mean they are legitimate or should be allowed. I suppose it is not so much a question of censorship but (as I am after reading somewhere today ) freedom of speech without vilification.
I think the idea of ridiculing God or faith and the motivation to do so is an issue which needs to be examined by western society more than any particluar religious group.

oscarBravo

I thought Life of Brian was a satire on Judaism, rather than Christianity.

growler

fly_agaric wrote:

I think things may be too far gone for that. Who will they negotiate with?
.

and not just who, assuming some terrorist leader fancied his half hour of fame somewhere, but on what does one negotiate?

Destroy Israel? never going to happen with the support of the west, even if it did the fundamentalist goalposts would shift.

I don't think there is any point in even attempting to negotiate with Islamic terrorists, unlike many of the European / ME equivalents which had stated political aims and often a political voice (or at least a message / motivation) : IRA, ETA, UVF, PLO, FARC, FLNC, November 17, PKK etc. these guys don't , or rather their political aims are so left field that they can never be achieved without a fundamental shift in global power and miliary might.

No point trying to appease them, because I don't think you can.

Of course, there are genuine concerns amongst many people not just muslims about the Palestine situation, but blowing up planes isn't the way to change it. Even if something resembling a solution cn be arrived at, it won't see the end of islamic terror in the west.

If islamic terror is now so potent, organised and motivated that it can be a genuine and ever present threat to our western freedoms, then its a huge problem that the west and islam need to sort out.

Infront: one thing I don't agree with is any kind of special protection for any kind of religion, unless they can all be examined in the cold light of day with all their flaws exposed to ridicule, mankind will never move away from using "god" as a justification for killing his fellows.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

However - Jesus Christ p. is a Muslim Prophet too, don't forget.

Indeed, but is it fair to say that Muslims would not see the same significance in the image of a screenful of crucified people singing 'Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life'? The Satanic Verses, on the other hand, was hardly shrugged off.

InFront wrote:

It is a whole another debate and Im not even sure how we got talking about it. But just because there is currently an allowance of such artforms condemning religious ideologies and faiths, does not mean they are legitimate or should be allowed

I don't doubt the topic will crop up again on some other forum. But this does seem to be a point of real difference, and very likely would benefit from an airing sometime. For my part, I can accept censorship covering things like child pornography, where vulnerable people need to be protected from obvious harm. I can even understand, say, laws relating to Holocaust denial.

But, while it may seem strange to you, I cannot accept a limitation on free expression just because someone else finds its content distasteful or it offends them. I'd work on the basis that if the Life of Brian/Satanic Verses/Tailor and Ansty is not someone's thing, then they should just pass it by.

oscarBravo wrote:

I thought Life of Brian was a satire on Judaism, rather than Christianity.

You may well be right. According to the ever useful Wikipedia

For their part, the Pythons contend on the DVD commentary that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians worship.

I also liked this little story

John Cleese, attacked on British television, argued that the film was really about closed minds not being prepared to question faith, rather than an attack on faith itself. As if to illustrate his point, one municipality eagerly imposed a screening ban even though there were no movie theaters within its limits.

The_Scary_Man

Just on the topic of scaremongering and governments using terror alerts to divert attention away from embarassing stories Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown has put together piece which seems to indicate that the Bush administration has used false or at least extremely tenuous information to raise the terror alert.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/14/olbermann-the-nexus-of-politics-and-terror/

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

Firstly, there is a big difference imo between criticising human religious leaders (pope as the antichrist) and criticising the actual worded faith itself.

While I see your point, where do you draw the line? To a devout Catholic criticising the pope in such a way would be distasteful. It would be part of that faith that he is God's representative on earth and all that. To a Muslim or Protestant that would be hard to grasp. Much as the recent furore over those cartoons would be hard to grasp for a non Muslim.

I would take your point about The Life of Brian on the other hand. However - Jesus Christ p. is a Muslim Prophet too, don't forget. The respnses to that were not excessive on behalf of Britain's Muslim community, who would have been very exposed to it.

Why not,if there was such an outcry over the cartoon issue? A fair few Christians vocally supported the Muslim position over that dabacle.

It is a whole another debate and Im not even sure how we got talking about it.

True enough, but it is part and parcel of any dialogue that will have to take place between the "west" and Islam. I'm sure many militants would point to such blasphemy as a major sticking point between how "we" think and "they" think.

But just because there is currently an allowance of such artforms condemning religious ideologies and faiths, does not mean they are legitimate or should be allowed.

I think Schuhart put my point of view better than I could;

But, while it may seem strange to you, I cannot accept a limitation on free expression just because someone else finds its content distasteful or it offends them. I'd work on the basis that if the Life of Brian/Satanic Verses/Tailor and Ansty is not someone's thing, then they should just pass it by.

The problem is while peaceful demonstration is used by most Muslims(and I'd support them 100% in their debate) there exists a vocal cadre of Muslims who resort to violence or the threat of violence far too often in defence of their faith(other faiths are guilty of it too EG. Christian anti abortionists in the US, but Islam seems particularly prone to it of late).

As Schuhart points out the The satanic verses was hardly shrugged off by any stretch and there are far too many other examples of violent reaction to things distasteful. Can you imagine the reaction if there was an

Islamic version of Father Ted, where Imam Dougal makes remarks to the effect 'its only a bit of a laugh, like all that stuff in Quran'

? Compare and contrast with the reaction here to the catholic version. Now to be fair, I'm sure the reaction would have been far different if it had been shown here even 20yrs ago, so times do change. I would have been surprised if the writers would have recieved believable death threats though, even then and I don't see the pope having sleepless nights over Father Ted.

I suppose it is not so much a question of censorship but (as I am after reading somewhere today ) freedom of speech without vilification.

There are a lot of grey areas to be sure.

I think the idea of ridiculing God or faith and the motivation to do so is an issue which needs to be examined by western society more than any particluar religious group.

Why? We are for the most part, secular democracies. To each their own etc. Purposely ridiculing the faithful directly is one thing but in the arts, IMO anything goes. If it disagrees with your position ignore it. I find many things distastful myself. I ignore it, condemn it or boycott it. I don't seek to ban it though and I really don't see why anyone else would either. This is a major area of debate that will impact all our dealings.

Sadly I tend to agree with growler when he says

No point trying to appease them, because I don't think you can.

. Doesn't mean we should stop trying though. The next generations may yet get round to the live and let live position on both sides.

ednwireland

just as another comment form bruce schneir on ineffective security (i think he was on the homeland security task force) just about sums up what i think of the whole thing

from cryptogram

"Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry on board. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security changes graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.

None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either.

Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.

The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent."

and

"Security measures that attempt to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.

Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.

The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off."

for the full article go here

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0608.html

bout sums up my feeling the whole security alert thing is about mainting a high profile for the war on terrorism rather than having a serious effect on our security

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

the recent furore over those cartoons would be hard to grasp for a non Muslim.

This is veering a bit off topic but here goes. From what I can see there is nothing directly comparable in repugnancy in the portrayal of Jewish or Christian religious figures, as the Danish cartoons were to Islam.
Caricatures of Christian and Jewish prophets p. that are shared with Islam do exist, and the ridicule of religious figures within those communities does not attract the same level of anger because it does not seem to be as offensive to them.
(There is also a separate issue over recent political sensitivities which aggravated the protests.)

I think a more accurate comparison would be the defacement of something that is considered sacred to the Christians or the Jews. For example: if somebody were to deface things that are scared to Christians - a church, maybe, on a very public scale, and get away with it, and indeed have it copied.
Or perhaps it is more akin to the Jewish star being defaced in a public newspaper and being repeated in other publications around the world. That would not be tolerated, nor should it be under any circumstances. It is the same with the Danish cartoons. Aanyway that's been described better by other people in another thread.

Originally posted by Schuart
if the Life of Brian/Satanic Verses/Tailor and Ansty is not someone's thing, then they should just pass it by.

Just on the Satanic Verses - that is quite a serious one. Obviously I haven’t read it but the entire concept of the satanic verses - the implication that Muhammad p. was basically heretical in his recitation of God's word and final testament - is damning to Islam. Crediting such a suggestion in a textbook or novel, and making the author wealthy, and decorating it with awards, really undermines at the highest level Muslim ideology and faith and unapologetically holds one of the most basic tenets of Islam - The Qur'an - in contempt.
The portrayal of Muhammad's wives in the book has been likened to the 'the portrayal of the Virgin Mary as a whore in the eyes of Christians'. The thinly veiled portrayal of 'Mahound' as Muhammad p. (Mahound has historically been a term used to describe Satan), a brothel called 'Hijab'.
Serious as that undermining (blasphemy) of Islam is, it doesn’t, in my opinion, justify the murder of the French publisher (I think he was French) linked to the book, and there is an issue with the fatwa (which apparently is still valid?). However, the extensive protests it received, were absolutely justified.

The Pakistani scholar Shabbir Akhtar said:

"To avoid the censorship of burning (and) the censorship of assassination, one needs to exercise caution. But the caution is not due to fear. It is due to courtesy. If one enters other people's sanctuary, it is as well to take off one's shoes...

...Rushdie enters the mosque—but tactlessly refuses to take off his shoes. But even as a strategy, it is wise to show courtesy...Rushdie should enter the Islamic sanctuary with respect for his opponents as people, albeit people with false notions in their heads. Once in it, let him argue as he will...The quality and motivation of our quarrel with others matter."

I suppose that is related to the title of this thread, a plan to blow up planes, in some way.
There is an essential difference in philosophy between Islam and the West. Islam seeks to grow on the West and the West seeks to grow in Islam. Neither is wont to retreat from its position on that. However, if everyone "showed courtesy" and removed their proverbial shoes, as Shabbir Akhtar said, neither the furtherment nor cause of either ideology would find favour in violence.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I think a more accurate comparison would be the defacement of something that is considered sacred to the Christians or the Jews.

You’ve given us a clear and interesting post. At the same time, I take you’ll half guess that our likely perception is that questioning or ridiculing one faith is, in principle, much the same as questioning or ridiculing any other faith. Its only within a faith that people are going to feel something is especially sacred. For the sake of argument, Catholics would probably say their sacraments, dismissed by many Protestants as superstitious, are as sacred to them as the Quran to Muslims.

There’s no real way of defining equivalence, or of saying definitively that mocking or questioning the Quran or the person of Muhammad is the equivalent of burning down a church. More likely, it’s the equivalent of mocking or questioning cherished Christian beliefs – which is pretty much what happens. Hence, it can look like Islam is seeking a status not given to other faiths. On the outside, that looks both a desire to suppress independent thought and a lack of confidence that the faith can survive in a climate of free expression.

InFront wrote:

Just on the Satanic Verses - that is quite a serious one. Obviously I haven’t read it but the entire concept of the satanic verses - the implication that Muhammad p. was basically heretical in his recitation of God's word and final testament - is damning to Islam.

I haven’t read the Satanic Verses yet, but I have read other works by Rushdie. He is a competent artist – exactly the kind of person that the concept of free expression is meant to defend. Consider the parallel of the Da Vinci Code – the idea that Christ survived crucifixion utterly undermines mainstream Christianity. And this is only a thriller, an entertainment with little literary merit. But that’s what free expression involves.

InFront wrote:

Serious as that undermining (blasphemy) of Islam is, it doesn’t, in my opinion, justify the murder of the French publisher (I think he was French) linked to the book, and there is an issue with the fatwa (which apparently is still valid?). However, the extensive protests it received, were absolutely justified.

Indeed, and recalling the time, the idea that someone was being sentenced to death for writing a novel did an incredible amount of damage to the image of Islam in the West. A lot of the stuff we’re wading through now can be traced back to that.

Protesting about a book, saying you see Rushdie as profiting from insulting your faith is obviously all fine. But at the end of the day our likely response is, if you don't like it leave it on the shelf along with Dan Brown.

InFront wrote:

However, if everyone "showed courtesy" and removed their proverbial shoes, as Shabbir Akhtar said, neither the furtherment nor cause of either ideology would find favour in violence.

Courtesy is a fine and reasonable thing. But I suppose I wonder what courtesy means in this context. If its just a smooth way of saying ‘could you not just quietly suppress them dirty old books, like’, then I’m not for it.

InFront

Again I’m finding myself in agreement with most of what you say here.
It is very hard to make equivalences between the faiths with regard to causes of offence. I understand that Muslims could be perceived as being seeking a special place in society, untouched, but really I dont think anybody desires a respect outside of what their faith asks to be afforded.
I do not think that Islam is really a more 'demanding' faith than others, although I’m the first to admit I know relatively little about them, but it certainly has 'different' demands to other mainstream religions.

Schuhart wrote:

Courtesy is a fine and reasonable thing. But I suppose I wonder what courtesy means in this context. If its just a smooth way of saying ‘could you not just quietly suppress them dirty old books, like’, then I’m not for it.

That isn't necessarily what is meant by courtesy. Muslims are here with all of our imperfections. The West is here too, with all of its imperfections. They are not always compatible bedfellows, that is correct. It has the potential to be a frontier of anger, distrust and radical violence.
Just to get away from the idea of both sides trying to overcome the other.
I'd really love to see a see a situation develop where Muslims, like any group of people, feel free to bring the principles of Islam into their community, or more accurately, to invite the people of their community into Islam. And that they may be free to publicly challenge the economic, legal and social structures that is not compatible with their outlook.
Equally so, that atheist, neoliberal, PD-voting, alcohol-consuming, lapsed Christians would feel comfortable in bringing forward their views on social policy and state law, and challenging those policies that are not compatible with their outlook.

I feel that we live in such a state of mutual suspicion in Europe that on either side (speaking in terms of Muslims and the "traditional established" population only), a challenge to the pricinciples of either way of life causes anger and resentment, as everyone clings to their own beliefs on how society should operate.
This raises the question of conformity. I often think the irony of a democratic society is the idea that we ought to conform to it. In any society, if a group of citizens feel that the constitution merits a mention of... Polar bears, and that Christmas should be replaced with a holiday in appreciation of... Polar Bears, then if they are serious, and nobody is getting hurt, they deserve that opinion to be treated with courtesy.
Now I don’t know what their theories were on polar bears, but I doubt that the boys involved in July 7 ever felt that their political and religious opinions were valid in the eyes of the community, or indeed the authorities. Why else would someone choose to mutilate their society in such a bloody and violent way?

That said, societies with so closed a vision as we have in the west don’t make people become terrorists. There is a plethora of personal, social and political - and indeed religious agonists which together can create such a mindset.
Just the same way as we say to American or Pakistani politicians "look what you've done" or we say to religious leaders "be careful of young boys" we have to also look at ourselves and say "stop being so closed minded, and afford courtesy". That isn’t a victory for terrorism, it's an awakening that the community itself has responsibilities for its people, and it needs to change and adapt its way of thinking to prepare to accommodate a way of thinking that it may not be used to. Islam is going nowhere, and neither is western culture. Which will outlast the other in Europe, who knows, but there needs to be some give and take.

So, to eventually answer your question, no, it's not a smooth way of saying 'ban XYZ', giving courtesy to others in this regard means listening to their protestations, or at least encouraging their right to expound their opinion and if nothing else, coming to the mature position of amicable (or at least, peaceful) disagreement.
Allowing such theories, for example the banning of Playboy, the courtesy of a respecting ear is one real achievement of a fully integrated society, and is a great proponent for peace.

growler

InFront wrote:

However, if everyone "showed courtesy" and removed their proverbial shoes, as Shabbir Akhtar said, neither the furtherment nor cause of either ideology would find favour in violence.

the courtesy the west shows is allowing pretty much anyone to voice their opinion, no matter how wrong, offensive, insensitive or misleading it may be, freedom of expression and opinion is far more useful than artificial protectionism from criticism.

"jesus lol" was about as offensive as one could get to the basics of the christian faith, yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) has attempted to bomb boards.ie.

IMO anyone who uses the alledged words of a mythical being to justify murder is wrong.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

This raises the question of conformity. I often think the irony of a democratic society is the idea that we ought to conform to it.

I agree with the idea that terrorism cannot be allowed to stop us taking positive actions for fear of it being seen as caving in. I don’t see that as being the same as allowing terrorism to dictate policy.

I did have some thoughts about the feeling that democratic society calls on people to conform to it. That conformity is really just in the public space, while religion exists in the private space. I think it might be reflected in the image that on your way to the Mosque you might pass me sitting on a deckchair in my garden reading the Satanic Verses. You can’t stop me reading, and I can’t stop you praying. In principle, the response to any religion taking its place in national life is just ‘squeeze in there between the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists and the best of luck to you’.

Christianity has that idea of 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's'. I know it might be said that Islam is different. It comes with a whole set of rules that are frequently given state recognition, meaning the split between public and private space is not clear. But (courteously!) I'm afraid the answer to that issue is likely to be 'tough, if we make a special case for you the rest of them will all be queuing up'.

If we take the Da Vinci Code as an example of an issue that impacts on someone’s faith, the Catholic Church can either speak out about the book, or decide that it’s not worth glorifying it with a response. Either way, the book is going to circulate. All they can do is let us know how they feel about it.

Trode

Shabbir Akhtar wrote:

"To avoid the censorship of burning (and) the censorship of assassination, one needs to exercise caution. But the caution is not due to fear. It is due to courtesy. If one enters other people's sanctuary, it is as well to take off one's shoes...

...Rushdie enters the mosque—but tactlessly refuses to take off his shoes. But even as a strategy, it is wise to show courtesy...Rushdie should enter the Islamic sanctuary with respect for his opponents as people, albeit people with false notions in their heads. Once in it, let him argue as he will...The quality and motivation of our quarrel with others matter."

I may be misinterpreting this (God knows it wouldn't be the first time) but isn't he basically saying "If you don't show us respect, expect to be murdered"?
Rushdie 'enters the mosque tactlessly' by not showing the courtesy of not criticising Islam, so he deserves "the censorship of assassination"?

InFront

Trode wrote:

I may be misinterpreting this (God knows it wouldn't be the first time) but isn't he basically saying "If you don't show us respect, expect to be murdered"?

He didnt use the word 'deserves' in that article. He said that one should avoid assasination. That's not a bad idea!
I think he is aware of the offense that people will always take to unbridled attacks on their identity, and is simply pointing out that there are extremists out there who kill people, and if Rushdie has a problem with Islam, not to be so sensationalist, or not to try and undermine the faith in this way which is the most bizarre and bitter way of trying to fix something with a kick.

I wouldn't go in Harlem, and stand on the street and shout abuse about Malcolm X, for example. I think that is the context in which Dr Akhtar uses the words "avoid" and "courtesy". It is all very well for normal people to hear about the Rushdie book and just think 'idiot', but there will always be people - in every walk of life - who would take it further.

Originally posted by Schuart
'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's'

In Islam, as I'm sure most religions, these can't be conceivably seperated. As has been said by different people so many times that it is almost a cliché, Islam is not just a religion it is a way of life. Islam guides people in everything - clothes, diet, finances, marriage, friendships, charity, politics, it doesn't leave you when you step outside the hall door.
Although we should obey the law, God always comes before 'Caesar', but luckily, western law is almost entirely compatible with Islam anyway.
It is the western lifestyle, aspects of living that are not covered in legal texts, that differs with Islam.

Unfortunately it is not as easy as 'you live your life and I will live mine', in an integrated society, the actions of others effects us all. If people made more of an effort to appreciate that, and act accordingly, there would be no need for animosity.
Earlier this year, one of the Trinity papers ('Piranha') carried the headline "Stinking sand **** outraged by Danish slight on their towel-headed religion”.(verbatum).
Considering the amount of Muslims in Trinity, that was never going to be a clever move. But legally, they enjoyed freedom of speech to print such a thing. This is a clear example of being unable to appreciate how one's words and actions effect others, and failing to act in good faith towards your society. Complete and unquestioned freedom of speech is a fundamentalism all of its own.
As regards Dan Brown, I think, without wanting to cause offence, that western culture has already undermined Christianity, or anaesthetised it. Attempting to look at Islam with some degree of objectivity, I think that is something Muslims understand, and is perhaps why western culture can often be seen with suspicion and apprehension.
It is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the inverse of religion.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Complete and unquestioned freedom of speech is a fundamentalism all of its own.

Only if you see a need to compell people to accept a particular point of view.

I don't know if this gets my point across, but I'll try it. The Quran ridicules the notion that God would have a son, directly refuting the central idea of mainstream Christianity.

Should Christians burn the Quran and seek to have it banned it from circulation for showing such obvious disrespect of their beliefs? Or should Islam simply get used to the idea that its not the only game in town?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Islam saying Christianity is full of it. But the compliment will be returned.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

That said, societies with so closed a vision as we have in the west

What is a society "with an open vision" then? Can you give an example?

"Western"-type societies generally seem to me to be about as close to that as you can get. Almost so close as to be circling around the edge of chaos and collapse IMO.

InFront wrote:

Earlier this year, one of the Trinity papers ('Piranha') carried the headline "Stinking sand **** outraged by Danish slight on their towel-headed religion”.(verbatum).
This is a clear example of being unable to appreciate how one's words and actions effect others, and failing to act in good faith towards your society.

I think they probably knew exactly what they were doing there. Childish stirring of the pot.
People who dish out violent vengence when such things happen are a much, much bigger threat to society than students trying to be outrageous/insulting if they are allowed to justify themselves or get some kind of understanding.

Everyone should be clear about telling Islams' avenging angels where they can shove it when their holy anger boils over into violence at slights to their religion.

As a matter of interest, did anything happen to the paper/students involved there? It seems pretty extreme.

Trode

InFront wrote:

He didnt use the word 'deserves' in that article. He said that one should avoid assasination. That's not a bad idea!
I think he is aware of the offense that people will always take to unbridled attacks on their identity, and is simply pointing out that there are extremists out there who kill people, and if Rushdie has a problem with Islam, not to be so sensationalist, or not to try and undermine the faith in this way which is the most bizarre and bitter way of trying to fix something with a kick.

I really hope you're joking, because you can't seriously be agreeing with someone who says "Well, Muslims are going to kill anyone or anything that offends them. Don't do that, and we won't have a problem.". It's like the political equivalent of the movie mob guy who goes into a shop and tells the the owner to pay up or 'accidents' will happen, while is two mates start wrecking the place with sledge-hammers behind him.

Yes, it may be against common sense to go to Harlem and insult black people. That in no way excuses anyone of any colour who comes along and stabs you. Furthermore, it's even less logical to excuse them if they stab you for saying those things in another part of the world. Violence is absolutely not an acceptable response to hurt feelings, regardless of how strongly those feelings are held.

InFront

But that is not exactly true. The Qu'ran itself does not ridicule Jews' and Christians' beliefs.

And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture. Even thus speak those who know not. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they differ.

Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Dispute ye with us concerning Allah when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. We look to Him alone.

Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians -
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -
shall have nothing to fear or regret.

So no, they should not condemn the Qur'an because it accepts them for whatever they believe in as people of God, and leaves all judgement to God. Anyway, myself at blame, this is getting into a religious debate which is probably more suited to the Islam Forum.

originally posted by fly_agaric
What is a society "with an open vision" then? Can you give an example?

"Western"-type societies generally seem to me to be about as close to that as you can get. Almost so close as to be circling around the edge of chaos and collapse IMO.

There is no perfect society.
Maybe you would be as well to ask someone who has seen more of the world where there is an 'open society'. I think the west thinks it is an open society, but is itself blinkered, focused on only one idea of what is correct, one way of life that everyone should fit into. When people dont fit into that, we have problems.
My only point is that the west is a lot more narrow minded than the absolute freedom it claims to champion.

As for the Trinity paper - they got into trouble with a Dean and aren't allowed publish until next term. The insult to Islam only followed on from other offenses to the disabled, black people and travellers etc. They'll be back in print next month, spelling errors and all...

Originally posted by Trode
I really hope you're joking, because you can't seriously be agreeing with someone who says "Well, Muslims are going to kill anyone or anything that offends them

No, nobody said that. I just think a bit of common sense was in order. When you offend a certain community - really offend them - there will always be certain elements of the community who would take retribution beyond what is reasonable or morally correct.
Im not trying to justify the murder of anyone, Im simply stating a fact that there are extremists out there, and you shouldn't underestimate what they are willing to do.
If you are willing to agree that its a bad idea to go into Harlem (a free society in the west) and shout abuse about Malcolm X, how is that different to saying all of these awful things about Muhammad p. - saying things are deeply offensive - to British Muslims?.
In fact, not just to British or Irish Muslims, but to to an entire community of 1 billion people? Not just unsavoury marks, I mean stories that mock the very core of Islam and present the entire faith as a nonsensical myth.

The violence isnt justified in any way - not even slightly - but nobody should be surprised that it has happened. Yes, violence is an affront to law and order and shouldn't happen, and yes the people who kill innocent people are the real dangers in our society. That is all true.
But you also have to allow that some people are particularly stupid. We can't all go around in our own little glass bubbles, ignoring danger.
Let alone mentioning Malcolm X, I would be quite stupid to walk through Harlem at 2am alone. Now, if I were to get shot, or mugged, that wouldn't be my fault, but it would have been a bit silly of me to be so have been acting in that way to begin with. You have to be aware of the threats that exist in society, even if it isn't fair.

growler

InFront wrote:

No, nobody said that. I just think a bit of common sense was in order. When you offend a certain community - really offend them - there will always be certain elements of the community who would take retribution beyond what is reasonable or morally correct.



Not just unsavoury marks, I mean stories that mock the very core of Islam and present the entire faith as a nonsensical myth.

.

Who draws the line between offensive and deeply offensive?


And here,in the west, at least you are free to mock any and all religions as being nonsensical myth, a right I particularly cherish without fear of governmental sanction. If it's good enough for one myth it should be good enough for all of them.

Trode

InFront wrote:

No, nobody said that. I just think a bit of common sense was in order. When you offend a certain community - really offend them - there will always be certain elements of the community who would take retribution beyond what is reasonable or morally correct.
Im not trying to justify the murder of anyone, Im simply stating a fact that there are extremists out there, and you shouldn't underestimate what they are willing to do.

The quote you posted seemed fairly clear on the point. 'Censorship of burning and assassination' is entirely acceptable, you just have show 'courtesy', and you'll be fine. If you're not respectful, well, why would you do something stupid and dangerous like that?
'Accidents' happen.

InFront wrote:

If you are willing to agree that its a bad idea to go into Harlem (a free society in the west) and shout abuse about Malcolm X, how is that different to saying all of these awful things about Muhammad p. - saying things are deeply offensive - to British Muslims?.
In fact, not just to British or Irish Muslims, but to to an entire community of 1 billion people? Not just unsavoury marks, I mean stories that mock the very core of Islam and present the entire faith as a nonsensical myth.

The violence isnt justified in any way - not even slightly - but nobody should not be surprised that it has happened. Yes, violence is an affront to law and order and shouldn't happen, and yes the people who kill innocent people are the real dangers in our society. That is all true.
But you also have to allow that some people are particularly stupid. We can't all go around in our own little glass bubbles, ignoring danger.
Let alone mentioning Malcolm X, I would be quite stupid to walk through Harlem at 2am alone. Now, if I were to get shot, or mugged, that wouldn't be my fault, but it would have been a bit silly of me to be so have been acting in that way to begin with. You have to be aware of the threats that exist in society, even if it isn't fair.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, but neither should we just shrug and accept this intimidation as a fact of life. They are not some nebulous threat, they are people who have to be made realise their actions are utterly intolerable. Allowing that upsetting Muslims is another potential form of death, like drug use and lion taming, and likewise to be avoided unless you're prepared to take the risk, is on one hand giving the violent, psychopathic minority exactly what they want, and on the other making a statement about Muslims in general that, hopefully, the vast majority of them would find more offensive than any cartoon or work of fiction.

mike65

Back on topic the rozzers have got permission to detain the suspects for another period

Mike.

oscarBravo

Any details released in the process?

mike65

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796995.stm

its a 7 day extension.

Mike.

InFront

Allowing that upsetting Muslims is another potential form of death, is ... making a statement about Muslims in general that, hopefully, the vast majority of them would find more offensive than any cartoon or work of fiction.

Would you please point to wherever I have apparently made such a sweeping statement as that about Muslims?, which would be extremely odd.

Upsetting muslims, as the Rushdie book did, is not dangerous.
Upsetting violent extremists who happen to be muslims, as the Rusdhdie book did, is dangerous.
Do you see my point?

originally posted by growler
in the west, at least you are free to mock any and all religions as being nonsensical myth, a right I particularly cherish

I can never understand the motivation to mock a peaceful, faithful people who simply want to get along with their own lives. I'm sure it is another debate for another day.