[article]'fascist fanaticism and radicalism is now rife amoung our young'

Schuhart

niencat wrote:

Satardien was expressing a concern he had. Sunday Tribune took their own spiel on his words.

I suspected that he was the victim of journalistic spin. It's interesting to have some confirmation of that.

niencat

wes wrote:

Perhaps a central world wide authority may be the answer? A way to show the world the majority of us are against the violent fanatics? This is one thing Islam has been missing for a long time and so we are split between so very many communties and we can never present a voice of unity.

i would agree provided that this authority is elected by the majority of the muslims in the world and consists of a group of people whose all have an equal share (i.e. nobody's opinion, vote or words bears more weight than another person's), both men and women, instead of one person. I believe that there are allusions to this kind of thing, let us call it a council, to be found in the quran or in the hadith. Clear specifications are not given, apparently (I have heard about this, never truly investigated it in the hadith or quran, but muslims have told me there are allusions to such a council).

wes

1 vote per person would be the way to go, but it would be a mess to organise, apparently there is between 1.3 and 1.7 billion Muslims in the world so it could get complicated.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It's really good to see a Muslim on boards who doesn't interpret attacks on Islamic terrorism/radicalism as attcks on Islam.(Wes)

And Niencats I'm really glad you posted about the distortion of what Dr Satardien actually said. Journalist should be given sentences in mountjoy for articles like this. I'd be so upset if one did that to something I'd said.

Face it. There is a problem with Islam in its mildest manifestation. For example, they want the implementation of blasphemy laws which is inconsistent with freedom of speech and tolerance.

Hi Jackie,

Could you indicate the exact body of people "they" represents? It's not entirely clear. From what you said it's almost as if you think "they" represents every Muslim in the world.

However assuming you had the intelligence to set up a boards.ie account by yourself you surely cannot mean this. I must have misread something.

The recent events in the Middle East are very painful to many Muslims.

The events in the Middle East pain everyone who has compassion for other human beings, not just Muslims. I cannot entertain anyone cononing violence with this claim. I mean you didn't see Irish Americans rioting in the 80s because we were getting a raw deal. Not entirely comparable I accept.

Muslims are grieving because of the demonisation of Islam, and especially young Muslims want action to be taken. How would you feel if your culture and your worldview and what you had learned to value and respect was under attack? You would get angry and you would want to put a stop to it.

I'd be confident in the knowledge that people who demonise Islam intentionally are full of sh|t. And no one of any worth pays attention to it.

Cartoons are not by any stretch of the imagination as demonisation of Islam.

Comedy central wouldn't broadcast an image of Muhammed handing Peter Griffin a hat. But they were willing to broadcast an image of Jesus Christ daking a dump on George Bush - See South Park Episode "Cartoon Wars"

Why didn't Christians around the world riot at US embassy - because its a phucking cartoon!

Being fanatical about religion is proof to me you doubt any of it is actually true, see

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt."
-Robert M. Pirsig

The upsetting thing about all this is I can't help but think about the scene in Malcolm X where he gets shot. I hope as many Muslims as possible openly support Dr S's views. I'm gonna go to one of his sermons as soon as I get a chance. Sounds like a great man.

Why would you even want to do that? I mean, what's your motivation to go out there and insult something that is at the heart of Muslims in your community, who if I remember from another thread in the past, you say know and you encounter on a regular basis?

It's a bad method but I think she's trying to say freedom of speech is more important than Muslim's feeings - which it is.

That south park episode I referenced explains it very well - EVERYONE should watch it. If they dont I'm gonna shove a box semtex up my ass & blow up the server for boards. Now do it!

Anyone else notice Ride Satanis an anagram of Satardien?

InFront

niencat wrote:

i would agree provided that this authority is elected by the majority of the muslims in the world and consists of a group of people whose all have an equal share (i.e. nobody's opinion, vote or words bears more weight than another person's), both men and women, instead of one person. I believe that there are allusions to this kind of thing, let us call it a council, to be found in the quran or in the hadith. Clear specifications are not given, apparently (I have heard about this, never truly investigated it in the hadith or quran, but muslims have told me there are allusions to such a council).

We do have one world authority, and that is The Qur'an.

I for one would not welcome the idea of a central governor for Islam or a 'Muslim Pope' or revived Caliphate. We already have ulema representing the ijma, and that is all that we need.
The heroic image of one human man leading the religious flock through his own faith, and not being under God's direction, unleashed in the West a relentless quest for domination and possesive claims on God betwen minorities. It never took root in the Muslim psyche. Thank god.
For all of its outward manifestations - we observe Hijab, are circumcised, may have grown a beard... Islam is actually an intensely private religion.

Muslims today are at the receiving end of Western domination. As an Ummah, we are living through the darkest hour of our history - the genocide in Bosnia, dispossession in Palestine, brutality in Kashmir, butchery in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, international suspicion and Islam-o-phobia, abject poverty in Muslim Africa, and political repression across Muslim lands.
Al-hamdulillah 'ala kool ahal.

This undoubtedly makes us want to look to one leader to unite us.

But we shouldnt forget that Allah is with us always, and his word is with us in physical form with The Qur'an and elaborated in Sunnah.

InFront

lostexpectation wrote:

I bet your parents told you everything was ok, and shielded you from war and poverty and the systems that perpetuait this (beyond human falibilites) elsewhere?

Yes, actually, doesn't everybody's?

My point is that I had a happy and unapologetically Muslim childhood, and indeed adolescence (just like most people). I had a basic grip on wars and conflicts - but watching the news and thinking about problems in the Kashmir or terrorism in Lockerbie or a war in the ME wasnt something I felt related to, or moved by, nor did I feel guilty for Islam.

8 or 9 years later, it is unavoidable that boys are experiencing a direct relationship to the extremism just because they are Muslim, and I think that is a tragedy.

wes

InFront wrote:

We do have one world authority, and that is The Qur'an.

Its sad that so many ignore it. I am not talking about a Caliphate, I am talking about a purely religous thing to guide people on there understanding on the concepts presented in the Qur'an, there are so many different interpretations.

I think an authority that clearly for example says that suicide bombing are wrong and against the very nature of Islam. This would make it so much harder for the psychopaths to lie to Muslims and say they will be martyrs when the Qur'an clearly says suicide is wrong and that you will go to hell. Its is a disgusting preversion of our religion and the people who support such acts also disgust me.

A group of spiritual leaders with some authority to tell the radicals and the murderers they are wrong would be a great thing for us. It would help seperate us from them.

lostexpectation

wes wrote:

Its sad that so many ignore it. I am not talking about a Caliphate, I am talking about a purely religous thing to guide people on there understanding on the concepts presented in the Qur'an, there are so many different interpretations.

I think an authority that clearly for example says that suicide bombing are wrong and against the very nature of Islam. This would make it so much harder for the psychopaths to lie to Muslims and say they will be martyrs when the Qur'an clearly says suicide is wrong and that you will go to hell. Its is a disgusting preversion of our religion and the people who support such acts also disgust me.

A group of spiritual leaders with some authority to tell the radicals and the murderers they are wrong would be a great thing for us. It would help seperate us from them.

are suicide bombings really the problem?

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

We do have one world authority, and that is The Qur'an.

Sense this is gonna go off topic but I mean come on - a book written hundreds of years ago is an authority?
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article812661.ece
Reminds me of

The heroic image of one human man leading the religious flock through his own faith, and not being under God's direction, unleashed in the West a relentless quest for domination and possesive claims on God betwen minorities."

I hope you're not implying that's how the Pope is seen - he simply isn't. Of course he's under his God's direction, or at least supposed to be - my point is Catholic's don't worship him as a god - they worship their God.

It never took root in the Muslim psyche. Thank god.
For all of its outward manifestations - we observe Hijab, are circumcised, may have grown a beard... Islam is actually an intensely private religion.

Yet not so private that the entire world's right to free speech is held hostage to how Muslims might react. Though it can't last, sooner or later it's gonna be treated like the hot tempered guy in school who everyone made fun of because they knew they'd always get a reaction.

What's the connection between privacy & circumcision? not saying there's none I just dont see it. Note time of post.

Muslims today are at the receiving end of Western domination. As an Ummah, we are living through the darkest hour of our history - the genocide in Bosnia, dispossession in Palestine, brutality in Kashmir, butchery in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, international suspicion and Islam-o-phobia, abject poverty in Muslim Africa, and political repression across Muslim lands.
Al-hamdulillah 'ala kool ahal.

Yeah dude - everyone hates Muslims - just natural hatred really, in our genes. Spend all our time ensuring their hour is as dark as possible.

Your attitude is just depressing, seems like you enjoy going on about how Muslims have a hard time. You're right about the inhumanity in those locations listed but open your eyes for five minutes & you'll reaslise these places are not being raped because they're Islamic but rather for politically motivated reason. Whatever you say about "international suspicion" & "Islam-o-phobia" you know as well as I do Muslims living here have it just as good as anyone else. And I know a lot of Muslim's who'll agree.

Why do you think you care more than non-Muslims about bombings in Lebanon? You should really get over the "us vs them" attitude - that causes more racism than any media demonisation.

mike65

To bring this back firmly on topic here's a follow up article from the Tribune.

Extract

TENSIONS continue among the Irish Islamic community following last week's claims by a leading religious leader that young Muslims here have become increasingly radicalised.

The claims, made by South African-born Sheikh Dr Shaheed Satardien, were rejected by other Muslim leaders here, including Dr Nooh Al Kaddo, the director of the Islamic cultural centre of Ireland.

However, last week, Khalid Kelly, an Irish Muslim who was a leading member of the UKbased fundamentalist Islamic group Al Muhajiroun told the Sunday Tribune that there was "remarkable interest" shown by young Irish Muslims when the group conducted an information campaign in Dublin. Al Muhajiroun was banned in the UK in 2004. Its founder and leader, the controversial Muslim cleric Sheihk Omar Bakri, is currently in hiding in Lebanon, but remains in contact via emails with his followers, including Kelly.

Kelly told the Sunday Tribune that Irish Muslim teenagers, including some as young as 12, expressed an interest in the group's pro-jihadist teachings when they initially travelled to Ireland in October 2003. Both Kelly and other members of the London-based group have returned several times to Dublin to meet with persons interested in the group's activities, he said.

Mike.

InFront

Not sure what kind of credibility the Tribune should be afforded if the Sheikh's comments really were totally misrepresented as they appear to have been.

They're following up this topic on a very similar line to last week, which is to try and give Joe Public something to worry about here as terrorism rears its ugly head abroad against the US et al. It is August, after all, it's silly season.

wes

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Sense this is gonna go off topic but I mean come on - a book written hundreds of years ago is an authority?
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article812661.ece
Reminds me of




I hope you're not implying that's how the Pope is seen - he simply isn't. Of course he's under his God's direction, or at least supposed to be - my point is Catholic's don't worship him as a god - they worship their God.



Yet not so private that the entire world's right to free speech is held hostage to how Muslims might react. Though it can't last, sooner or later it's gonna be treated like the hot tempered guy in school who everyone made fun of because they knew they'd always get a reaction.

What's the connection between privacy & circumcision? not saying there's none I just dont see it. Note time of post.



Yeah dude - everyone hates Muslims - just natural hatred really, in our genes. Spend all our time ensuring their hour is as dark as possible.

Your attitude is just depressing, seems like you enjoy going on about how Muslims have a hard time. You're right about the inhumanity in those locations listed but open your eyes for five minutes & you'll reaslise these places are not being raped because they're Islamic but rather for politically motivated reason. Whatever you say about "international suspicion" & "Islam-o-phobia" you know as well as I do Muslims living here have it just as good as anyone else. And I know a lot of Muslim's who'll agree.

Why do you think you care more than non-Muslims about bombings in Lebanon? You should really get over the "us vs them" attitude - that causes more racism than any media demonisation.

I agree that any racism is a few small incidents from people who probably already felt that way using the current climate as an excuse. The majority of people in the west are very good people. There are member of every race that are racist and they always wait for something to rear there ugly head, but they are thankfully in the minority nowadays.

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
I've been away. Sorry for taking so long to get back to your point.

It is essential that the achievement of defeating blasphemy laws be copperfastened. It is not acceptable to me that because Muslims generally are under unjustified attack over extremism, progressive voices should be sympathetic to Islam itself. Islam at its mildest - and if there were never any violence - is a theocratic challenge to the open society. In the short term it would be sensible to mock the prophet regularly until Muslims adapt - like Catholics - to the hard won freedoms of our society and come to ignore jokes about religion.

Yes, I do know a small number of muslims but not very well. I know them well enough to talk to.

InFront

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It is essential that the achievement of defeating blasphemy laws be copperfastened.

AFAIK there are no blasphemy laws in this country, nor have there since its inception, is that not correct?

Islam at its mildest - and if there were never any violence - is a theocratic challenge to the open society.

That is complete rubbish. I would suggest you learn more about Islam if you genuinely think that way. Whilst of course, Muslims are always open to welcoming new members into the community, there is to be no compulsion in Islam. I really don't know where you're getting the notion that we are a theocratic threat to society - our own society.
By default you are saying that the 20, 000+ Irish Muslims are a threat to the state? Give me a break.

In the short term it would be sensible to mock the prophet regularly until Muslims adapt - like Catholics - to the hard won freedoms of our society and come to ignore jokes about religion.

You seem to be attributing the freedoms of society to atheists in history. You must know that is an incredibly wrong suggestion. More often that not, it was deeply religious people themselves who established the constitutions of the western countries - Ireland included.

Re: ignoring jokes about religion, I presume you are referring to the Danish cartoons.
The portrayal of Muhammad pbuh in those pictures is not comparable to a Christian prophet in terms of offense cause. Portrayal of Christian characters is not an offense in their religion, it is to Islam.
As I think I said somewhere else, it is more equivalent to defacing something that Christians and jews do find sacred - like, for example, a Christian chuch or for jews, the star of David.
Your explanation of the need to constantly pick out normal peaceful Muslims and offend them is absurd. You seem to think of it as some sort of crusade or holy war on behalf of democracy. That is the antagonism practiced by the likes of GWB.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

AFAIK there are no blasphemy laws in this country, nor have there since its inception, is that not correct?

Article 40 (6) (1) (i) of the Constitution, inter alia, says “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.” Doolan’s ‘Principles of Irish Law’ comments that blasphemy “consists of indecent or offensive attacks on Christianity, or the Scriptures, or sacred persons or objects calculated to outrage the feelings of the community. The mere denial of Christian teaching is not enough.” (page 111 of the 2nd edition). (I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t definitively answer the obvious question of whether blasphemy includes attacks on other faiths – but it would appear not.) We haven’t had much occasion to enforce it, and I’m not even clear if there is a ‘law’ that defines how to punish it. But that’s a theoretical consideration as, up until the 1970s, we had a a heavy censorship regime It was a bit like that line in Ulysses saying the reason the Irish never persecuted the Jews was because we never let them in. We never prosecuted people for publishing blasphemy because it never got past the Censor.
In recent times, just picking one example, it would be hard to see the ‘Holy Stone of Clanricard’ episode of Father Ted, which ends with a religious relic being stuck up a Bishop’s rectum, as being anything other than offensive to Catholicism. The off hand manner in which the Vatican is depicted as upgrading the relic is clearly laughing at the Church’s contention that, say, things like the apparitions at Knock are only granted status after rigorous investigation. But no-one bats an eyelid.

By default you are saying that the 20, 000+ Irish Muslims are a threat to the state? Give me a break.

I think you are correct to introduce a sense of proportion to the context.

You seem to be attributing the freedoms of society to atheists in history. You must know that is an incredibly wrong suggestion. More often that not, it was deeply religious people themselves who established the constitutions of the western countries - Ireland included.

They gave us a deeply religious Constitution, that we’re gradually rolling out of, which gave scant regard to Wolfe Tone’s conception of the Republic uniting ‘Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common name of Irishmen’. But we’re getting there and, yes, this process involved liberal Christians, atheists and agnostics questioning the right of any faith to use the State to impose its will on the people.

The portrayal of Muhammad pbuh in those pictures is not comparable to a Christian prophet in terms of offense cause. Portrayal of Christian characters is not an offense in their religion, it is to Islam.

I think we’ve touched on this elsewhere. It’s really not possible to deal with this issue other than by comparing like to like. Challenges to cherished beliefs of Islam equates to challenges to cherished beliefs of Christians, and we’ve seen lots of them right up to the Da Vinci Code. An attack on a Church equates to an attack on a Mosque or any other place of public worship and is more serious than a challenge to cherished beliefs as it actually amounts to an attempt to prevent people from practicing their faith.

Your explanation of the need to constantly pick out normal peaceful Muslims and offend them is absurd. You seem to think of it as some sort of crusade or holy war on behalf of democracy. That is the antagonism practiced by the likes of GWB.

There is no reason for Muslims to find themselves barraged by comment, comic or otherwise. However, I think behind the concerns that a few of us seem to have is our memory of fear to enquire masquerading as respect for religion. Islam may be able to stifle comment in countries where it is the dominant religion, just as the Catholic Church used its position to stifle any debate that might ‘disturb’ the faithful here. It’s an attitude well described by one novelist in the lines

… but these voices were silenced before they had finished their questions, kicked on the shins under tables, for their own sakes, because there are things that cannot be said. No, it’s more than that: there are things that cannot be permitted to be true.

There may well be figures in Islam who fear free enquiry for what it will reveal. And they’re right – it won’t be possible to answer the challenges that will be raised with the sort of half-truths that serve under censorship. Hence the need to stoke up the faithful to believe that these are sacred beliefs and any improper reference is insulting, offensive, hateful and so on.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Article 40 (6) (1) (i) of the Constitution, inter alia, says “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

That's an interesting fact, thanks for clearing it up, I was more genuinely curious as opposed to disagreeing with JL on that one.

In recent times, just picking one example, it would be hard to see the ‘Holy Stone of Clanricard’ episode of Father Ted, which ends with a religious relic being stuck up a Bishop’s rectum, as being anything other than offensive to Catholicism. The off hand manner in which the Vatican is depicted as upgrading the relic is clearly laughing at the Church’s contention that, say, things like the apparitions at Knock are only granted status after rigorous investigation. But no-one bats an eyelid.

I'm not familiar with that I'm afraid, but I know it is a comedy and is probably not intended with any malice. In general however, I don't necessarily see it as a success that avid Christians feel they must just put up with an affront to their faith, or feel so apathetic that it isn't worth complaining.
If someone insults even your cricket team, you will complain, and may get very passionate about it. Same with Islam - it's not about religious arrogance, or assuming we are above others, it's local affections, and in this case, love of God. I do think that society here has undermined Christianity in many respects, and for Christians that is a shame.

There is the formal religious intolerance we see in Iran and old Iraq, and old Ireland, and then there is the new wave of religious intolerance - an intolerance of all religion instead of some. It's not much better, you know. There can possibly be a middle ground.

While we are on the topic of insulting religions to welcome them into the west, where do we draw the line? Should one start burning US flags to numb Americans to anti-americanism in the name of free speech, in Ireland we have that right. Should we burn the Nigerian flag, 'because we can'? Extreme patriotism is just as dangerous as extreme islam. Except of course, that extreme patriotism has caused more war and more destruction.

I doubt you would be in favour of that sort of pointless vilifaction, but Jackie Laughlin certainly seems to believe in the paralysis of submission.

Challenges to cherished beliefs of Islam equates to challenges to cherished beliefs of Christians, and we’ve seen lots of them right up to the Da Vinci Code.

I'm just arguing the mistake that is so common, people saying 'why do they find a few cartoons so upsetting, the pope appeared in x show and nobody complained, etc". The fact is that people ought to be making fairer comparisons and taking into account that certain religions have been weakened by their environment, which is all I'm saying.

Islam may be able to stifle comment in countries where it is the dominant religion, just as the Catholic Church used its position to stifle any debate that might ‘disturb’ the faithful here.

I think people should be careful about comparing people seperated by thousands of miles that only have Islam as the common denominator. All sorts of factors come into play in these societies, like culture and local traditions and legislation, etc.

In these countries, it is Muslim leaders that stifle comment, not Islam itself. They can only act in what they perceive as the faith, we can't say they are followers of Allah without qualification, just because they are Muslim. So it would be wrong to attribute actions to Islam when an act must pass through the hands of man first.

There may well be figures in Islam who fear free enquiry for what it will reveal. And they’re right – it won’t be possible to answer the challenges that will be raised with the sort of half-truths that serve under censorship.

That mirrors GWB's line 'They hate our freedom'. I personally never understood that one...
I do agree that some leaders fear the embaressment and openness that freedom brings. However, most people who hate the Danish cartoons fear the collapsed sort of society that complete and unquestioned freedom ruins.
I believe in freedom of speech, so long as real good can come of it and it isn't just there to offend people

Cartoonists and journalists in the Western press tend to pride themselves on their independence, and so they consider protests from their victims as attacks upon their own integrity. They have not recognised that their success depends on their ability to pander to the prejudices of their readership, the kind of guy who gets a kick out of offense for the sake of it.

A 20th century Punch-like caricature of a bog Irishman or long-nosed Jew, or Norman Lindsay's grotesque Huns or "Chinamen" now seem repugnant. Why si the stereotyping acceptable for Muslims? It strikes me as jumping on the bandwagon. Nothing good comes from it.


Apologies if that was incoherent Im off to bed...

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
Shuhart got there before me and expressed most of what I would feel more eloquently than I might have done.

You are being far too sensitive. Of course I don't regard Irish Muslims as a threat to the state. I welcome them into the open society but I refuse to grant them privilege.

I don't know your age but I suspect you did not live in Catholic Ireland. It was a cold, nasty - perhaps, to borrow a religious term, evil - society.

I want Muslims to BE Irish and laugh at a programme in which Imam Brennan (like Bishop Brennan) is kicked up the arse or Imam Brennan appears in a bath with two women. Mocking piety is fun, good for piety, and good for society.

Irish islam will not become tolerant of blasphemy if Irish liberals pussyfoot around them, confusing unctious niceness with tolerance. It is essential in the short-term for Irish society and for the progress of Irish Islam that we subject Islamic piety to massive doses of Irish slagging until Irish Muslims laugh and fully integrate.

Schuhart

The fact is that people ought to be making fairer comparisons and taking into account that certain religions have been weakened by their environment, which is all I'm saying.

The perception we’d have is not that Christianity has been weakened necessarily, but that Islam needs to develop a thicker skin. It is true that religion has shrunk in importance in Ireland in recent years, but that simply reflects what happens when it is subjected to scrutiny. A person raised in a society where one religion is dominant will accept a lot of stuff that vanishes like the mist when given any real consideration. Fundamentalism still finds its adherents – but in an open society that’s more a case of flight from reality.

In these countries, it is Muslim leaders that stifle comment, not Islam itself.

You are right not to confuse oppressive rulers who happen to be Muslims with Islam. Similarly, the world has seen plenty of Christian and atheist dictators. But what was more on my mind was the controversy over the Satanic Verses and the murder of Theo Van Gogh. There also seems to be a reluctance to study the actual historical origins of the Quran. In fairness, the Spanish Inquisition weren’t short of ideas when it can to dealing with heretics. But these days the most the Church will do is excommunicate you.

However, most people who hate the Danish cartoons fear the collapsed sort of society that complete and unquestioned freedom ruins.

Indeed, that fear is there. But that argument, stripped to its essentials, is saying religious beliefs must be protected even if known to be untrue. My leap of faith is that we have to believe ourselves capable of dealing with reality, because the thought that we can only survive by living in delusion is truly awful.

One way or the other, new attitudes will leak into Islam. I read a discussion about apostasy on islamonline.net, which was exploring that topic of whether a Muslim who decides to leave the faith should be put to death. I know its one of those supreme acts of arrogance, but I could not help noticing that the scholar who took the most liberal position in that debate, saying

In the final analysis, hypocrisy is a greater danger to the community than apostasy in itself.

is based in Canada. Judging from that debate, the idea of freedom of conscience still has a way to go as a considerable amount of conflicting religious text has to be wished away – even my Canadian pal had to coat his message with a thick layer of scripture, and end with what reads to me almost like a plea of ‘I’m not questioning the faith, oh, no way hose’. But there is simply no way a faith can operate in the modern would with even a theoretical notion that people who opt to leave have to be killed. One way or the other, this will change. And the process will hardly stop there.

Why is the stereotyping acceptable for Muslims?

That’s a fair comment and the Danish cartoons involved in the specific case in question are just stupid – there’s no wit, subtlety or insight about them. But surely this is the argument to be made against them - they are a caricature that no other group would have to put up with – rather than an argument that pretends the Islamic faith is more important to Muslims than Christianity is to Christians?

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Islam needs to develop a thicker skin.

When something is genuinely offensive, it's not fair for bystanders to say 'forget it' or 'get over it'. A lot of people think Muslims are making a big deal over nothing, a lot of people on boards would think that. Islam is very, very personal to most Muslims, and if a person is genuinely offended, in any social or religious or political, or even sporting realm, it is far better that this be voiced as opposed to 'pent up'.

To ask that a Muslim to please not get offended is to give a free rein to people who would distort the face of Islam. The Middle East conflict will continue indefinitely, as will US aggression, as will terrorism. Should Muslims just sit back and let others misrepresent us?

So often when these attacks happen, Muslim leaders are accused of not being vocal enough in condemning it, remember Brendan O'Connor's ''where are all the moderate Muslims?'' article comes particularly to mind. Yet when we complain and protest, Muslims are being too sensitive.
Of course the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not specifically religious, as it came at a time when Muslims were feeling particularly vulnerable.

This is a cartoon from USA Today. (it isn't one of the Danish or copycat cartoons and doesn't depict The Prophet pbuh.)
I came across much more offensive cartoons while looking for one to make the next point but that was the tamest version I could find. Do you think a newspaper as huge as that would even try to present stereotypical Jews and indeed Judaism in such a bad light because of their affairs in Israel? Of course not. But it's okay to do so with Muslims?
Islam is a safe bet at the moment. It's still acceptable to present Muslims in this way, and growing a thick skin isnt going to make that go away. If the Times presented such a cartoon of an Irish Catholic Priest conspiring with the IRA during the troubles in the early 1980s, would Irish people, and Irish Catholics be best advised to say nothing?

I think Muslims in this country, and in Britain, have already developed a thick skin. Through years of being exposed to Western society, that is completely inevitable. However, turning a blind eye to a susatined prejudice is not something that should be encouraged.

There also seems to be a reluctance to study the actual historical origins of the Quran.

You are probably correct there. There are probably two reasons for that. Firstly, the vast majority of Muslims simply believe it is the direct word of God delivered to the Prophet pbuh, and don't have an interest in delving into the tedious work of tracing it. Secondly: it can't be objectively analysed and ruled on definitively, and there is a danger that any findings would be presented in a negative light, and taken as fact by most people, even if that were not accurate.

One way or the other, new attitudes will leak into Islam. I read a discussion about apostasy on islamonline.net, which was exploring that topic of whether a Muslim who decides to leave the faith should be put to death... had to coat his message with a thick layer of scripture, and end with what reads to me almost like a plea of ‘I’m not questioning the faith, oh, no way hose’.

That was a very interesting read and the author put forward very thought provoking points. I don't think that the niceties at the end are anything but common courtesy but merely an effort at modesty and clarifying that he doesnt wish to cause offense. I would have thought that article was good evidence that calm debate and examination of Islam is welcomed.

niencat

InFront wrote:

We do have one world authority, and that is The Qur'an.

I for one would not welcome the idea of a central governor for Islam or a 'Muslim Pope' or revived Caliphate. We already have ulema representing the ijma, and that is all that we need.
The heroic image of one human man leading the religious flock through his own faith, and not being under God's direction, unleashed in the West a relentless quest for domination and possesive claims on God betwen minorities. It never took root in the Muslim psyche. Thank god.
For all of its outward manifestations - we observe Hijab, are circumcised, may have grown a beard... Islam is actually an intensely private religion.

Muslims today are at the receiving end of Western domination. As an Ummah, we are living through the darkest hour of our history - the genocide in Bosnia, dispossession in Palestine, brutality in Kashmir, butchery in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, international suspicion and Islam-o-phobia, abject poverty in Muslim Africa, and political repression across Muslim lands.
Al-hamdulillah 'ala kool ahal.

This undoubtedly makes us want to look to one leader to unite us.

But we shouldnt forget that Allah is with us always, and his word is with us in physical form with The Qur'an and elaborated in Sunnah.

I hope you read my post well... I am not saying one person. I am saying a group of people, elected by Muslims all over the world, should lead Muslims.

I think the same of the Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic church. I think the world as a whole has outgrown the practice of leadership and absolute obedience to one person. It is far better if any governing body consists of a number of people who are elected by people from that religion all over the world.

niencat

InFront wrote:

Not sure what kind of credibility the Tribune should be afforded if the Sheikh's comments really were totally misrepresented as they appear to have been.

They're following up this topic on a very similar line to last week, which is to try and give Joe Public something to worry about here as terrorism rears its ugly head abroad against the US et al. It is August, after all, it's silly season.

Infront, it is simply silly to think that radicalism among muslims in ireland is not happening. It is happening in all over western Europe. Why not in Irleand? Especially since Ireland is so close to Britain.

The Daily Mail reported that two people who reside in Ireland and are Muslims were arrested about 10-11 days ago in Holyhead, the man is known to have extremist views. The gardai searched the house of the woman who was also arrested and found a laptop with information on it, downloaded from the internet, on how to make bombs.

However, I heard that the man and woman are released. I do not know why, someone mentioned in passing and I have not had the time to research further.

There IS radicalism. And any extremist is a potential danger, no matter where he or she lives.
To make people aware that these things are also in Ireland is not scaremongering. It is making people aware of a problem.

To make a comparison: suicide and road accidents and alcoholism are all problems here in Ireland. Should we not talk about it, because it may make people scared/uncomfortable? I am sure that the people who started pointing out that there was a problem with alcoholism in Ireland, or suicide among young men in Ireland, people tried to wave it away. they were not believed, until figures proved them right.

One can hide one's head in the sand if one wants, or one can acknowledge there is a problem, and help to find solutions to the problem. If I was a muslim, I would go for the latter.

I do realise that a lot of muslims feel under attack, and want to defend their faith. I have nothing but sympathy for that. I am a foreigner in this country and my culture is quite different from Irish culture. I know what it is to be misinterpreted and misunderstood and though I am caucasian, I have experienced being treated as less because i have a slight accent. Because of all that I can empathise with anybody who is treated with less respect they deserve just because they look different or people are spreading rumours about their religion/culture/race/nationality.

The best way to defend one's faith however is to acknowledge that there are trends among its followers that are worrisome and then work with as many organisations of one's faith together to help to find solutions for the problem.

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
Good liberal people who are not anti-Islamic, who either don't care about a person's religion or would see a multitude of religions having a role in making society safe from the domination of one religion, do NOT underestimate the feeling of offence. It will not be easy for Islam to get past this stage in its development. However, if Islam does not want to be in conflict in western democracies, then it must become used to being the butt of jokes. All but a very few Catholics find Fr. Ted funny now. Let's all make fun of the Prophet until the jokes become sophisticated and the Muslims laugh too. Then they can go pray.

Misguided liberalism has encouraged Muslim sesitivity.

darkman2

IMO I think Islam has some serious issues it has to sort out. No1 among these is for those in power and Muslims themselves to categorically condemn any barbaric act of terrorism and stop raising the 'Ifs' and 'buts'. Come out and say that evey single act of terrorism, all suicide bombings are completely unacceptable and wrong. Islam has earned a name for itself in the last decade and tbh its deserved. Dont try to say it isnt because it is and dont say 'its only a minority'. I dont think ive EVER heard a Cleric or Imman or a Preacher unconditionally condemn all acts of terrorism. Why is this? Should this be acceptable to the powers that be in the West? Your more them happy to come here to make money but yet Muslims appear to have serious issues with our societies. You know what im gonna say next: If you dont like it here............

InFront

Jackie laughlin wrote:

InFront,
if Islam does not want to be in conflict in western democracies, then it must become used to being the butt of jokes.

Going by this and other posts, I find your theories on taking offence interesting.

Do you think the Orange Order should be, and should always have been, allowed march through Catholic areas?
The orange men just have to keep marching and marching until the Catholics become numb to it, dont you agree? Silly to get offended over a marching band sporting the colour orange.
In fact, maybe the North should adapt an orange flag - and compulsory orange passports! Just to numb the Catholics until they stop getting offended, you know. :rolleyes:

Seriously, what is your problem with people protesting this sort of thing? Take some of your own medicine, and put up with it.

If you dont like it here............

There are far too many dots in that ellipsis. If you don't want to abide by the rules of the English language - go to Pakistan. There are no ellipses in Urdu:)

InFront

niencat wrote:

I hope you read my post well... I am not saying one person. I am saying a group of people, elected by Muslims all over the world, should lead Muslims.

I think the same of the Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic church. I think the world as a whole has outgrown the practice of leadership and absolute obedience to one person. It is far better if any governing body consists of a number of people who are elected by people from that religion all over the world.

Hi niencat, yes I can see the benefits of having a system in place that would speak for all Muslims (presumably you mean within Sunni, Shi'ite, Sufi, etc?)

However, when you have one or one hundred people speaking on behalf of millions and millions of people, there will always be disagreement and misrepresentation.
That leads to the possibility of a split, and at the moment, a split is the exact thing that Islam doesn't need:)
As you know Islam is a very personal and private religion - you don't even have to enter a mosque to be a Muslim - and I think that a central authority , etc, would take away from that very personal relationship with Allah.

darkman2

InFront wrote:

=


Yesssss??......................................................................

Then Go Home. And I dont mean back to Dundrum, I mean go and live in a Muslim country where you will be welcomed im sure because whilst most here dont have the guts to be honest the vast majority of us secretly dislike Islam (appart from those who practice it). Thats being honest, none of this PC nonsense that comes from certain quarters.

InFront

Oh I edited that post long ago.

How about you go? They'd love you in Karachi, darkman.

darkman2

InFront wrote:

Oh I edited that post long ago.

How about you go? They'd love you in Karachi, darkman.

Really? Hows that?

I aint goin anywhere. Can you categorically condemn all suicide bombing, murders and acts of terrorism by sections of Muslim communities right across the world????

Oh and dont come up with some bull about me condemning the US or anything like that, im talking about your religion. (Im assuming your a Muslim of course going on previous posts)


Second time ive asked.

InFront

I would have hoped my opinions on extremism were obvious, and if you're asking me to spell it out because I'm Muslim then, no.
Anyway trying to keep it civil...

niencat wrote:

Infront, it is simply silly to think that radicalism among muslims in ireland is not happening. It is happening in all over western Europe. Why not in Irleand? Especially since Ireland is so close to Britain.

Yes we are very close, however politically we are quite different in terms of foreign policy. However, yes as I have said, I myself have noticed boys - friends' brothers, etc, who were a few years behind me in school come up with some pretty stupid theories of Islam, so I'm not trying to disregard it at all.
I seriously doubt that extremism is rife here that's all, and I think that suggesting so is scaremongering. You seem to know the Muslim community pretty well, how would you describe it? Peaceful or violent?.
Ireland and Islam actually mix very well together, and hopefully that relationship will continue indefinitely.

The best way to defend one's faith however is to acknowledge that there are trends among its followers that are worrisome and then work with as many organisations of one's faith together to help to find solutions for the problem.

Agreed, and I understand the Sheikh is very active in promoting that and I'd agree with him 100%. However, I don't think, despite his differences with Clonskeagh, that any Muslim leader or teacher disagrees with him.

darkman2

InFront wrote:

I would have hoped my opinions on extremism were obvious, and if you're asking me to spell it out because I'm Muslim then, no.

No you dont condemn terrorist acts by Muslims? Or no your unable to answer a direct question?. Im not trying to be confrontational btw even though my posts may appear blunt. Im just looking for an answer. Its actually not obvious to me from previous posts that you condemn all terrorist acts. Oh and before you think ive an issue with Islam, ive serious reservations about Isreal and elements of Western Society but thats neither here nor there. I just want to know, from a Muslim, that the stereotypes that have developed are either true or untrue. Its a fair question.