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

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

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.

Eh no. As Fly_agaric has pointed out it's not really that old now is it. In fact about 1400 yrs old. Just because it took on board, laid claim to be a continuation of and absorbed some earlier Judaeo Christian notions(inc adam and hawwa) doesn't alter the historic timeline. Indeed the first two humans would be an issue for any evolutionary biologist. If you want real longevity try the animist/shamanistic religions of hunter gatherers that still exist after tens upon tens of thousands of years of worship. When they showed a San Bushman Shaman pictures of European cave paintings he was able to note similarities and ascribe meanings in religious symbols separated by 40,000 yrs. That's permanence. Is that not more miraculous than some?

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.

Possibly but the world works in subtly different ways now with the interconnectedness that exists today. It would be far harder for such a dominant society or idea to die(I'm also mindful of past civilisations, Islamic ones included).

There is no permanence in this sort of society, it never lasts.

With the aforementioned exception of the hunter gatherer type civilisation you're probably right in an obvious form anyway.

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.

True yet, those very Roman and Greek civilisations survive in notions of politics, military tactics and organisation, law, drama, language, religion, engineering, art, architecture, science. Lets play what did the Romans ever do for us. The list is endless and remember both lasted as long or longer and had an impact exceeding the Islamic empire. Not all of course but much of Islamic scientific breakthroughs were because of their access to Greek and Roman and Indian(and pre Islamic Arabic) texts lost to the west. Control of the eastern trade routes had it's advantages. Look at the Chinese "empire". It's still there using the same language with much the same borders with much the same religious beliefs(in spite of communism) after thousands of years. Change does not always equal destruction of what all such societies value or bring to the table.

Punishment of apostasy is limited to Muslims,

Spotted that too. Another case of preference possibly. If someone leaves Islam then surely Islams rules no longer apply if they become a Buddhist? If not where's the "no compulsion in religion" line then

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.

Actually in a Sharia law state there are many restrictions on non believers, in law government and even taxes.

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

Reminds me of the Quranic quote often trotted out. Whoever kills one man, it's as if he kills the whole of mankind. The continuation of that sura is interesting as it says killing is against God unless for adultery or for "spreading mischief in the land". Ally that to the notion of death to apostates and others who oppress and it's very vague indeed.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

It all depends on which side of the mountain you're sitting on I suppose.

But to be on the other side of the mountain, I’d have to see the abolition of the Spanish Inquisition in 1836 as a regressive step. In other words, I’d have to follow Alice through the looking glass.

InFront wrote:

I am not a scholar, so it would be wrong to say 'execution for apostasy is wrong', I simply don't know.

Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights is simply an expression of what it means to ‘honour’ religious freedom. The inability to assent to that concept gives GWB the green light to bang on about hating freedom.

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.

And, you understand, I see no harm in that. The focus of my query is the right of people of other faiths to daweh right back at you.

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?

That’s what I’d wonder too, which would potentially make such a barrier quite restricting.

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

Clearly racial attacks on people of any faith are unacceptable. I think the area of bother is again this point of ‘mocking Islam’.

You know my essential perspective. If I was a newspaper editor I would not have published the Danish cartoons because I think they’re rubbish. But I do understand that stupid people cannot be banned from running newspapers, so I would not have an actual legal ban on people publishing inept and humourless cartoons.

The more challenging point is the Satanic Verses. I’m on page 60. It’s a book by a person who as I understand it was brought up a Muslim and is not religious. I was brought up a Catholic and now I’m atheist. I find an attitude to religion in the text that I can relate to and feel comfortable with. I understand the book may very well contain passages deemed by some to mock Islam, although I haven’t yet seen one. Should I be legally prevented from reading this or similar books?

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

Islam has always been a provoker of debate within,

From within, there's the rub. Any debate that excludes the without is not debate, but a tacit agreement about starting points.

What we have in the form of the modern (western) approach to islam from a Muslim viewpoint constitutes neither debate nor philosophy.

To follow the previous point, the modern approach as you would have it, is the inclusion of the without. That may bring uncomfortable questions to the table, but it is the full of the debate regardless. How thin is a philosophy that struggles with dissention.

I simply don't know.

For what it's worth, I've often found the best of thinkers often use that line, the worst almost never do.

Anything from racial attacks on Muslims to mocking Islam, I wouldn't consider those things acceptable,

Along with Schuhart I find the sticking point is mocking. One man's mocking is anothers satire or debate. Hard to tell.

Schuhart wrote:

You know my essential perspective. If I was a newspaper editor I would not have published the Danish cartoons because I think they’re rubbish. But I do understand that stupid people cannot be banned from running newspapers, so I would not have an actual legal ban on people publishing inept and humourless cartoons.

We're singin' from the same hymn sheet on this one.

The more challenging point is the Satanic Verses. I’m on page 60. It’s a book by a person who as I understand it was brought up a Muslim and is not religious. I was brought up a Catholic and now I’m atheist. I find an attitude to religion in the text that I can relate to and feel comfortable with. I understand the book may very well contain passages deemed by some to mock Islam, although I haven’t yet seen one. Should I be legally prevented from reading this or similar books?

It's been a while but I found it long winded to say the least. That said my concentration tolerance is low . What InFront may find objectionable in the text may be equally matched by my boredom of the same text. If Khomeni had read it he may have held off on that fatwa on the basis that the reader at least had suffered enough already.:D

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

There is serious abuse of power in many Muslim states. There is also that abuse of power here.

I don't understand this really.

InFront wrote:

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.

You are not getting my point really I think. To repeat, in muslim countries you will (usually) have more govt. oppression as well as the social/religious/cultural pressures pushing you to live your life a certain way. Maybe you yourself wouln't feel these social/religious/cultural pressures the way someone who decides to live as a proselytising bible-beating Christian or a flaming gay would but they must exist.

In the Western countries, the state opression has generally been minimised (for the moment at least:p ), religion or religious authority figures are not very important any more either, and you are left with social and cultural pressures. Granted, these may be more powerful than in muslim countries. The attraction is certainly greater to just go with the flow (since the pressures are mostly to live a very hedonistic, individualistic life and enjoy yourself - something most people find themselves tempted to do at the best of times!).

So I can't see how the Western countries can be more or even just equally oppressive really.

Maybe it just feels that way because of the attractions I mentioned. Or because you personally feel the pressures in a way I don't.

The US right now because of its power, wealth, etc manages to export its (Western) culture far beyond its own borders as wealthy and powerful countries [including muslim ones now and in the past] have always done. That is not related to "oppressiveness" in Western societes though.

InFront wrote:

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.

I know, you have your personal perspective as a believer but my perspective as an outsider is that the religious practice known as "Islam" is less than 1.5 k years old.

God, if he (sorry female-power-people!) exists is eternal - okay. Maybe he always had present-day Islam in mind as the best way we should worship him and maybe Islam is a continuation of earlier revelations but even if that is the case, he only revealed it in the current form to humans < 1.5 k years ago.
If Judaeism and Christianity are earlier forms then it is still has a finite history. And even if God directed the changes/adaptations of the revelation it seems to me He did it because his creation - people - change as time passes.

InFront wrote:

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

It changes. By impermanence I didn't mean utter destruction. But I suppose there is a cuttoff point where something has changed so much from the original that we draw a line. Religion is probably a thing humans do, like language. And the empires disappear but the legacy and ideas remains and itself change as the years go by, as Wibbs pointed out in his post. Now we have a US "senate" sitting on "capitol(ine) hill" trying to run its own "empire".
I was going to mention this earlier, but some of the customs associated with the current crass and commercial Hallmark Holidays are from pre-christian Europe, maybe religious in origin, have several k years on the revelation of Islam, Christianity, and prossibly Judaeism too and the legacy still survives in changed forms today.

InFront wrote:

Immune from what?

Changes. The effects of time. Is Islam for you something which will always be the same? I can't see how that can be regardless of an everlasting unchanging God because humans are the worshippers and humans are always changing and adapting how they live.

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

Eh no. As Fly_agaric has pointed out it's not really that old now is it. In fact about 1400 yrs old. Just because it took on board, laid claim to be a continuation of and absorbed some earlier Judaeo Christian notions(inc adam and hawwa) doesn't alter the historic timeline.

Muhammad, pbuh, did not found Islam, it is the logical continuation of the religion based on an revelations made to the last prophet pbuh. The religion, in that conext, did 'change'.

Spotted that too. Another case of preference possibly. If someone leaves Islam then surely Islams rules no longer apply if they become a Buddhist? If not where's the "no compulsion in religion" line then

They do apply, because the word of God applies to everyone, Muslim or not. The important point is whether or not an infividual believes that, if they don't, Islam's rules dont apply in their opinion.

Originally posted by Schuhart
The focus of my query is the right of people of other faiths to daweh right back at you.

The answer is the same as above. If they are not Muslims, they're not listening to the qur'an and the hadith anyway and will carry on proseltysing. All that one can hope is that they consider and reflect upon what the Qur'an is telling them.
The Qur'an teaches us there is only no God but Allah and that Muhammad p.is a messenger of Allah. Not luring people into another faith is an logical part of that message.

Actually in a Sharia law state there are many restrictions on non believers, in law government and even taxes.

A bit like church taxes on the mainland Europe, you mean?

That is not Shari'ah per se, it is fiqh. Unlike the Shari'ah, fiqh is subject to revision, deletion and addition. People are free to challenge the interpretation of the fuqahaa as they see fit, so long as they hopefully remain true to the Qur'an the Hadith, the ijma, etc.

Originally posted by Schuhart
I understand the book may very well contain passages deemed by some to mock Islam, although I haven’t yet seen one. Should I be legally prevented from reading this or similar books?

Yes, I think so, it is a manifestation of hatred like the Danish cartoons. It has no value beyond corrupting one's view of Islam.

Originally posted by Wibbs
From within, there's the rub. Any debate that excludes the without is not debate, but a tacit agreement about starting points.

I only said 'within' to point out that Muslims are allowed question interpretations of islam too. So are non Muslims, there is no question of that whatsoever. The difference is when that courtesy is abused i.e. the vilification of Islam.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

You are not getting my point really I think. To repeat, in muslim countries you will (usually) have more govt. oppression as well as the social/religious/cultural pressures pushing you to live your life a certain way.

What oppression that amounts to is arguable, but impossible, of course, to quantify. I am not disagreeing so much as to point out that political oppression exists here too. It is an indirect kind of political oppression - one where religious police are replaced by a harsh, uncaring irresonsible political system leading to widespread abuse of powers and the promotion of propaganda.
This makes me sound like I hate the west, I certainly don't - I am a self confessed 'westerner' myself, I just don't think it is very innocent compared to several Muslim countries. For every bad thing you can say about Jordan or Afghanistan or Bahrain or Pakistan, you can throw one back about the USA or Ireland.

In the Western countries, the state opression has generally been minimised (for the moment at least:p ),

It hasn't it has just changed in form, and been empowered to big businesses.

And even if God directed the changes/adaptations of the revelation it seems to me He did it because his creation - people - change as time passes.

Of course God can change Islam, but I wouldn't call the Qur'an and the Hadith a signal of change in Islam so much as a clarification of the principles of Islam.

Changes. The effects of time. Is Islam for you something which will always be the same? I can't see how that can be regardless of an everlasting unchanging God because humans are the worshippers and humans are always changing and adapting how they live.

People's interpretations of Islam change, which does not equal a change in Islam. All we can do is interpret in our imperfect brains what Allah has told us and hope we are doing what is correct, but only Allah knows for sure.
So Islam is immune from change by humans but not immune from changing interpretations by humans.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

They do apply, because the word of God applies to everyone, Muslim or not. The important point is whether or not an infividual believes that, if they don't, Islam's rules dont apply in their opinion.

InFront wrote:

The Qur'an teaches us there is only no God but Allah and that Muhammad p.is a messenger of Allah. Not luring people into another faith is an logical part of that message.

Yes, I think so, it is a manifestation of hatred like the Danish cartoons. It has no value beyond corrupting one's view of Islam.

That's giving GWB three more reasons to bang on about hating freedom. The most I'd be able to say is 'Hate is a very strong word, George. Reject is a more neutral and accurate term'.

Essentially you are saying that you want a religion to have the power to deprive you and everyone else of the tools they need for independent thought. The 'everyone else' part is significant.

It is your perfect right to follow Islam. But I cannot see on what basis you can claim a right to stop another person, of any faith or none, reading a book by a person, of any faith or none, because you feel it gives a corrupt view of Islam.

If you say the right comes from God, that's not really true. It actually comes from your belief that God sent an angel 1400 years ago to dictate a book to a prophet. I can say God sent an angel to me last night and told me to read the Satanic Verses, and it has equal weight. It is simply unreasonable to expect that level of intervention from the State to protect someone's belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

That's giving GWB three more reasons to bang on about hating freedom. The most I'd be able to say is 'Hate is a very strong word, George. Reject is a more neutral and accurate term'.

I am only talking about favouring political intervention in terms of prohibition of the production of works of hatred, and yes I realise the impracticality of that, not a legislative banning of Christian advertisement nor compulsory Islam, and I don't think that is being unreasonable.
As regards "hating feedom", it is an particularly daft term, and I suspect it was penned by the same cowboy spin doctor who gave us the most recent use of the term "Islamofascism".

I reject certain freedoms, as I think we all do. I reject the use of "freedom of association" to support the militant Hezbollah in any way, I reject the right of freespeech to incite young people into violence as Sinn Fein has been guilty of in the North, likewise the Progressive Unionist Party, and the use of freedom of speech to incite religious tensions through the written word as well as the spoken. This is where the Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons, and often the media, are to be accountable and bear resonsibility. They are not innocent parties.

In Ireland one can sue for libel and slander over the most trivial and unobjectionable things (Beverly Flynn for example) and the burden of proof is on the defendent, not the plaintiff under Irish defamation legislation.
Yet a real, genuine potential public offense, made to a specific community, to do with affairs they have zero control over, is "free speech" and to be upheld?

It is your perfect right to follow Islam. But I cannot see on what basis you can claim a right to stop another person, of any faith or none, reading a book by a person, of any faith or none, because you feel it gives a corrupt view of Islam.

The same reason that it would be wrong to allow the perpetuation of propaganda about black people, chinese people, Africans, any racial or religious groups.
How far do you want to go, is the Rushdie book far enough or does Mein Kampf get a consideration? As has already been said in this discussion, that book is a bestseller in some countries, well why is that not okay (apart from the obvious irony of Arabs and Nazism)

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

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.

No, once again you're jumping to silly extremes to make a point.

If you really have faith in Islam you you'll be able to withstand it being mocked. As I quoted earlier

"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."

The same reason that it would be wrong to allow the perpetuation of propaganda about black people, chinese people, Africans, any racial or religious groups.
How far do you want to go, is the Rushdie book far enough or does Mein Kampf get a consideration? As has already been said in this discussion, that book is a bestseller in some countries, well why is that not okay (apart from the obvious irony of Arabs and Nazism)

So you'd want Mein Kampf banned? that's ridiculous - & banning satanic verses implies you're afraid of it or you have no faith in the strength of Islam compared to it.

Schuhart

I am only talking about favouring political intervention in terms of prohibition of the production of works of hatred.

I think you are trying to advance your case by relabelling. i.e., by categorising the Satanic Verses as a work of hate, you hope to slip it in as having an equivalence to recruiting for a paramilitary organisation – hence hoping that this relabelling can be used to justify a similar penalty being applied. That line of reasoning just does not hold.

I reject certain freedoms, as I think we all do.

The things you mention seem to be incitements to crime. Incitement to crime is not a freedom – its an offence already. Free speech, on the other hand, is protected by the Constitution, subject to the public order. That means, inter alia, that both the Satanic Verses and Mien Kampf are on open sale here. I cannot really see the link (honestly, and do reflect on this before replying) between a novelist producing a book with themes of religion and identity and the political programme of a dictator who set out to conquer Europe and engaged in genocide. If these two things are linked in your mind, it would look like the case is made for saying that you have unreasonable expectations regarding censorship of publications relating to Islam.

As regards "hating feedom", it is an particularly daft term, and I suspect it was penned by the same cowboy spin doctor who gave us the most recent use of the term "Islamofascism".

They are both daft terms. But their authors can coin them because they can point to daft views like an inability to positively assert the right to religious freedom. If GWB was say, based on your posts, ‘this guy rejects our freedoms’, I’d have to agree. I really would not want to agree with GWB if he said that, but I don’t see where you’re leaving me an option.

If you opt to have your reading material edited by an Islamic scholar, that is entirely your affair. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest I should have my reading material subject to the same process.

I’d point out again the Quran's statement that the idea God had a son is a ‘disaster’, hence attacking the central belief of Christianity. Similarly, Christianity teaches that salvation depends on accepting the divinity of Jesus. Taking your logic, we should edit both Quran and Bible so that neither contains any material suggesting the other faith is wrong.

Even taking your suggestion elsewhere that Ibrahimic religious works be exempt from this censorship, should the Bhagavad Gita be banned or edited make it clear that Krishna is a false God?

Should we also ban the works of Marx, which set out a materialist conception of history? In particular, should we ban his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right which includes his description of religion as the opium of the people? (which is actually a more subtle description than that bald statement suggests.)

Preventing me from reading such works is the equivalent of me preventing you from reading the Quran. It is simply an unacceptable interference in my freedom of thought.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

I am not disagreeing so much as to point out that political oppression exists here too. It is an indirect kind of political oppression - one where religious police are replaced by a harsh, uncaring irresonsible political system leading to widespread abuse of powers and the promotion of propaganda.

Okay - That's a pretty grim view of the state of things here.
Despite democracy, the average man on the street may be pretty powerless here and their views may not count for much in the end as has been the case in every society ever created but you exaggerate when you equate this type of "political oppression" directly with the political oppression that goes on in autocratic countries, or religious states.

InFront wrote:

This makes me sound like I hate the west.

Yes it does - a bit. But even if you did it's okay. It's very cool to hate "the West" and "big business" etc now.:p

InFront wrote:

I certainly don't - I am a self confessed 'westerner' myself, I just don't think it is very innocent compared to several Muslim countries... For every bad thing you can say about Jordan or Afghanistan or Bahrain or Pakistan, you can throw one back about the USA or Ireland.

No one said "the West" was innocent, or innocent compared to muslim countries or that there aren't plenty of things wrong with the West. The only thing I was arguing here was that its citizens suffer less oppression and are freer to live their lives how they want than the citizens of most muslim countries. Which is a very good thing about "the West".
I was disagreeing with your equal-but-different-oppression idea when comparing freedom in "Western" vs "Muslim" societies.
I think we will have to leave it here and agree to disagree though.

InFront wrote:

Of course God can change Islam, but I wouldn't call the Qur'an and the Hadith a signal of change in Islam so much as a clarification of the principles of Islam.
...
People's interpretations of Islam change, which does not equal a change in Islam. All we can do is interpret in our imperfect brains what Allah has told us and hope we are doing what is correct, but only Allah knows for sure.
So Islam is immune from change by humans but not immune from changing interpretations by humans.

Fine. But that's really just a neat rephrasal of my argument so it fits a believers' perspective on the world (an eternal God - a perfect divinely inspired religion fouled up on some occasions by very human misunderstandings and errors/sometimes clarified by God for his errant creations) better - isn't it? The interpretation of Islam changes because people and the societies they make change with time.
The constant here is human change, whether you'd take the believers view of what is happening or not.
The change which causes the rise and fall of empires, the changes in customs etc.

InFront wrote:

In Ireland one can sue for libel and slander over the most trivial and unobjectionable thing

Yes. That is a problem here which restricts freedom of speech IMO and really seems to protect only those individuals with lots of money or big companies from being defamed (since going to court over slander or libel will cost an arm and a leg). I think the US is far less restrictive than here in this regard.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

Muhammad, pbuh, did not found Islam, it is the logical continuation of the religion based on an revelations made to the last prophet pbuh. The religion, in that conext, did 'change'.

Theologically that may be argued and counterargued, but historically(as much as we can tell) he did found Islam. Plus it's only the logical continuation of the religion if you're a Muslim. To Christians it would be theologically heretical, as Christianity is theologically heretical to Jews. Not a new thought for Christians, I seem to remember Milton portraying Mohammed in hell in Paradise lost. Do we ban that book from a giant of literature too?

They do apply, because the word of God applies to everyone, Muslim or not. The important point is whether or not an infividual believes that, if they don't, Islam's rules dont apply in their opinion.

Whoah there. Your word of God applies to everyone? Now I can appreciate that most religions will have that view, but when there are calls for non believers to be fought and apostates to be killed in Islam then we're navigating dangerous waters to be sure when applying that view of your God's and his followers intent. How you can keep a straight face and compare the "west's" view on freedom to a perfect Islamic states, I don't know. The very line "in their opinion", is the scary one. Now maybe it's me but that smacks of incredible arrogance and has dangerous overtones to boot.

A bit like church taxes on the mainland Europe, you mean?

Not quite. The role of the non believer in an Islamic run state would be to all intents and purposes that of an underclass, relieved of the power to have any real say in the running of that state. When the world is divided in Islamic thought between the house of war and the house of peace, Ummah(believers), al Kitab(people of the book) and Kafirs(unbelievers pagans etc), and the Quran states that "Oh Prophet, strive hard (make war) against the unbelievers" among some other choice sentiments, then you can understand some reticence on the part of most non Muslims to accept the equality that would be present in any Islamic state.

so long as they hopefully remain true to the Qur'an the Hadith, the ijma, etc.

Again, there's the rub.

I only said 'within' to point out that Muslims are allowed question interpretations of islam too. So are non Muslims, there is no question of that whatsoever. The difference is when that courtesy is abused i.e. the vilification of Islam.

A debate founded on the premise of the defence of immobile central tenets is a restricted debate.

Originally Posted by Schuhart....

He's hitting so many nails on the head, I'm beginning to suspect he's a carpenter.

Schuhart

fly_agaric wrote:

I was disagreeing with your equal-but-different-oppression idea when comparing freedom in "Western" vs "Muslim" societies.

I think you are right to disagree, and I like your point to the effect that general peer pressure exists in all societies, but repressive societies have the addition of systems of state or clerical oppression.

Taking the UN Declaration of Human Rights as the target (just because its a public document with wide acceptance) the simple fact is that Western societies are the best implementation of that vision that we have. Its false logic to suggest that because our society is less that perfect means that it can be slapped into the same category as Stalinist Russia or other places that make an even worse job of it, or don't even try to meet the standard.

A friend of mine a while back was trying to defend Marxism on the grounds that it was possible to produce a Marxist critique of the State Socialist system of the old USSR. I said 'Not if you lived there'. She got the point.

InFront

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

If you really have faith in Islam you you'll be able to withstand it being mocked. As I quoted earlier

And as I believe I replied, it's more like having your wife or mother mocked. Would you be so assured of her good standing that you would allow people to mock her? I'd doubt it. Remember Im not talking about responding with violence - that iks a whole another issue, but responding peacefully yet firmly.

So you'd want Mein Kampf banned? that's ridiculous

To you it would seem. Mein Kampf is an extreme example, but it was a book used as a vehicle to perpetuate anti Jewish feeling (with untold consequences, and repercussions over eight years later) in the same way that certain media organisations and publications seek to damage the good name of Islam.
I'm just wondering where some people choose to draw the line. I presume you think David Irving is entitled to freedom to expound holocaust denial? And why not Mahmoud Ahmedinejad while we're at it?
Something tells me that is the latter were to publish a manifesto calling for the elimination of Jews and maybe Americans, and blaming the troubles of the world upon them, many people would be sitting on the other side of the censorship debate, and would claim, quite rightly, that he doesnt have the right to purposely vilify Jews or indeed Americans in such a way.

relabelling. i.e., by categorising the Satanic Verses as a work of hate

I am afraid we are all chasing our own tails on this one, but it has already been said why it is a work of hatred.
Rushdie is a Muslim, (or was a Muslim i dont know which), with an extensive education and knowledge of Muslim India and Pakistan, and of course a gift for writing.
These are all wonderful things to have in your favour, but Rushdie used them all in unison to condemn Islam in The Satanic Verses, by the very insinuations and derogatory labelling that he is known to have made, and that have been mentioned previously. They were an undeniable verbal spat against Islam and The Prophet p. and were an encitement of hatred - he knew full well the reaction that was to come from peaceful Muslims. Instead of being ashamed of this work, he has been decorated in accolades simply for being controversial and provocative, and downright insulting.
Again, I'm not saying he deserves the trouble that seems to be ongoing, but if I was of an understanding age and possibly mobile enough, I would have protested. The peaceful processes engaged to condemn the work were correct, and Muslims (or anyone) should not have to go to those lengths simply to defend theirselves or defend the foundations of their peaceful and hardworking community, nor to defend Allah from the promotion of a bigotted herald of hatred.
You dont think he bears any responsibility here?

If you opt to have your reading material edited by an Islamic scholar, that is entirely your affair

I didn't mention using scholars to adjudicate the process (although in a free society they presumably have a right to such employment)
I'm just talking about common sense banning of worthless material that is going to incite hatred particularly at this very sensitive time.
Nobody is free of censorship, and censorship can be abused. The ownership of the large American media outlets by a few conglomerates is detrimental to the quality of accurate information Americans are receiving and is a censorship in itself. Nobody is as artful or cowardly in turning out the official line as FOX news or CNN. So is that an argument against censorship? No, it is an argument against bad censorship and abused censorship.

Saying 'enough is enough' is something that society does on an ongoing basis already (in America the publication of pictures of the burial coffins of soldiers is severelty restricted). If I were to suggest the trauma inflicted on, for example, the parents of dead Israeli children should not be shown on TV, I would be, quite rightly, accused of propaganda.
Yet when America bans such things we accept the status quo and move on without noticing the double standard.

Even taking your suggestion elsewhere that Ibrahimic religious works be exempt from this censorship, should the Bhagavad Gita be banned or edited make it clear that Krishna is a false God?

Not from what Ive read in your link, they seem to be a perfectly happy and healthy, peeaceful religious group with no bad words to say against Muslims or Christians or Jews as far as I can see.
The point about the Ibrahimic faiths is that they might seem to do such a thing, but we must bear in mind they all come from a common ancestor in Allah, and we cannot readily change those to whom we are related:) . We just have to get on with it and try to act responsbily and amicably to them as we would to our family.
They have a special place in Islam, of course, which the Bhagavad don't so obviously seem to have, but what that means in the scheme of things only Allah knows for sure.

Should we also ban the works of Marx, which set out a materialist conception of history? In particular, should we ban his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right which includes his description of religion as the opium of the people?

That is a particularly ambivalent comment, I'm sure there are many good, bad and indifferent interpretations of that line. I presume he meant it in a derogatory way, to suggest it is an empty hunger or macabre addiction, I don't know, it's not particularly something that offends me. It's his opinion, he's not trying to push an uninformed incitement of hatred by waving a red flag at any community or even dishonouring them per se. So no, I don't see how an argument for censorship of that would be called for.

Originally posted by Wibbs
Whoah there. Your word of God applies to everyone?

That's an integral part of Islam if not most faiths. Personally I believe everyone is born a Muslim and it is up to them, to the best of their knowledge and ability to live their lives reflecting that as they progress. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing, most people believe that one God created us and will judge us all in the end whenever that is to be.
I'm certainly not suggesting all people be forced to accept this belief, feel free to think differently, religion is a personal thing. I'm not being arrogant, although Im afraid that is the perception some people have about Muslims. It would be silly of me to say that Allah's word given by Muhammad pbuh do not matter to Christians or Atheists, because in my reality they do, but your reality may be far removed and contrasting. We can't judge each other.

"Oh Prophet, strive hard (make war) against the unbelievers"

The use of inverted brackets in that statement is grossly misleading to the pioint of deliberate misreprestation of what the Qur'an tells us.
It says "strive hard" or "strive"/ "against the unbelievers". it does not say make war against the unbelievers, that is simply untrue.
If I am told to strive hard for my exams I take that as a message of encouragement to progress dutifully with the intent of getting a good result. In no place does violence come into it, to suggest so is simply without basis.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I am afraid we are all chasing our own tails on this one, but it has already been said why it is a work of hatred.

I don’t see it as chasing our tails. Its more if you want to make a case for banning works that upset people because they contradict their deeply held beliefs, you’ll have to think up a new reasoning that throws out freedom of thought. What I’d expect is simply that Muslims would publish views explaining where they feel critical works are wrong – like this response to Ibn Warraq.

You don’t think he bears any responsibility here?

Answering the question with a question. Which do you think did the most harm to the image of Islam in Europe – the Satanic Verses itself or the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie’s death?

I presume he meant it in a derogatory way, to suggest it is an empty hunger or macabre addiction

As an aside, he saw religion as an expression of deep unhappiness. His reference to opium, in the full context, means pain relief rather than recreational drug. His point is more that religion is not a real solution to the unhappiness in the world, as it simply cloaks the symptoms.

I didn't mention using scholars to adjudicate the process (although in a free society they presumably have a right to such employment)

Anyone who could transcend their personal beliefs about what is tasteful in the search for what is truly obscene could indeed carry out such censorship as is necessary. But someone who banned the Satanic Verses and let through Frank McCourt or banned Frank McCourt so that they could also ban the Satanic Verses would not be displaying that quality. On the other hand, if people seek guidance from their religious leaders on what books to avoid, that’s there matter. In the 1950s the Communist Manifesto was on sale in Dublin, but the Roman Catholic Church requested its adherents to apply to their Bishop for permission before buying it. That was a completely voluntary system, and if the Irish Islamic community wants to implement a similar system to advise Muslims about works that might be deemed spiritually misleading that's obviously fine.

I'm just talking about common sense banning of worthless material that is going to incite hatred particularly at this very sensitive time.

In one sense, I know what you mean. But it really just brings us back to that point from many posts ago – if the material is worthless, then Muslims should be able to shrug it off like Catholics shrug off the Da Vinci Code. If they can’t, it really is a weakness in them – not the wider society.

I’m an atheist, but I can still appreciate the majesty of the Sermon on the Mount and see it as a step on the road to enlightenment with its fierce attachment to truth. It survives the parody of being misheard at the edge of the crowd in the Life of Brian as ‘blessed are the cheesemakers’. If the message is true and worthwhile, it can take the challenge. But society cannot be upended and hard won freedoms compromised because a few Muslims lack confidence in the power of their faith to convince.

Yet when America bans such things we accept the status quo and move on without noticing the double standard.

I’m not sure that’s correct, as the issues both of media control and Government spin are analysed and commented on. The underlying issue of all of this is to avoid turning people into passive recipients of ideas either from State, commercial or religious authorities. This means giving them the tools to do that, and not withholding ideas and information because we’re afraid of where it will take them.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

And as I believe I replied, it's more like having your wife or mother mocked. Would you be so assured of her good standing that you would allow people to mock her? I'd doubt it.

Frankly if you think her good standing is under threat by mocking, there are more issues at stake. As I've said before, walking on by and turning the other cheek if I may borrow such a phrase is by far the better option.

I'm just wondering where some people choose to draw the line. I presume you think David Irving is entitled to freedom to expound holocaust denial? And why not Mahmoud Ahmedinejad while we're at it?

No again you're not exactly comparing like with like. The former example is a guy who contends the holocaust as it is reported didn't happen, the latter while following on from this also suggests more radical solutions to the zionist "problem" in the here and now. Both have been villified and debated as they should be. I wouldn't seek to censor either of them.

Something tells me that is the latter were to publish a manifesto calling for the elimination of Jews and maybe Americans, and blaming the troubles of the world upon them, many people would be sitting on the other side of the censorship debate, and would claim, quite rightly, that he doesnt have the right to purposely vilify Jews or indeed Americans in such a way.

No he has the right to do so, but it's also the right of the rest of us to call him an eejit and either ignore him, hoping he'll go away, or take legal action if he tries to make good on the threat.

I'm not saying he deserves the trouble that seems to be ongoing, but if I was of an understanding age and possibly mobile enough, I would have protested.

As is your legal right in an open secular society. As it is his right to write the book in the first place.

The peaceful processes engaged to condemn the work were correct, and Muslims (or anyone) should not have to go to those lengths simply to defend theirselves or defend the foundations of their peaceful and hardworking community, nor to defend Allah from the promotion of a bigotted herald of hatred.

Those lengths are precisely part and parcel of the sometimes uncomfortable sacrifices that go to make a free society. One hardly exists without the other.

You dont think he bears any responsibility here?

The second any art is looking over it's shoulder for the sword of respectable and censorious damacles we're not too far from book burning and we know how that turns out.

I'm just talking about common sense banning of worthless material that is going to incite hatred particularly at this very sensitive time.

Slippery slope that one. If we reduce freedoms for the sake of expediency, it can be hard to get them back. Today a "bigotted herald of hatred" gets the chop, tomorrow all debate is stifled. That's thin end of the wedgism and no mistake.

Nobody is free of censorship, and censorship can be abused.

True.

The ownership of the large American media outlets by a few conglomerates is detrimental to the quality of accurate information Americans are receiving and is a censorship in itself.

True again for the most part.

Nobody is as artful or cowardly in turning out the official line as FOX news or CNN.

Everyone has an angle. Al Jazeera has an angle. The more angles the better as far as I'm concerned. It's the responsiblity of every citizen to filter the crap. Anyway a world where you only ever hear the party line is not a good argument for censorship.

Yet when America bans such things we accept the status quo and move on without noticing the double standard.

Whose we? I and most people I know don't. Check out the anti US media bias that's everywhere.

They have a special place in Islam, of course, which the Bhagavad don't so obviously seem to have, but what that means in the scheme of things only Allah knows for sure.

Well given Allah's attitude to pagans I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not being arrogant, although Im afraid that is the perception some people have about Muslims.

It's not a difficult perception to have in fairness. The same can be said to a lesser or greater extent about other religious types.

It would be silly of me to say that Allah's word given by Muhammad pbuh do not matter to Christians or Atheists, because in my reality they do, but your reality may be far removed and contrasting. We can't judge each other.

Your whole faith judges me as an unbeliever. Meh. No biggie.

The use of inverted brackets in that statement is grossly misleading to the pioint of deliberate misreprestation of what the Qur'an tells us.
It says "strive hard" or "strive"/ "against the unbelievers". it does not say make war against the unbelievers, that is simply untrue..../... In no place does violence come into it, to suggest so is simply without basis.

Strive/fight, lesser Jihad/greater Jihad. It depends on the translation and viewpoint. Here's another where fight is clear. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029 Strive? I don't think so. Check out the folowing passages for the attitude to people of the Book to boot. In any case I don't really think we need to quote any more of the many passages in both Quran and Hadeeth that would make any non believer uneasy at their status in Islam, both here and the hereafter(though it's the here that is more the worry).

niencat

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

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.

i disagree. i think most people in the west do believe in God. Not all of them however express that belief in organised religion nor do many put serious thought in that belief in God or think about their belief in God on a daily basis. In this society God is pushed to the side, and one result of that is the growth of increased alienation, people becoming more and more self centred and less caring about one another because why should we? If you abandon the thought of God out of your life and believe that it all begins and ends with you and how you view the world, morals are put aside more and more. What will stop you from being mean to another, take his or her possessions and in the end his or her life? Just because your parents said it was not a good idea?

There are two extremes to the subject discussed here. One is the view of those who are members of an organised religion who are trying to force their beliefs and how the teachings of their religion should be interpreted, down the throat of others.

the other is the view that organised religion and belief in God is bad because it restricts people and so belief in God should be abandoned, one should not think about God and one should not join an organised religion, but rather find out for themselves what is good and what is not good.

Both views are very bad for society. A lot of people find it far more convenient to not bother themselves with thoughts about God or follow the teachings of an organised religion. This view is supported quite a bit by people in the west who help to form public opinion. And it is as bad as people who are members of an organised religion and try to push their views down the throat of others. But that is not a popular view among peopel in the west. We like to think we can all work it out for ourselves. yet for those with eyes to see, western society is falling apart because people genuinely do not care anymore for each other.

We have to learn as people, whether we are atheists, secularists, idealists, religionists, to walk the middle road and not go into extremes.

Ireland has still the highest rate of suicides among men in Europe. In other countries in Europe depression is on the increase. More and more people feel stressed and anxious in the west. Why is that? I think it is because of a lack of true community sense, of feeling that nobody cares really about them. We hardly know our neighbours anymore.

I relate that to people not thinking about God that much anymore (even when they believe in God) and putting more and more focus on consumerism, on having stuff, which gives them the false security that they are safe from the bad things that can happen to people.

After all, all of us have a negative side, which can hurt one another. Why should i really bother about another unless they continuously give me what i want? I would not do so out of my own, not so readily, unless I really liked a person. But when I believe in God and He tells me I should do so, either because it is better for me or because I believe in Him and believes that He is mightier than me, and believe that He is telling me what to do and what not to because He wants me to have a good life, or because I am simply afraid of Him punishing me if I do not do what He says - when I believe that, I will make the effort to be kind to others. I will have more motivation to do so.

Ideally we should do so because it is human to be kind to one another. However, not that many people operate on that principle. Very few of us have this insight. Most of us have been taught a form of socialisation by our parents. Very few of us are kind because we see totally that itis better to be kind and caring than to be unkind and uncaring. As soon as we are tested in our resolve to be kind this becomes apparent.... we will abandon it quite quikcly. If not, then why do we still have wars and are lawsuits (not only in Ireland) on the increase?

niencat

hi infront,

i agree with you on some things you say here about the west but i have a great difficulty when people hide behind scholars.

Al Qaradawi is one who says suicide bombing is okay for palestinians, since the poor have only one thing: their bodies.

I do not understand how he can say that given that suicide is strongly condemned in islam.

Which proves to me that scholars can have it wrong as well.
That is why every Muslim is required to learn the Quran by heart and to study their religion, to reflect on the Quran. Exactly because scholars may have more factual knowledge, but do they also have the inner knowledge, irfan, which is necessary as well to make good judgments? from the little of what I know about al Qaradawi I am doubtful that he has good insight. In my opinion he instigates hatred, and that is not the intention of the Quran as far as I have read it.

Muhammad certainly did not teach hatred. He forgave even the woman who eventually caused his death because she poisoned food and then gave it to him to eat. And what about the woman who threw dirt on him every time he passed her house? when one day she did not he said: something is wrong, and sent a muslim woman to check on her. She was ill, and Muhammad organised help for her.

that is how he treated those who ill treated him. In former times, when Islam was a young religion with many many enemies and the world was a place where in many places it was kill or you get killed, it may have been okay to kill others who turned against islam. Nowadays, that is a practice that most countries who were willing to sign the declaration of human rights, are frowning upon.

People like Al Qaradawi are not doing Islam a favour by promoting the killing of other people, cause like with slavery around 1860, the public opinion is very much changing towards this kind of thing, a lot of people in countries which have a lot of economical influence in the world feel that killing one another for religious reasons is not a very good thing.

I know several muslims, one a scholar, who do not advocate these things at all, on the basis of the life of Muhammad, and their knowledge of the history of Islam

If the Quran states for example to wage war against the infidels they read the word infidels in a historical context, relating to the idol worshippers who opposed Muhammad in that region.

and what Al Qaradawi says about apostacy is also not in line with the teaching of Islam that everybody is born a muslim, when we are aware of it or not. According to that I reason: if a Christian remains a Christian, he could be seen as an apostate, cause according to Islam we are all born muslims.... yet muslims are not to kill christians or jews just because they are not muslim....

Al Qaradawi was hailed by the UK one time as a moderate muslim cause he condemned the 9-11 attacks. what they did not realise was that he never believed those attacks were done by Muslims (or rather so called muslims) but that he believes the Mosad, the Israeli intelligence service, was behind them. so he was condemning them because of his belief that Mosad was behind them.... not necessarily because it would in his view be wrong of a muslim to use violence and attacking innocent people.

Don't rely on scholars too much. rather do your own investigation. That is why the Quran was revealed.... that is why the life of the prophet was recorded in so many details. He was the exemplifyer of the Quran. Scholars are human beings and their interpretation is fallible. They can make a lot of mischief themselves, unless people do what God has told them to do: study and think about the verses ofthe Quran and actively engage with their religion instead of just going through the motions and let the scholars do the thinking for you.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

calling for the elimination of Jews

That would be incitement to violence again, wouldn't it? Please don't confuse that with insult or even with incitement to hatred. That would be something which extremist nuts tend to do!

Whatever we feel about how far freedom of speech should allow you latitude to insult beliefs someone else holds dear and exactly where mere insult actually becomes incitement to hatred [or where exactly to draw your line on censorship if one decides that hate-speech should be restricted], surely we can all agree that in any decent society regardless of the main religion, culture etc, a direct incitement to violence should not be considered "free speech" but rather a crime.

InFront wrote:

in America the publication of pictures of the burial coffins of soldiers is severelty restricted

That would be another example of a creeping self-censorship through fear (of the govt., of the public - rather than the violent tendencies of the Muslim Honour Guard this time). Not a good thing.

InFront wrote:

Yet when America bans such things we accept the status quo and move on without noticing the double standard.

You (and plenty of other people) noticed it [American media engaging in "bad" censorship as you call it for reasons of cowardliness, corporate interests, a desire to push an official govt. line].
A whole documentary film has been made (by Americans!) on FOX news' tweaking of the stories and licking of the Bush Admin's behind hasn't it?

niencat

Hi Schuhart you write that Islam gets the same treatment as most religions, referring to that they can participate in interfaith activities here in Ireland.

however, this kind of attitude is the same as the kind of attitude of the Clonskeagh mosque leaders who were backed by a government official recently, who say that there is nothing to worry about with regard to Muslim extremists in Ireland.

Fact is, there IS Islamophobia in the west. I know because I grew upin the west, in a far more secular and liberalist country than Ireland has been. I mean, there is a history of tolerance in my country (which did not prevent it from taking colonies and subduing other people, but hey, on the whole compared with countries in Europe aroudn that time we did not do too badly), yet I grew up with a lot of prejudice against Islam. True, there was prejudice against any form of organised religion in the country I grew up in, at least if you wanted to be seen as modern and progressive, but Islam got the worst of it.

Recent events in Europe have rekindled that, just when we were about to admit that we had a lot of prejudices against Islam and that our views were not accurate.

The attitude of many Muslim leaders, who say like Clonskeagh mosque does, that there is nothing to worry about is one which does not give non-Muslims in the west faith in the sincerity of Muslims.

I read a letter to the editor of the Sunday Tribune by a Muslim who condemns Shaykh Shaheed Satardien for giving his opinion when asked. I have read the reaction of someone from Clonskeagh mosque who said that it is far harder to take when islamophobia comes from within the muslim community, implying that Satardien is working against Islam, while all he did was giving answers to questions asked by journalists on the issue of extremism among muslims in ireland.

There is Islamophobia, also in Ireland.
There is racism, also in Ireland.
There is muslim extremism, also in Ireland.

If one says that one is nothing to worry about, one can say that of all three of them and one is basically totally wrong.

Any non-caucasian will acknowledge that there is racism in ireland and that they do worry about it sometimes

any muslim will acknowledge there is islamophobia in ireland and that they get annoyed by it sometimes

but not many muslims are willing to admit that there is muslim extremism in ireland. as soon as that is mentioned, Clonskeagh mosque and those organisations closely linked with it say no it is not happening, or yes ther e is but it is nothing to worry about. And then do their best to discredit and villify the one muslim who feels it is a matter of concern for religious leaders, accusing the one who speaks out of islamophobia.

In my native country one group of the population is notorious for crying Racism as soon as one of their flock is refused a job, is caught in a criminal act, and things like that.

Many muslim leaders i have heard speak of late remind me of this attitude, not only here in Ireland but in the western world. There are a few who are not like that. They are willing to confront and speak about issues which are part of the muslim society in the west.

One extremist in the midst of a society is one too many, as the Irish very well know, given the history of Ireland especially after Bloody Sunday, but also before that.

Muslim leaders are condemning another muslim, who has proven in his actions to be a man of peace and a very devout muslim as well, just because he says there is a problem and muslim leaders should get together and develop solutions to the problem.
As a result he is at risk to being shunned.

If this is how muslims treat one another, how much have they understood from the Quran and the life of the one who brought them the Quran and who is the exemplar of the Quran? I have yet to read a letter written to the editor of a newspaper by a muslim who is saying that Satardien has a point.
No wonder Islam is having a dark age. Muslims are too eager to attack fellow muslims instead of looking at what is amiss in their midst and tackle the problem, even when Islam is under attack of non-muslims... what a sad thing for a religion that focus a lot on the unity of the community.

And to us non-muslims: lets admit that yes, there is islamophobia in ireland and that it is something we should be concerned about and that it is something we should get rid of.

Schuhart

I think Niencat has contributed some very useful and provocative posts.

Niencat wrote:

Fact is, there IS Islamophobia in the west.

I’m not suggesting that prejudice does not exist. I would similarly draw attention to the plain fact that all religions in the West are critically debated, and I see that as something that reduces prejudice by ultimately promoting real understanding. I’m essentially just pointing out that some Muslims seem to have an excessive expectation of what protection a religion is entitled to claim.

If a person is, say, denied access to employment or some service on account of race or religion, they rightly have a legal protection. Where a person writes a novel that upsets former co-religionists, the novelist is the person deserving of protection.

Recent events in Europe have rekindled that, just when we were about to admit that we had a lot of prejudices against Islam and that our views were not accurate.

Indeed, but study of Islam as a doctrine actually suggests a number of critical views are reasonably accurate.

Take the position of apostasy, as set out in this post on islamonline.net

All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death.

I’d expect that many European Muslims would find their outlook better expressed by the minority of scholars who would not feel that Islam proscribes death for apostates. But the fact remains that the mainstream doctrine of Islam as usually interpreted is simply not consistent with religious freedom as generally understood. Islamic doctrine has a very similar look and feel to old style Catholicism. Such a closed and limited outlook simply will be commented on. I would not deem such comment to be Islamophobia.

There is Islamophobia, also in Ireland.
There is racism, also in Ireland.
There is muslim extremism, also in Ireland.

For my part, I have no problem with the first two statements. I have no real basis for assessing the third, but I see no reason to believe Ireland is immune to international developments.

And then do their best to discredit and villify the one muslim who feels it is a matter of concern for religious leaders, accusing the one who speaks out of islamophobia.

Which, to an extent, is what I’d mean by pointing out that the establishment of a religion will generally resist change and debate unless provoked and prodded until resistance is unsustainable.

bonkey

Schuhart wrote:

For my part, I have no problem with the first two statements. I have no real basis for assessing the third, but I see no reason to believe Ireland is immune to international developments.

Indeed, the question is - and always should be and have been - what constitutes a crossing of the line from criticism to intolerance, from discomfort to discrimination, and so on.

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

And as I believe I replied, it's more like having your wife or mother mocked. Would you be so assured of her good standing that you would allow people to mock her? I'd doubt it. Remember Im not talking about responding with violence - that iks a whole another issue, but responding peacefully yet firmly.

Yes I'd oppose it responsibly - not bring in a ****ing law against it!



To you it would seem. Mein Kampf is an extreme example, but it was a book used as a vehicle to perpetuate anti Jewish feeling (with untold consequences, and repercussions over eight years later) in the same way that certain media organisations and publications seek to damage the good name of Islam. [/QUOTE]

It's still a book, people have the opportunity to not believe everything they read.

I'm just wondering where some people choose to draw the line. I presume you think David Irving is entitled to freedom to expound holocaust denial? And why not Mahmoud Ahmedinejad while we're at it?
Something tells me that is the latter were to publish a manifesto calling for the elimination of Jews and maybe Americans, and blaming the troubles of the world upon them, many people would be sitting on the other side of the censorship debate, and would claim, quite rightly, that he doesnt have the right to purposely vilify Jews or indeed Americans in such a way.

Yes anyone should be free to say what they want in a book because everyone's free to believe what they want from the book. No matter what demonisation I hear about Islam I'm still gonna think of Islam based on the Muslims I know.

Niencat wrote:

i disagree. i think most people in the west do believe in God. Not all of them however express that belief in organised religion nor do many put serious thought in that belief in God or think about their belief in God on a daily basis. In this society God is pushed to the side, and one result of that is the growth of increased alienation, people becoming more and more self centred and less caring about one another because why should we? If you abandon the thought of God out of your life and believe that it all begins and ends with you and how you view the world, morals are put aside more and more. What will stop you from being mean to another, take his or her possessions and in the end his or her life? Just because your parents said it was not a good idea?

Sorry should have been more specific - I meant to say most "western" minded people don't believe in the God portrayed in the Bible

Schuhart

bonkey wrote:

Indeed, the question is - and always should be and have been - what constitutes a crossing of the line from criticism to intolerance, from discomfort to discrimination, and so on.

That is a large part of what the problem is. Everyone agrees that intolerance is bad and criticism is good or at least allowed.

The question is complex. As noted above, even religious texts regarded as sacred by their subscribers have passages that many might regard as intolerant and/or advocating discrimination. In fact, never mind the 'many might regard' bit. It would strain language to its breaking point to see some of those passages as anything other than advocating intolerance and discrimination - say St Paul's injunction that women should stay silent in Church or the Quran's call for idolators to be put to death.

Which, when you think about it, really means that the standard of criticism vs intolerance/discomfort vs discrimination can really only work on the basis of identifying some pretty concrete loss, i.e. 'they gave the job to a less qualified person because of my religion' or 'they broke windows and daubed slogans on my place of worship'. Restrictions on expressing opinions, other than invitations to engage in crime like 'burn those Travellers out, they're all thieves anyway' are hard to justify.

It really is hard to see a reason for banning a novel on the grounds that someone regards it as an insult equivalent to saying 'your mother's a slut'. Particularly as the author would likely respond 'I've the highest regard for your mother, but I think your religion, which used to be my religion, is all my eye and Betty Martin and I've as much right to say that as you have to say idolators should be slaughtered.'

Wibbs

niencat wrote:

Muhammad certainly did not teach hatred. He forgave even the woman who eventually caused his death because she poisoned food and then gave it to him to eat. And what about the woman who threw dirt on him every time he passed her house? when one day she did not he said: something is wrong, and sent a muslim woman to check on her. She was ill, and Muhammad organised help for her.

Well he certainly didn't teach hatred in his early ministry. Later when he gained power his attitude seems to have changed to a more aggressive stance. Many opponents felt this aggressive change. For military opponents I can see the reasoning, but for our purposes and in particular his attitude to non violent dissent, a look at the Hadeeth is revealing for the background in Islam to censorship and aggression to dissenters.

There are a list of people to whom he wasn't as peaceful in his dealings. The poetess Asma bint Marwan wrote a few poems speaking against and mocking Islam and in particular Mohammed. The prophet's response? "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" An assassin, a member of her husbands family crept in and stabbed her to death(removing her children first which was nice). Now when Mohammed heard about this he freed the man in question. No charge.

Al-Huwayrith another guy who insulted Mohammed and the prophet called for his death.

Sara a freed slave insulted the Prophet and he commanded that she be killed. She eventually was.

Another poet Kab bin al-Ashraf who wrote a poem criticising Mohammed and his conquest of Mecca. Again the call went out from Mohammed "Who will rid me of this man?". More assassins came forward, but were worried about having to use subterfuge to gain his trust in order to get rid of him. The Prophet's reply? Say what you like you're free in the matter". After gaining his trust they killed him. Again no charges brought against them by Mohammed. Naturally as he had sent them out in the first place. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.271
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436

A randomly met one eyed shepherd who sang a song in defiance of Islam was killed by having the end of a bow driven through his eye. The Prophet didn't admonish him either.

A slave girl who mocked Mohammed was killed while pregnant by her husband who stabbed her through the belly. Again when he went to Mohammed he was pardoned.

There are more examples that show that the Mohammed wasn't always the peaceful type often portrayed.

that is how he treated those who ill treated him.

Indeed, but as you see not the full story. One can't consider one aspect of his charactor without considering the other. That aspect has more than enough vagueness to appeal to the radicals. These and other reports are hard to square with the peaceful image. Also would this discussion of the accusation of the possible violent nature of Mohammed be out of bounds as well?

Bonkey wrote:

Indeed, the question is - and always should be and have been - what constitutes a crossing of the line from criticism to intolerance, from discomfort to discrimination, and so on.

A difficult line to draw and no mistake. As usual Schuhart sums up my general position far better than I could.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Yes anyone should be free to say what they want in a book because everyone's free to believe what they want from the book. No matter what demonisation I hear about Islam I'm still gonna think of Islam based on the Muslims I know.

I agree with you here. I've far more faith in people than their faiths.

Schuhart

There’s a follow-up letter in the Sunday Business Post from the Muslim cleric who featured in the original Tribune article at the start of this thread. It was in response to an [url=http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=LETTERS-qqqs=letters-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=11.0.0.0-qqqn=20-qqqx=1.asp
]earlier Post Article[/url]

… Islam places great emphasis on family, community and personal morality - these qualities enhance any community, whatever its creed or culture. We hope that the promotion of these qualities can be part of our contribution to Ireland. But above all we wish to prevent perverted and distorted notions of Islam from becoming a threat to the Muslim community in Ireland and the wider non-Muslim community. The vast majority of Muslims are decent, caring individuals, who simply want to practise their faith and live in peace with their neighbours. The extremist element is a tiny fraction of that community, but that fraction, if unchallenged, could pose a threat to societal cohesion.
The history of Ireland shows how even small numbers of extremists can hijack a community for their own ends.

His essential points seem reasonable and moderate.

IT Loser

Hobbes wrote:

Post has been moved to humanities. You can discuss it there. The Islam forum is not for these kinds of posts.

Hobbes: Imposing Islam Since Whenever.

Wibbs

Slightly OT, but so what IT Loser? This is a better forum for the discussion. Both sides have been put here without going to the Islam forum and extracting the urine. If Muslims want to reply or post their opinions on the matter they can and have.

IT Loser

This country has been accepting Muslims on a steady basis for say, the best part of 15 years.

In that period- LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF ONE CENTURY...their youth have come to pose a threat to our Liberal Society.

Yet, we have not invaded Iraq.

We have not fobbed off their False God or their Prophet.

We have no Guantanamo Bay.

We have done SCANT business with America vis a vis Terror. {sidenote: Irish/Irish-American loss on 9/11?}

YET!

We find their number doubling every census...and our Govt is being accused of failing the Islamic community?

Pathetic.

Islam understands one thing and one thing only: Cast-iron, copper-bottomed, gilt edged RESISTANCE

What?. JUST WHAT has this Country done to warrant Islamic attack? What has this country done to Islamic youth that has so offended them.

Frank Grimes

IT Loser wrote:

This country has been accepting Muslims on a steady basis for say, the best part of 15 years.

It's been more like 50 or 60 years and Muslims in Ireland are not soley immigrants - there are Irish Muslims too so we're not exactly "accepting" Muslims, they are a part of Irish society.

In that period- LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF ONE CENTURY...their youth have come to pose a threat to our Liberal Society.

Do you really believe this or are you just over generalising for dramatic effect?