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

darkman2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

look over page 4 of of this thread - someone told you it doesn't matter if you think Muslims born here aren't Irish because they are

you posted "
Im Irish and Im telling you I dont think they are Irish. Is that ok with you?"

Annoying the way the internet keeps a record of things isn't it?

Since your his con-joined twin and you answer for him, why dont you answer the question then in his absence!:rolleyes:

darkman2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

ughh you're even too stupid to use HTML properly!

I think you will find I used it just fine:D

Bottle_of_Smoke

darkman2 wrote:

I think you will find I used it just fine:D

hehe, you went back and edited it but missed your typo!

Since your his con-joined twin and you answer for him, why dont you answer the question then in his absence!

What in Allah's name do you mean by this?

I mean did you even notice that before you came along we were having an argument about the right to poke fun at Islam?

darkman2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

hehe, you went back and edited it but missed your typo!




What in Allah's name do you mean by this?

I mean did you even notice that before you came along we were having an argument about the right to poke fun at Islam?

Are you a muslim too??

OK I will ask my question to him in a more pleasing manner:

IF, If you would be so kind, do you condemn all acts of terrorism by Muslims around the world without reservation?:)

InFront

You're ruining the thread with this garbage tbh so if I say this will you go away?

Yes I condemn all acts of terrorism by all Muslims all around the world

There, I'm only spelling it out because I think you're beautiful when you're angry.
Sorry I dont have time to reply to the other stuff am a bit busy atm (good clean suburban irish activities if you must know, darkman:) )

darkman2

InFront wrote:

You're ruining the thread with this garbage tbh so if I say this will you go away?

Yes I condemn all acts of terrorism by all Muslims all around the world

There, I'm only spelling it out because I think you're beautiful when you're angry.
Sorry I dont have time to reply to the other stuff am a bit busy atm (good clean suburban irish activities if you must know, darkman:) )

:eek: Its amazing. Thank you!!!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

darkman2 wrote:

Are you a muslim too??

OK I will ask my question to him in a more pleasing manner:

IF, If you would be so kind, do you condemn all acts of terrorism by Muslims around the world without reservation?:)

No, are you Autistic?

darkman2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

No, are you Autistic?

hmmmmmmmmm nope cant say I am. As long as your sure your not a Muslim.

wes

InFront wrote:

Yes I condemn all acts of terrorism by all Muslims all around the world

I 2nd this btw.

I think we should both do put this as our sigs and wear t-shirts with this on it :rolleyes: .

InFront

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

That Iranian cartoon you posted - surely you can see how thats laughing at the stereotypes of Islam rather than actual Islam. Just like the Danish cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his Turban isn't calling Muslims terrorists - its saying "it's funny that people could consider this a reality" Afaik some of the writers were Muslims.

In fact the accompanying text said something quite different. It announced that Muslims must get used to being mocked and ridiculed if they wanted to enter Western society. I'd provide a link here, but you know. It's still easy to access anyway.
I suppose Jyllands Posten saw themselves as pioneers of that campaign... to do what? What have they to gain? If they see Muslims as a group of people with silly beliefs and odd traditions, so what? Why not just let Muslims get along with it, we're not hurting anybody. What is the motivation to choose something that offends millions of well intentioned people - just to prove that they can? That's not a sign of a healthy society, and it's not a good way to get your subject to agree with you.
Schuhart makes the comparison of terrorism to stalking, the printing of this kind of material is a sort of gross perversion itself. It's a downright abuse of the freedom of speech that we are lucky enough to enjoy here, there's nothing funny about it. The revisionist theory that it was all just a big misunderstanding also doesn't add up, given the magazine's controversial history.

With regard to you previous posts (few pages ago now). I didn't want to create a "woe is me" image of Islam, the comments I made about Islam having entered a dark age was actually meant in a response to Wes (who is Muslim) about the current state of Islam, and intended to reflect the inevitable sense of brotherhood that unites Muslim countries.
It may not make sense as to why French or Irish Muslims feel a bond with Palestinians or Bosnians or Muslims in the Kashmir, but there is a shared feature - Islam - which is akin to a nationality.
Up until the fourteenth century Muslim societies were among the most advanced in the world in terms of administration, trade, the arts and the sciences. Muslim nations have now entered a very dark era, I think it is the dark age of Islam, and I don't mean that in a self-pitying or melancholy way, I'm saying that when the dust settles, I think history will show this to have been the most challenging era that it has met.

Originally posted by Schuhart
At the same time, provocative works can and do act as a spur for necessary reform by others.

Provocative in the polite sense, yes, as in 'thought provoking'. Even wit can cause people to re-examine themselves and take stock, and realise their foolishness. Or the likes of Nineteen Eighty Four with the concept of "thoughtcrime". They are valuable works in that they ask the reader to examine himself and the actions of his country, his religion, his environment, etc.

But ridicule, like the Danish cartoons? I doubt it. Ridicule tells you what someone else says is wrong. Ridicule is never your own opinion, it's an idea that eminates from prejudices and I can only think of examples where ridicule makes people defensive.

I mean if you want to change someone's opinion in real life do you: show them that they are wrong, or simply tell them that they are wrong? I suspect most of us try to do the former. Argument only succeeds if the other subject comes and looks at your opinion, not if they're forced to look at it... I think the latter is what causes the "lalalala cant hear you" stance that Wibbs mentioned.

wes

I agree with Infront on the dark ages thing. I reckon this is our very own Dark ages. We have fanatics preaching a gross perversion of Islam, and murdering innocent people on a whim to justify there sickening Jihad.

We have our own people murdering one another instead of trying to help one another. Monstorous regimes ruling Muslim countries and abusing there own people for there own ends. We have a lot of problems simply put.

Having said that those of us in the West have it very very good. We are free to do what we choose. As they say it is always darkest before the dawn.

Trode

InFront wrote:

In fact the accompanying text said something quite different. It announced that Muslims must get used to being mocked and ridiculed if they wanted to enter Western society. I'd provide a link here, but you know. It's still easy to access anyway.
I suppose Jyllands Posten saw themselves as pioneers of that campaign... to do what? What have they to gain? If they see Muslims as a group of people with silly beliefs and odd traditions, so what? Why not just let Muslims get along with it, we're not hurting anybody. What is the motivation to choose something that offends millions of well intentioned people - just to prove that they can? That's not a sign of a healthy society, and it's not a good way to get your subject to agree with you.
Schuhart makes the comparison of terrorism to stalking, the printing of this kind of material is a sort of gross perversion itself. It's a downright abuse of the freedom of speech that we are lucky enough to enjoy here, there's nothing funny about it. The revisionist theory that it was all just a big misunderstanding also doesn't add up, given the magazine's controversial history.

Provocative in the polite sense, yes, as in 'thought provoking'. Even wit can cause people to re-examine themselves and take stock, and realise their foolishness. Or the likes of Nineteen Eighty Four with the concept of "thoughtcrime". They are valuable works in that they ask the reader to examine himself and the actions of his country, his religion, his environment, etc.

But ridicule, like the Danish cartoons? I doubt it. Ridicule tells you what someone else says is wrong. Ridicule is never your own opinion, it's an idea that eminates from prejudices and I can only think of examples where ridicule makes people defensive.

I mean if you want to change someone's opinion in real life do you: show them that they are wrong, or simply tell them that they are wrong? I suspect most of us try to do the former. Argument only succeeds if the other subject comes and looks at your opinion, not if they're forced to look at it... I think the latter is what causes the "lalalala cant hear you" stance that Wibbs mentioned.

I think you may have misinterpreted the whole cartoon thing. The point wasn't to ridicule Muslims or tell them their beliefs are silly. Most of the original printed cartoons aren't even derogatory of Islam, they simply depict the prophet. It was a reaction to the fact that, while researching a childrens book, the writer found that many artists and cartoonists would fear for their lives if they drew an image Muslims found offensive. The publication was showing Muslims that they were wrong, but only the ones who thought they could force their beliefs on others with the threat of violence. It was saying 'We are not afraid of you', a commendable statement to make to any bully.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

But ridicule, like the Danish cartoons?

Even taking dense nonsense like the Danish cartoons, yes stuff like that most certainly does play a role in provoking debate – in fairness, its probably one of the reasons why we’re all talking.

Looking back on our own history, perfectly inconsequential things have been milestones on the road to a more open society. Recall the case of the Tailor and Ansty. A book recording the fireside tales of a West Cork storyteller, collected and published by an English enthusiast, was deemed so offensive at the time that extracts read out in Seanad Eireann were struck from the public record. The gross over-reaction to this work, and similarly ludicrous episodes, most certainly did spur an awareness that change was needed.

The "lalalala cant hear you" attitude does not want change, and will stay on its own course for as long as it can get away with it. That’s the Irish experience.

I do understand that any visual depiction of Muhammad is problematic. I’m reading a book on Islam at the moment where the author mentions that he has removed a photograph showing one of the few pieces of art depicting him after complaints from Muslim readers. (The book is Malise Ruthven’s ‘Islam: A Very Short Introduction’ which I’d describe as written from a sympathetic Western academic perspective. The author is not complaining about the deletion – he’s just using it as an opportunity to stress the sensitivity of the issue.)

He quotes one complainant as saying ‘There is definitely no human being that can ever depict the beauty and grandeur of his countenance.’ I know that I’m coming from an atheist perspective, but my reaction to this was ‘how do you know how beautiful he was – you’ve no pictures of him and an apparent religious taboo about creating any?’ So, to be honest, I do sort of categorise this as the kind of thing were at some stage two Muslims will be saying ‘remember when we used to get all worked up about pictures of Muhammad’, as they sit in the Omniplex waiting for the start of ‘God Told Me To Do It – A Prophet’s Journey’.

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

In fact the accompanying text said something quite different. It announced that Muslims must get used to being mocked and ridiculed if they wanted to enter Western society. I'd provide a link here, but you know. It's still easy to access anyway.

Like the way an Irish woman would have to get used to Hijab when she wants to be accepted into society in Saudi Arabia.

Anyway thats irrelevent to the point I was making reguardless of the accompanying text. The humour stays the same - it's not intended to hurt Muslims.

Why not just let Muslims get along with it, we're not hurting anybody. What is the motivation to choose something that offends millions of well intentioned people - just to prove that they can? That's not a sign of a healthy society, and it's not a good way to get your subject to agree with you.

It's not just Muslims, I make fun of Christians much more than Muslims. Most people in the west don't believe in God & they find the whole idea pretty funny. Satire is the most entertaining form of comedy. If you don't make fun of Muslims it's not fair on the rest of the religions you rip on.

With regard to you previous posts (few pages ago now). I didn't want to create a "woe is me" image of Islam, the comments I made about Islam having entered a dark age was actually meant in a response to Wes (who is Muslim) about the current state of Islam, and intended to reflect the inevitable sense of brotherhood that unites Muslim countries.

Fair enough - I mistakenly thought that's what you did mean. I've read a bit of the MPAC site and the "us vs them" attititude is frightening, I suppose I jumped to the wrong conclusion that you had the same attitude. Apologies

It may not make sense as to why French or Irish Muslims feel a bond with Palestinians or Bosnians or Muslims in the Kashmir, but there is a shared feature - Islam - which is akin to a nationality.

I genuinely think this is a bad thing. Of course it's nice to have a common bond but it kind of implies us non-muslims feel nothing for those in those locations, which isn't true at all. National pride or nationality is one of humanity''s greatest mistakes.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

Looking back on our own history, perfectly inconsequential things have been milestones on the road to a more open society. Recall the case of the Tailor and Ansty... The gross over-reaction to this work, and similarly ludicrous episodes, most certainly did spur an awareness that change was needed.

I think that the major swing that occured in people's opinions here was down to more than just that book. The event you speak of didn't really effect censorship law, or prevent a continuing focus of censorship on behalf of the governments of the time. It really didn't change much, in fact the storytellers themselves were locally shunned for having been reponsible for the book, as was mentioned in your link (politics).
However, while some of their writings may not have been to Dev's taste, I don't think anyone would suggest they were meant with anything but the good faith and light humour of an old Irish couple, and in that respect it was a shame to have been banned. They didnt set out to offend anyone.

The "lalalala cant hear you" attitude does not want change, and will stay on its own course for as long as it can get away with it.

Exactly, so why does society encourage it? If we realize that rudeness won't make people change, why pursue it? It's because these people aren't really trying to bring about a change as much as to make money or make controversy. If you want to engage with Islam, mocking it is not the right approach.
If I were to insult one citizen in such a way it would be libelous, why is it deemed okay to insult thousands of them?

I do sort of categorise this as the kind of thing were at some stage two Muslims will be saying ‘remember when we used to get all worked up about pictures of Muhammad’

Islam has not changed its position on this and is unlikely to do so even at the insistence of Paramount Pictures. In fact there already is a film about Muhammad's life p. but no, it doesn't depict him.
The central argument against the depiction of the Prophet is the prevention of idolatry.

Holy Qur'an Pickthall edition 21:52-54
-When he said unto his father and his folk: What are these images unto which ye pay devotion?
-They said: We found our fathers worshippers of them.
-He said: Verily ye and your fathers were in plain error.

The man who referred to the beauty of Muhammad p. may (I'd speculate) have been referring to a statement by the last of the rightly guided Caliphs Ali ibn Abi Talib who described the prophet p. (his cousin) as a man of an incomparable appearance. Those are not the exact words because I can't find them on the net right now. Muhammad's (pbuh) physical beauty is not, I'd think, important in itself.

Originally posted by Trode
Most of the original printed cartoons aren't even derogatory of Islam, they simply depict the prophet.

Which one do you mean, the Prophet p. with a bomb in his turban? or with satanic horns? I can't even remember what the others were, but they all went beyond even the depiction of the Prophet p. You are right about the initial reason for approaching the cartoonists - but the cartoonists were asked to draw interpretations of Muhammad p. and that was what they gave.

So leave aside for a minute the issue of depicting him, is it not obvious how that attempts to offend all people who honour Muhammad p. as the Last Prophet of God?

Originally posted by Bottle_Of_Smoke
Like the way an Irish woman would have to get used to Hijab when she wants to be accepted into society in Saudi Arabia.

Absolutely not. Hijab is not a mockery of women. It does vary from country to country and stict interpretations in Saudi are political decisions. In parts of Pakistan you see women tourists in t-shirts, shorts and sandals - not a popular choice of clothing, but it happens.
Irish women who visit Saudi are merely responding to a cultural norm, it does not ask them to foresake their religion. Asking a Muslim woman in Dublin not to observe Hijab is asking her to observe cultural norms and foresake her religion, which is the serious bit.

Of course it's nice to have a common bond but it kind of implies us non-muslims feel nothing for those in those locations

I don't agree with that at all. Americans who watched the 9-11 attacks felt a common bond with the dead because they were being attacked for being Americans.
Muslims, especially Muslims of more recent Middle Eastern descent, can feel a common bond with other Muslims because of the attacks being linked to Islam. A Christian Iraq would not have suffered an invasion 3 years ago.

wes

Just a thing on the common bond thing, if a Irish person is persecuted (hurt, murdered etc) I would relate a lot more. Its a natural inclination as I am Irish. It doesn't mean that I don't feel for a person who is not Irish or a Muslim, its just that its hits home a bit more when its someone you can relate to if that makes sense.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I think that the major swing that occured in people's opinions here was down to more than just that book.

My point is not so much that this one single book made a difference - it was a drop in the ocean. Its more the relevance of works seen as provocative to the promotion of change. The Tailor himself did not challenge the reaction - he was persuaded by priests to symbolically burn a copy of the book. Other writers left. But that Seanad Debate was so utterly bizarre that it made a small contribution to the process. But, indeed, censorship was not relaxed for decades later.

Ultimately, what drove change was not simply down to one factor. A strong spur to change was simply a recognition that the closed, Catholic conception of the State had failed - something not unlike the feeling that Islam has failed to achieve its Earthly goal. But part of the process was making a challenge to orthodoxy, because orthodoxy sees no reason why it needs to change. If things are screwing up, its obviously because we're not praying hard enough.

Tensions clearly arise from the source of the challenge. Its one thing for former Irish Catholics to look back on the faith they've left and say 'what a bunch of muck savages'. However, if the same people turn their attention of Islam and say 'more muck savages', then clearly there's that human instinct to defend against an external challenge.

But, on the other hand, some Islamic commentators pen diatribes contrasting Western sluts and wholesome Islamic womanhood, so to be honest its just a feature of life that the exchange of ideas will sometimes be delivered by megaphone.

InFront wrote:

It's because these people aren't really trying to bring about a change as much as to make money or make controversy.

The media most certainly is there to make money out of controversy. That said, there is an issue at stake. It's not scaremongering about terrorism - although that is a real event that complicates relationships in much the same way as the IRA campaign did in its turn. What it is, as I see it, is in some way to challenge the apparent mindset that Islam is massively different - a mindset shared in different ways by Muslims and non-Muslims.

Even the concept of the Umma is really not so utterly beyond understanding. Catholicism is a global religion, and in recent decades was a channel through which many Irish people became involved in development issues and was a factor in mobilising an amount of dissent to US policy in Central America - where the targets were, incidently, most certainly not Muslim.

I think that's one important concept - Islam is really not that different. Ultimately, it's composed of people, who have shared experiences and beliefs with parallels to many others.

Islam has not changed its position on this and is unlikely to do so even at the insistence of Paramount Pictures.

You may well be right, and I'll feel like a really bad person if it turns out you're wrong, because I will chortle a little.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

A Christian Iraq would not have suffered an invasion 3 years ago.

Why do you think that??

Assuming the Christian Iraq is still an Arab dictatorship, has lots of oil, and is a convenient US enemy country to beat up on, er, bring democracy to, after Sept. 11th....

BTW, I think most of the Bush Admin. attempts to somehow link the Iraq war and Islamic extremism really began after the whole WMD threat justification was proved to be rubbish.

Also, after the invasion itself had managed to forment said Islamic extremism inside Iraq.

Bottle of Smoke wrote:

Anyone who thinks nationality matters is a ****w|t

That would be most people then...

Unfortunately, in this world, if everyone else tends to be moved by feelings of nationalism/tribalism and your group (Irish, Muslims, whatever) are not at all you'll probably get stomped on in the name of some other agressive nationalism's interests.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

Why do you think that??

Assuming the Christian Iraq is still an Arab dictatorship, has lots of oil, and is a convenient US enemy country to beat up on, er, bring democracy to, after Sept. 11th....

BTW, I think most of the Bush Admin. attempts to somehow link the Iraq war and Islamic extremism really began after the whole WMD threat justification was proved to be rubbish.

The link to Islam began immediately on September 11th or in the succeeding few days if I remember correctly. Very few people even know the case of the Punjabi Sikh petrol station owner Balbir Singh who was one of many shot (usually for wearing the turban) in the in the aftermath of 9-11. Or what about the original, religiously overtoned name for the war on terror “Infinite Justice”
American News networks were delighted with their evangelico-political pundits at the time who declared such things as "Hitler was bad but Islam is worse" and "Mohammed was a terrorist" (the latter causing rioting in India)

The invasions that followed were not just about oil and democracy: neighbouring Kazakhstan has billions of tonnes of oil, trillions of m3s of natural gas, and an extremely shoddy democracy (but far too many Christians) and an invasion was never suggested; even more obvious is the largely atheistic Turkmenistan – severe autocracy, has oil, and never even a hint of an invasion.
So that is why I think that a Christian Iraq would not have been invaded.

Originally posted by Schuhart:
Ultimately, what drove change was not simply down to one factor. A strong spur to change was simply a recognition that the closed, Catholic conception of the State had failed - something not unlike the feeling that Islam has failed to achieve its Earthly goal

I don't know what exactly caused the religious change in ireland, I don't think it was so much a ridiculization or making a mockery of Catholicism, as simply a case of people being lured away from faith. This occured with the invasion and domination of a new culture from America and Britian with the expansion of television and a new wave a so-called liberation.
Of course religious freedom and individual rights are to be celebrated, but Westernisation is jealous of other devotions and provides an environment that is hostile to the maintenance of religion's place in society. It's like GWB's ''you're either with us or against us" - 2001.

On the last point, I absolutely disagree that Islam as a relationship between man and God has 'failed' in any way. Inevitably, Muslims and non- Muslims alike have failed Islam, but it has never failed us.

Trying to get away from an 'us vs them' perspective, Islam is a relationship between a man (one man) and Allah and the outward manifestation to the community is a reflection of the relationship.
When that happens on the scale of over a billion people you get an entire spectrum of what Islam is, with very loose definitions and so, to say that Islam as a world religion, has failed, is almost meaningless.
A lot of people have simply failed in their relationship with God.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

The link to Islam began immediately on September 11th or in the succeeding few days if I remember correctly. Very few people even know the case of the Punjabi Sikh petrol station owner Balbir Singh who was one of many shot (usually for wearing the turban) in the in the aftermath of 9-11.
American News networks were delighted with their evangelico-political pundits at the time who declared such things as "Hitler was bad but Islam is worse" and "Mohammed was a terrorist" (the latter causing rioting in India)
The invasions that followed were not just about oil and democracy: neighbouring Kazakhstan has billions of tonnes of oil, trillions of m3s of natural gas, and an extremely shoddy democracy (but far too many Christians) and an invasion was never suggested; even more obvious is the largely atheistic Turkmenistan – severe autocracy, has oil, and never even a hint of an invasion.
So that is why I think that a Christian Iraq would not have been invaded.

I think I understand your reasoning now.
[Leaving aside the various conspiracy theories] the attack on Afghanistan was a direct response to Sept. 11th.
The reason I asked why you thought Iraq had to be a muslim country to be attacked was because I don't think the Iraq war had anything to do with Islam or muslim terrorism or whatever.

However, Sept. 11th (an Islamic terrorist attack) was the reason why Bush and co. were able to get such support from the media and public in the US for the Iraq war and of course they would not have been able to use (nasty concept I know...) the terrorist attacks in that way if Iraq was not a muslim (and Arab) country (hey, those fellows who attacked us on Sept. 11th were muslim arabs weren't they?).

So perhaps you are correct.

(BTW - I think the Americans are on good terms with the the dictators in those countries you mention - ala Saddam himself in the old days. Or Batista in Cuba. I think the govt.'s friendliness to the US has a much better correlation with small probability of invasion of a given country by the US than the religion of the inhabitants.)

EDIT: Even if Iraq were Christian the Bush Admin., media etc could have still used the nebulous fear of vulnerability generated by the Sept. 11th attacks to hype Saddam's Enemy of America status +the WMD/sale of WMD's to terrorists angle to push for a war.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

So that is why I think that a Christian Iraq would not have been invaded

This is too narrow an outlook. America has intervened in Central and South America – predominantly Christian countries – when it felt its interests at stake. Going back a little in history, the Monroe Doctrine has been described as saying ‘no-one has the right to start a war in North or South America, except for the US Marines’. The reason America is in Iraq is for its own geopolitical reasons – the question of Islam is largely incidental. Looking on it this way, America put a lot more effort and did a lot more damage trying to keep atheistic Communists out of Vietnam. What might be different in the meantime is more mutual awareness of what's been broadcast to domestic audiences.

InFront wrote:

I don't know what exactly caused the religious change in ireland, I don't think it was so much a ridiculization or making a mockery of Catholicism, as simply a case of people being lured away from faith.

To be clear – I’m not saying someone wrote a funny book and then everyone stopped believing. Similarly, its not as simple as McDonalds opening up all over the place and people deciding to leave their old faith and worship at the Golden Arches. It’s simply to point out that a necessary part of the process is challenging orthodoxy.

Scholars solemnly debating the doctrinal basis for executing heretics is all very fine. But you also need people shaking their heads with incomprehension at how such a debate is even necessary. We know people should have religious freedom. If the Quran suggests different, its just wrong in the same way that its wrong when it suggests the Sun orbits the Earth. But Scholars who depend on the Quran for their status in the community, bluntly, won't give a fiddler's unless they see people just aren't wearing it.

InFront wrote:

a new wave a so-called liberation.

The term ‘so-called’ is not really that applicable in this context. Looking on it another way, adherence to a religion based on fear and ignorance is not a more liberated position to be in. Western society has real flaws – but the temptation to grossly overwork those flaws into a suggestion that it equates to a theocracy is simply not sustainable.

InFront wrote:

On the last point, I absolutely disagree that Islam as a relationship between man and God has 'failed' in any way. Inevitably, Muslims and non- Muslims alike have failed Islam, but it has never failed us.

I think this sidesteps the concerns that seems to exercise some about the way Islamic society would, a long time ago, have been regarded as dynamic and its growth unstoppable. And now its just not. If people really believe the faith embodies how God thinks we should order society, its failure to sustain that initial momentum either in terms of intellectual prowess or territorial expansion has to provoke some questioning from its own adherents. And it has.

In response, you are simply stating the ‘we need to pray more’ line that orthodoxy tries to maintain for as long as it can get away with it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Absolutely not. Hijab is not a mockery of women. It does vary from country to country and stict interpretations in Saudi are political decisions. In parts of Pakistan you see women tourists in t-shirts, shorts and sandals - not a popular choice of clothing, but it happens.
Irish women who visit Saudi are merely responding to a cultural norm, it does not ask them to foresake their religion. Asking a Muslim woman in Dublin not to observe Hijab is asking her to observe cultural norms and foresake her religion, which is the serious bit.

Really not what I meant. And I have no idea why you mentioned the bit about female Muslims in Dublin. I hate when people complain about Muslims observing Hijab here. If you reread what you quoted you'll see I said nothing that implied hijab is a mockery of women. I personally believe Hijab originated because men didnt want other men looking at their wife but that's a different debate - I honestly don't think it's a mockery of women.

What I did mean was when you come to a country you do have to get used to their ways to an extent. I mean we enjoy mocking religion - always have & it's not going to change for anyone. It's unfair to expect us to.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

The reason America is in Iraq is for its own geopolitical reasons – the question of Islam is largely incidental.

I really feel I have to disagree with you here. Whilst Afghanistan (which was as equal and unwarranted an atrocity as Iraq in my opinion) was the more obvious Muslim target, the US attack on Iraq was also linked to Islam.

I'm sure most people see it as coincidental, and would decry the suggestion as a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying Iraq was attacked solely for being an Islamic state, being an Islamic state was just another box on the checklist along with WMD and the geopolitical reasons you mention (be that the seemingly wrong assumption that Iraq was harbouring terrorists like Afghanistan, or the democratic invasion of the ME).
Come to think of it - the WMDs have failed to materialise, the geopolitical influence has most certainly failed to materialize - the only requirement that has been met has been the destruction of a Muslim society.

Looking on it this way, America put a lot more effort and did a lot more damage trying to keep atheistic Communists out of Vietnam.

Atheistic Communists and Muslims are not groups of people many Americans identify with. It makes invading their countries easier. I'm just saying, I have a hard time imagining an invasion of a Christian Iraq. In that context, religion is not incidental.
I agree that in mortality stats, Vietnam was worse, but the damage being done in Iraq and Afghanistan is just as bad.
There are actually a good many parallells between the Middle East attacks and Vietnam.

Scholars solemnly debating the doctrinal basis for executing heretics is all very fine. But you also need people shaking their heads with incomprehension at how such a debate is even necessary. We know people should have religious freedom. If the Quran suggests different, its just wrong in the same way that its wrong when it suggests the Sun orbits the Earth

.

Is this the quotation you are thinking of?

(The Holy Qur'an, Ya'seen 21:33)
And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

That is one of the amazing miracles of the Qur'an. The sun does move in an orbit around the milky way whilst still acting as a magnetic star for the surrounding planets, it is not a static body, but is at the centre of an entire scene of continuing motions.
The sun orbiting the milky way, the earth orbiting the sun and the moon orbiting the earth. This is an image of astounding beauty and harmony and is just one of the scientific miracles revealed in the Quran! Link

Anyway, that was a side-topic and i know it's not your main point.
I don't know what else to say to you about the execution of apostates except to say that it is good that people are talking about it and clearing up misinterpretations that may exist, and debating it. I really don't see how it is bad to discuss it when it is actually happening, though mostly not at the hands of governments.
I know, your point is it shouldn't even need to be questioned, but I am not the one arguing for it, and I'm not a scholar. As your link (correctly) pointed out, there is not any calling for an earthly execution for apostasy in the Qur'an, although there are in the Hadith. The Qura'n does tell us that there is to be no compulsion in Islam and whoever believes, let him believe and whoever disbelieves let him disbelieve. I simply am unable to explain it, and would not like to criticise a scholar so I think the best thing is to read extensively what they tell us, for example Dr. Al-Qaradawi

Western society has real flaws – but the temptation to grossly overwork those flaws into a suggestion that it equates to a theocracy is simply not sustainable.

It is not a theocracy, but it is a form of devoted worship, with its own rules and stigmas and norms and social hierarchies.
I think people are just as "controlled" in Ireland or the USA as they are in Bahrain or Pakistan or other Muslim countries - just in different ways. It's simply pulling the wool over ones own eyes to discuss Hijab as a tool of oppression (not that you did, Im speaking about society), whilst in the same breath discussing a 16 year old girl like the ones outside The Wes or 92 who feels the need to dress in a certain way as somehow 'liberated'. Liberation is a very subjective term in that situation.

InFront

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I mean we enjoy mocking religion - always have & it's not going to change for anyone. It's unfair to expect us to.

If everyone adapted that policy what kind of place would the world be? Everyone would leave their traditions at home and the Americans would still be sitting around campfires with bone-flutes and rattles (not a bad thing I suppose), and democracy would never have left ancient Greece.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Come to think of it - the WMDs have failed to materialise, the geopolitical influence has most certainly failed to materialize - the only requirement that has been met has been the destruction of a Muslim society.

The Iraqi venture has proven to be a mistake – like Vietnam before it. But you’d hardly describe the Vietnam War as having the intention of destroying a Taoist society. Your view is too narrow. Its like the old joke about the Belfast schoolchild being asked to write about an elephant in the hope of getting his mind off politics, and producing an essay entitled ‘The Elephant and the Ulster Question’.

It makes invading their countries easier. I'm just saying, I have a hard time imagining an invasion of a Christian Iraq.

Clearly any difference will be exploited – as with that legacy phrase from the Vietnam War that ‘inside every Gook there’s an American trying to get out. Equally religion becomes a factor – even if the regime in Iraq would not have been particularly seen as an expression of the finest Islamic virtues. But if interests were at stake, most certainly a Christian regime would be invaded. On the other side of the coin, if their was no oil in the region I’d expect that America would have the same amount of interest in Iraq as they do in Rwanda.

I agree that in mortality stats, Vietnam was worse, but the damage being done in Iraq and Afghanistan is just as bad.

Indeed, I see no point in working out a score card that converts heartache in Vietnam and heartache in Iraq to a common base. I’m just pointing out that political interest is the determining feature.

The sun does move in an orbit around the milky way

Which is clearly not what the Quran is saying, anymore than its miraculously right about the sky being held up by pillars. But, indeed, that topic is more suited to a thread on a religion forum.

I don't know what else to say to you about the execution of apostates except to say that it is good that people are talking about it and clearing up misinterpretations that may exist, and debating it.

That is, indeed, all they can do at this point. I don’t doubt its another area where the religious establishment is trailing behind the average adherent living in the real world.

I think people are just as "controlled" in Ireland or the USA as they are in Bahrain or Pakistan or other Muslim countries - just in different ways ... Liberation is a very subjective term in that situation.

I don’t agree liberation is quite so subjective. For example, Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights is a reasonably objective statement of religious freedom. There is a world of difference between the idea that people have a right to practice all religions and none, and to change religion, and a situation where one religion is given a controlling position and people find their access to alternative views is curtailed. Whatever about the superficialities that Western societies permit, the notion that ‘if everyone accepts my God, then we’ll all be liberated’ is a significant distortion of the word.

When GWB talks about hating freedom, he’s clearly using rhetoric to bluster his way through an unpopular war. But what rhetoric does is look for some low hanging testicles to kick. This big fudge over religious freedom is one of Islam’s exposed scrota, absolutely begging for a boot. For as long as it’s there, in fairness, you cannot credibly say ‘I’ve no idea where all this hate freedom stuff is coming from’.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t doubt its another area where the religious establishment is trailing behind the average adherent living in the real world.

Islam is not trailing behind anybody or anything. There is still this preconception, which is completely wrong, that Islam is somehow trailing behind as the rest of the world gladly marches on. Well that isn't correct, because Islam has already outlasted the whims and nuances of every society since Adam and Hawwa and is still with us.
Just think about how even for an atheist, what an odd conception it must be that we have now suddenly found a more dominant force that is to suddenly be in charge of Islam (and indeed the other Ibrahimic faiths). This is not a case of some '50something senior office employee' being replaced by a younger version with a mortgage, no kids and a nightlife. That's not how the world works, and I really believe, as Im sure many people do, that what we have now, here, in the west, is just a fleeting and temporary culture like all of the fleeting, temporary cultures that have preceded it. There is no permanence in this sort of society, it never lasts.

Never let it be said I did not quote the bible - which says - "and the first will be last and the last will be first". Now I'm not saying anything about the bible as a religious text here, but I do like that sentiment because it announces with such assurance the transient nature of man, and how breakable and fragile we are to Allah, or whatever one believes in.
What we have here in the west is not unlike a a roman or Greek empire, with any given US president playing Alexander himself. These things always change.

I don’t agree liberation is quite so subjective. For example, Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights is a reasonably objective statement of religious freedom. There is a world of difference between the idea that people have a right to practice all religions and none, and to change religion, and a situation where one religion is given a controlling position and people find their access to alternative views is curtailed.

People do have the right to practice all religions and none, and they freely do so. Punishment of apostasy is limited to Muslims, and that Jews, atheists, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, are all free to worship as they see fit without limitation, except, arguably, in a small few autocratic states around the world which nobody is defending.

the notion that ‘if everyone accepts my God, then we’ll all be liberated’ is a significant distortion of the word.

No, I accept that people in the west feel that their society is 'liberating'. My point is that Muslims see Islam as the real liberator, and keeper - a responsibility that some societies here do not honour. Muslims by nature must accept God, and so all Muslims can be liberated by God. Not everybody will be a muslim - and I respect their wish to act according to whatever their 'liberating' faith or society dictates so long as it does no harm.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

I think people are just as "controlled" in Ireland or the USA as they are in Bahrain or Pakistan or other Muslim countries - just in different ways.

What would these "different ways" of "control" be though?

Don't you really mean "fewer ways" when we are comparing your average European country say, with countries that are non-democratic, have high levels of corruption, quite heavy handed police and security services, and state control over the media.
I mean worries about status, peer pressures, family expectations, media, cultural expectations, etc etc must all push people to act in certain ways in a country like Saudi, or Pakistan or whatever, just as they do in Ireland and the US.

edit:

InFront wrote:

Islam has already outlasted the whims and nuances of every society since Adam and Hawwa and is still with us...what we have now, here, in the west, is just a fleeting and temporary culture like all of the fleeting, temporary cultures that have preceded it. There is no permanence in this sort of society, it never lasts.

Islam is not really that old though is it?

Religion, worshipping God(s), is just as subject to the impermanence and change associated with other human activities - building empires, making laws to live by etc etc etc.

Do you think Islam is immune?

Why should it be when the worshippers are human?

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Islam is not trailing behind anybody or anything.

To be clear, the particular point I was making related to the religious establishment having a vested interest in preserving the status quo – and hence trailing reality. Admittedly, to the extent that their interpretations of the Quran set out Islamic doctrine, that does mean I’m effectively saying that doctrine trails. If many scholars think the concept of punishing heretics is still on the books, then they are most certainly trailing.

InFront wrote:

These things always change.

Undoubtedly society will continue to evolve. It may even regress into ignorance. The future might well be slavery to some religion that censors any ideas questioning its right to dominate. But a more likely future is that Islam as a doctrine will face a kind of questioning that, up to this, it has avoided. Suddenly people can say things and explore concepts denied to them before. That is having and will have a considerable impact. I’d even wonder if one of the reasons for the extreme sensitivity to external comment is the hope by protesters that by shouting they will drown out their own doubts.

InFront wrote:

Punishment of apostasy is limited to Muslims

The idea that Muslims can be punished for leaving their faith is not consistent with Article 18 of UN Declaration on Human Rights. With this single statement you are giving GWB a basis for saying ‘they hate our freedoms’.

Jews, atheists, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, are all free to worship as they see fit without limitation.

Just to clarify, my understanding was that practice of religions by existing adherents is tolerated, but they cannot seek converts. On the other hand, there is no prohibition on Islam seeking converts – in fact, like many religions, spreading the word is a duty. That is unequal treatment, and more raw material for GWB’s speechwriters.

My point is that Muslims see Islam as the real liberator, and keeper - a responsibility that some societies here do not honour.

That may be because you have an unrealistic expectation of what ‘honouring’ amounts to. I think we’ve established that Islam gets much the same treatment as any other faith, down to participating in the multi-faith service of prayer at the National Day of Commemoration.

I respect their wish to act according to whatever their 'liberating' faith or society dictates so long as it does no harm.

I do wonder what ‘harm’ means in this context.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

What would these "different ways" of "control" be though?

There is serious abuse of power in many Muslim states. There is also that abuse of power here.
I'm not defending either, only saying that many westerners would look at middle eastern culture and think it's imprisoning, but ought remember that many Muslims here in the west see western culture as dominating and controlling and intimidating in itself.
The climate of diminshed responsibility is itself a jailor.

I mean worries about status, peer pressures, family expectations, media, cultural expectations, etc etc must all push people to act in certain ways in a country like Saudi, or Pakistan or whatever, just as they do in Ireland and the US.

That is the point - for all of American and other western preaching, the west is not a free society itself. Its culture is just as limiting in its own ways, and can be much more oppressive.

Islam is not really that old though is it?

I'm a bit confused by this question, Islam is as old as man or Allah, depending on how you want to define it, our God is the one Christains and Jews call God as well.

Religion, worshipping God(s), is just as subject to the impermanence and change associated with other human activities - building empires, making laws to live by etc etc etc.

Islam, (or indeed religion in general terms), has outlasted every empire ever created, no human structure is remotely comparable.

Do you think Islam is immune?

Immune from what? I'm not being difficult I'm not sure what you mean by immune, if you mean is it permanent, then yes.
It's still here, and it isn't going anywhere.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I’m effectively saying that doctrine trails.

As an opinion, that's perfectly acceptable. Equally someone else could argue that Islam is ahead of western thinking and will one day end up along the same lines. It all depends on which side of the mountain you're sitting on I suppose.

Islam as a doctrine will face a kind of questioning that, up to this, it has avoided.

Islam has always been a provoker of debate within, from the ancient kallam schools and the Muslim philosophies since the time of Muhammad pbuh. What we have in the form of the modern (western) approach to islam from a Muslim viewpoint constitutes neither debate nor philosophy.

The idea that Muslims can be punished for leaving their faith is not consistent with Article 18 of UN Declaration on Human Rights. With this single statement you are giving GWB a basis for saying ‘they hate our freedoms’.

No, I'm saying what I understand apostasy to mean. I am not saying it is right or wrong because only God knows, and I am not a scholar, so it would be wrong to say 'execution for apostasy is wrong', I simply don't know.

On the other hand, there is no prohibition on Islam seeking converts

Yes, daweh is a responsibilty of all Muslims, it includes bringing Islam to non Muslims and also explaining the Muslim perspective to your ability, there is nothing harmful in it, quite the opposite.
The definition of daweh is a loose one, and in reality, nobody can be forced to come to a religion, so it is essentially always of the free will. I'm not sure in what context proseltyism is banned for non Muslims, how do you differentiate between teaching a Muslim about Christians or Sikhs without proseltysing to an extent?

I do wonder what ‘harm’ means in this context.

Anything from racial attacks on Muslims to mocking Islam, I wouldn't consider those things acceptable, I'm sure most reasonable people dont.