Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Muslim Extremists Firebomb Publisher of Allah Book
Options
-
28-09-2008 11:37pm#1Naturally the people behind this attack (who are terrorists, no dancing around the subject) represent a tiny, tiny minority of the Muslim population in the UK - lets get that out of the way first off.
Still though, this kind of irrational violence in the name of religion and fearmongering versus free speech really worries me, particularly as its happening so close to us. That Danish cartoon controversy (100+ dead :eek:) really set a precedent that I think will constantly be brought into focus more and more, and our principles should never be compromised IMO. Also, and not to ire anyone but lets be honest - why is it ok that the prophet had a 9 year old bride in the first place?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/28/muhammad.book.attack
Firebomb attack on book publisher
Firm had bought rights to a controversial novel about the Prophet Muhammad's child bride
The London home of the publisher of a controversial new novel that gives a fictionalised account of the Prophet Muhammad's relationship with his child bride, Aisha, was firebombed yesterday, hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics.
A petrol bomb is believed to have been thrown through the door of Martin Rynja's £2.5m town house in Islington's Lonsdale Square, which also doubles as the headquarters of his publishing company, Gibson Square. Three men have been arrested on terrorism charges.
The Observer has learned that police told Rynja late on Friday night to leave his property. His company recently made headlines when it announced it was to publish The Jewel of Medina.
Written by US journalist Sherry Jones, the book was due to have been published in August by US giant Random House. But amid controversy the company halted publication, a move denounced by Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, as 'censorship by fear'.
Rynja bought the UK publishing rights earlier this month. 'The Jewel of Medina has become an important barometer of our time,' Rynja said at the time. 'As an independent publishing company, we feel strongly that we should not be afraid of the consequences of debate.'
Yesterday the Metropolitan Police confirmed that three men had been arrested in connection with the incident in Lonsdale Square. Two men aged 22 and 30 were stopped by armed officers in the street outside the property and a third man, aged 40, was arrested near Angel tube station. Police have begun searching four addresses around north-east London - two in Walthamstow, one in Ilford and one in Forest Gate.
The men were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, and last night were being questioned at a central London police station, a Met spokesman said. Scotland Yard confirmed that a small fire inside the property had been extinguished. 'At this early stage it is being linked with the arrests,' the spokesman said.
Residents in the square said armed police, assisted by firefighters, broke down the door of the property at around 2.30am yesterday.
Francesca Liebowitz, 16, who lives five doors away with her parents, said: 'The police couldn't get the door open so the fire brigade battered it down. It's a bit scary to have this happen on your doorstep. Nothing like this has ever happened round here before.'
Rynja, whose company has also published Londonistan by journalist Melanie Phillips and Blowing up Russia by murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko, appears to have been determined to use Jones's book to take a stand for free speech.
'I was completely bowled over by the novel and the moving love story it portrays,' he said earlier this month. 'I was struck by the careful research of Sherry Jones, who is a journalist with almost 30 years of experience, and her passion for the novel's characters. I immediately felt that it was imperative to publish it. In an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear.'
One of his neighbours in Lonsdale Square, a friend who also works in the publishing industry, said Rynja had not expressed any fears that he might be attacked. 'I just hope this does not dissuade him from his work,' the friend said. 'We live in a country of free speech and Martin is very passionate about that.'
The book, despite being described by one critic as 'a rarity in Islamic-themed literature: an attempt by a Western woman to fictionalise the personal life of the Prophet and to bring to a wider audience one of the great feminist heroines of the Middle East', has attracted criticism. One sex scene has been described as 'softcore pornography' by an American academic, Denise Spellberg, an influential professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas.
Spellberg made the comments after Random House sent her the book hoping for a favourable comment to publish on its jacket. Instead, in an email that was leaked to the US press, Spellberg described the novel as a 'very ugly, stupid piece of work'.
'I don't have a problem with historical fiction,' Spellberg wrote. 'I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into softcore pornography.'
It appears Spellberg was instrumental in drawing attention to the book among segments of the Muslim community. In April, Shahed Amanullah, an editor of a popular Muslim website, claimed Spellberg had told him the book 'made fun of Muslims and their history'.
Amanullah sent emails to Middle East and Islamic studies students, claiming: 'Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel Jewel of Medina - she said she found it incredibly offensive.'
The resulting furore prompted Random House to pull the book, a move that dismayed its author, who received a $100,000 advance. 'To claim that Muslims will answer my book with violence is pure nonsense,' Jones told a German newspaper last month. 'Anyone who reads the book will see that it honours the Prophet and his favourite wife.'
She expressed anger at the political consequences of Random House's decision. 'That one of the biggest publishing houses in the world refuses to publish a book because of warnings is a sobering comment on the state of freedom of speech in the USA,' she said.0
Comments
-
There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.
When Western countries stop with this sort of rubbish, then i feel we can criticise the Muslim world for their views. We are not much better, we just see it from a different angle.0 -
speedboatchase wrote:Naturally the people behind this attack (who are terrorists, no dancing around the subject) represent a tiny, tiny minority of the Muslim population in the UK - lets get that out of the way first off.
I've a feeling they probably won't let it get out of the way.
Don't forget to mention as well that religious extremists exist in all religions, including Christianity. And don't forget the inquisition and the wars of religion in Europe and Galileo and all the other bad things that Christians have done in their history.
It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.0 -
It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.
Yes, but they've gone backwards at a rate of knots since then.
I don't think anyone sane condones this kind of thing. The idea that subjects like this are totally verboten for discussion on pain of death (cf Rushdies Fatwa, Theo Van Goghs assasination, The Danish cartoon furore, this attempted murder etc) is totally anathema to a modern democracy. Of course, this also applies to any other extremist individual or group whatever their beliefs. EDIT: This doesn't mean that anyone can or should go out of their way to stir things up though.
I note that 3 men have been arrested, if found guilty I'd hope that they get the book thrown at them and don't get out for at least 50 years. Won't happen though.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.
Not condoning it, but she was let off.
Apparently the "Virgin Mary" was 12, btw.0 -
To Fratton Fred, do you honestly think Catholics in the UK would firebomb a publisher? "We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?! There have been many examples of Catholic intolerance throughout history but nowadays when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed, you can't make that comparison surely?
Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine0 -
Advertisement
-
speedboatchase wrote: »To Fratton Fred, do you honestly think Catholics in the UK would firebomb a publisher? "We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?! There have been many examples of Catholic intolerance throughout history but nowadays when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed, you can't make that comparison surely?
Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine
you can make that comparrison when islam is a sacred cow to you0 -
LostinBlanch wrote:Yes, but they've gone backwards at a rate of knots since then.
No they haven't. They're still the same people. The christians in the west are the people who have morally gone backwards since then.LostinBlanch wrote:I don't think anyone sane condones this kind of thing.
I don't condone the violence but I don't condone the decision to publish that book either. Religious muslims aren't like religious catholics, they take their religion seriously and some of them are prepared to react violently when they see Islam and their prophet insulted. This is something we know from past experience so it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see this reaction when someone decides to publish a book that is less than respectful of the prophet.LostinBlanch wrote:The idea that subjects like this are totally verboten for discussion on pain of death (cf Rushdies Fatwa, Theo Van Goghs assasination, The Danish cartoon furore, this attempted murder etc) is totally anathema to a modern democracy.
I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.LostinBlanch wrote:Of course, this also applies to any other extremist individual or group whatever their beliefs.
Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.0 -
I've seen Mohammed in South Park on at least one occasion:speedboatchase wrote: »...when Jesus and Santa can recreate Black Hawk Down on South Park and the same cartoon is then stopped by its broadcaster from showing a 2 second appearence of Muhammed...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509667/Mohammed's-appearance-on-South-Park-fails-to-spark-outcry.html
American Dad regularly pokes fun at Islam, as does, albeit to a lesser extent, Family Guy.0 -
O'Morris, are you actually serious? The West has gone morally backwards? Should we stone women that have been raped and commit female genital mutilation a little bit to appease you? We should sacrifice our democratic laws, beliefs and principles, in particular our freedom of speech for immigrants that come from countries that more often than not cannot respect the most basic of these values as well? Bloody hell, are you actually giving moral equivalence for the publisher and the firebombers decisions?
Djpbarry, Mohammed was featured in the Superfriends episode way back, but when Trey and Matt tried to push their networks buttons by featuring him at a time when it would be provocative to do so and catch the interest of muslims, Comedy Central backed away and censored his image.0 -
Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.
Rubbish. I am an atheist and in my eyes religion is the same as any other ideology. Religion deserves no more or less respect than politics or philosophy. If a religion is harmful to it's followers or to others then it should not be beyond reproach same as any other ideology and if it's followers commit a crime in the name of their religion they should be given equal treatment to any other criminal.0 -
Advertisement
-
speedboatchase wrote: »
Also the Virgin Mary wasn't a 9 year old concubine
Temple virgin till from 3 or 4 until the age of 12, then released of her service. (see Protoevangelium of James)
At the time neither of these instances would have seemed improper. Aisha was bethrothed to someone else before she married Muhammad, her previous suitor canceled because they were seen as outcast when they went to Medina. She was then bethrothed to him for a few years before the marriage.
It would have been quite normal in a historical context. Putting modern morals on ancient practices, is no better that what the fundamentalists are doing already.
Aisha wasn't a concubine btw.0 -
Right that's it then. Lets all find a time machine and go back to the middle ages then shall we? Bring back the Spanish Inquisition says I.No they haven't. They're still the same people. The christians in the west are the people who have morally gone backwards since then.Religious muslims aren't like religious catholics, they take their religion seriously and some of them are prepared to react violently when they see Islam and their prophet insulted. This is something we know from past experience so it should come as no surprise to anyone that we see this reaction when someone decides to publish a book that is less than respectful of the prophet.
Take a look at Speedboats post. Most rational people would say that moral equivalence doesn't work in this case, or many others for that matter.I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.
So you want to give in to extremists because they threaten violence? OK then, shall we all convert at gunpoint? Like I said before bring back the inquisiton.Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.
I'm not even going to bother trying to refute such rubbish, as your words say more about the state of mind of people who peddle such ideas more eloquently than any rebuttals ever could.0 -
Don't forget to mention as well that religious extremists exist in all religions, including Christianity. And don't forget the inquisition and the wars of religion in Europe and Galileo and all the other bad things that Christians have done in their history.
It's worth pointing out as well that for much of the middle ages that the muslim world was much more tolerant and much more advanced culturally than Christian Europe.
Whilst I find history fascinating, unfortunately we are living in the present day, and the middle ages was a long time ago. I don't think religious extremism in the Middle Ages excuses it today in our more enlightened age.0 -
speedboatchase wrote: »"We are not much better" is a crazy statement, 100 people died after the Danish cartoon incident, most of which were killed in riots - what other religion holds that kind of riots?!
Most people were killed by security forces actually and not the rioters. The regimes in the ME etc are pretty notorious for that sort of thing.0 -
speedboatchase wrote:O'Morris, are you actually serious? The West has gone morally backwards?
Yes, I think it has and I think it's not an altogether bad thing that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. It seems that the muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.speedboatchase wrote:Should we stone women that have been raped and commit female genital mutilation a little bit to appease you?
I don't think women who have been raped should be stoned but I don't condone the moral decadence of the west either. While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme.speedboatchase wrote:We should sacrifice our democratic laws, beliefs and principles, in particular our freedom of speech for immigrants that come from countries that more often than not cannot respect the most basic of these values as well?
What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims? It's just an accident of birth that we happen to value those beliefs. If our beliefs and principles were so self-evidently good then why are muslims so resistant to them? Could it be because they see their culture and their beliefs as superior? How do you know they're not right?
I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.speedboatchase wrote:Bloody hell, are you actually giving moral equivalence for the publisher and the firebombers decisions?
Not at all. What the firebombers did was far worse than what the publisher did.sink wrote:Rubbish. I am an atheist and in my eyes religion is the same as any other ideology. Religion deserves no more or less respect than politics or philosophy.
Religious belief is valued much highly than political or philosophical belief and so in that sense it should be treated differently.sink wrote:if it's followers commit a crime in the name of their religion they should be given equal treatment to any other criminal.
Of course, if they commit a serious crime then they deserve to be punished. I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime. We should make a distinction between a provoked and an unprovoked attack. Muslims rarely act violently without provocation.LostinBlanch wrote:Most rational people would say that moral equivalence doesn't work in this case, or many others for that matter.
There may not be a moral equivalence in our eyes but there is in the eyes of a muslim who sees any insult to the prophet as one of the worst offences possible. We cannot judge people of different cultures by our own standards.LostinBlanch wrote:So you want to give in to extremists because they threaten violence?
I don't want to give in to extremists. I want to see us respect the culture and religion of our muslim fellow citizens. And not just because they threaten violence either but because I think it's the right thing to do and because I think our societies can benefit from being more Islam-friendly.LostinBlanch wrote:Like I said before bring back the inquisiton.
The Christian inquisition was far worse than anything you'll find in the history of Islam. There's very little chance of seeing anything even remotely similar in a muslim Europe.0 -
Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.
Thats a silly way of looking at it. How different is a neo-nazi to an extremist Muslim? They all generalise to the same kind of deluded dogma.0 -
Theres a reason that the economy in Europe and America is better than the middle east: were not killing ourselves by killing others.0
-
Religiously motivated extremism is different from any other form of extremism and so people who engage in it should be treated more leniently than people driven by non-religious motives. An extremist muslim who attacks the home of a publisher that they don't like is not as bad as a neo-nazi who does the same thing. Both are deserving of condemnation but the crime of the former is mitigated by the fact that they feel compelled by a religious obligation to defend their religion.
Oh come on, this is sheer nonsense, all religions are made by man, prove otherwise or stick to the law of the land.0 -
muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.
Which is why they force their women to wear overalls in the middle of the burning hot summer.While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme.
That is true, however its none of my business what other people do in a situation like this: I would not intrude into your sex life; why should others intrude into other peoples? Unless of course its illegal like rape.What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims?
It like a mathematical axiom really in that it cant be proved, but in my opinion treating women the same as men is better than treating them as subordinates.I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are
Theres a term for such a thing. Its called "taking it for granted". Maybe if you were in a situation, like communist Russia, your feelings on those might be more positive. Just a thought.I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime.
In other words if I hear a book is coming out that I dont agree with, I have entitlements to throw petrol bombs at the publisher.a muslim who sees any insult to the prophet as one of the worst offences possible.
So what your saying is that we have to treat their beliefs with respect, such as believing in Allah, but they are allowed flaunt ours, such as freedom of expression, even though they are in our country?
If you move into a new country you have to accept that it wont be the same as back home. I would not expect to get served Stout in Nepal for example. And whats more, I wouldnt throw a petrol bomb into the window of the pub that doesnt have it.0 -
Religious belief is valued much highly than political or philosophical belief and so in that sense it should be treated differently.
By some people yes but by no means all people. I for instance place politics and modern philosophy as of paramount importance and religion as of negligible importance.Of course, if they commit a serious crime then they deserve to be punished. I just think that we need to take into account the motives and the circumstances of the crime. We should make a distinction between a provoked and an unprovoked attack. Muslims rarely act violently without provocation.
Why should we place religion in a special box due to your subjective opinion of it? Surely the only fair way is to treat all things as equal for if we start giving religion special treatment in the eyes of the law be prepared for every crackpot out there to claim they act in the interests of their own individual religious beliefs. What method would you use to separate those whom you view as having sincere belief from those who don't? Would you introduce state sanctioned religions? Or would you leave it up to a judge to decide on a case by case basis? Either is wide open to abuse by those in power.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think modern democracy is in need of reform. Islam is Europe's fastest growing religion and so I think we'll need to think seriously about whether our "freedoms" are as valuable in the eyes of muslims as they are in the eyes of people of the majority christian religion. If they're not then we might need to consider changing some of them.Yes, I think it has and I think it's not an altogether bad thing that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. It seems that the muslims are the only people who really care about morality these days.
…
What makes you think that our democratic laws, beliefs and principles are superior to the laws, beliefs and principles of the muslims? It's just an accident of birth that we happen to value those beliefs. If our beliefs and principles were so self-evidently good then why are muslims so resistant to them? Could it be because they see their culture and their beliefs as superior? How do you know they're not right?
I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.
Hmm, all seems very much at odds with this:Because Turkey is not a European country. It's an Asiatic, Muslim country with a culture that's foreign to the Christian culture of Europe. Europe already has serious problems in integrating Muslims and so granting free movement to 70 million Muslim Turks is hardly going to do much to further the goal of European integration.
I agree with Valery Gistang De Valera who said that Turkey's entry into the EU would mean the end of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giscard0 -
turgon wrote:Which is why they force their women to wear overalls in the middle of the burning hot summer.
The women themselves don't seem to have any problem with it.turgon wrote:That is true, however its none of my business what other people do in a situation like this
It should be your business. It should be all of our business. Intolerance of immorality is one of the key tenets of Islam and it's probably the most important contribution that muslims can make to the moral regeneration of Europe.turgon wrote:It like a mathematical axiom really in that it cant be proved, but in my opinion treating women the same as men is better than treating them as subordinates.
Are you trying to suggest that muslims treat their women like subordinates because if you are you need to read up on what muslims believe. A muslim recognises that women have a different nature to the nature of men and that they should therefore be treated differently. It's the same way that if you had a pet dog, you would treat that dog with as much respect as you would treat another human. It's the same with Muslim men, they treat their women in the way that you would treat a dog i.e. with a great deal of affection and respect. It's got nothing to do with treating them as subordinates.turgon wrote:Theres a term for such a thing. Its called "taking it for granted".
Ireland is a changing country and Europe is a changing continent. It's not about taking anything for granted, it's about seeing the trends and about welcoming the positive things that muslims can bring to our culture.turgon wrote:In other words if I hear a book is coming out that I dont agree with, I have entitlements to throw petrol bombs at the publisher.
It's much more than not agreeing with it. It's about finding that the contents of that book are deeply insulting to the prophet. How would you react if someone published a book that was insulting of your mother or another member of your family?turgon wrote:So what your saying is that we have to treat their beliefs with respect, such as believing in Allah, but they are allowed flaunt ours, such as freedom of expression, even though they are in our country?
It's easier for us to change our behaviour than it is for the muslims to change theirs.turgon wrote:If you move into a new country you have to accept that it wont be the same as back home.
You would still expect to be treated with respect regardless of the culture of the country. All I'm asking is that we treat muslims with respect.djpbarry wrote:Hmm, all seems very much at odds with this:
I was being sarcastic when I made those comments about Turkey. I was trying to caricature the narrow-minded and xenophobic attitude that many Euro-nationailsts take towards Turkey and the muslim world in general.0 -
sink wrote:By some people yes but by no means all people. I for instance place politics and modern philosophy as of paramount importance and religion as of negligible importance.
I think you're in a very small minority. Most people place infinitely more value on their religious beliefs than they do on their political or philosophical beliefs.sink wrote:Why should we place religion in a special box due to your subjective opinion of it?
I'm not talking about giving any special treatment to people on account of their religious beliefs. I just think that a crime motivated by religion is not the same as one that isn't. An unprovoked crime is much worse than a provoked one. If a muslim feels they have been provoked to act violently in response to a serious insult then that should be taken into account when punishing them for that crime.0 -
I see. So what about this then:I was being sarcastic when I made those comments about Turkey. I was trying to caricature the narrow-minded and xenophobic attitude that many Euro-nationailsts take towards Turkey and the muslim world in general.I happen to believe that many of our democratic laws, beliefs and principles and our "freedom of speech" are not half as valuable as we think they are and so it wouldn't bother me all that much if many of them were sacrificed to make way for a more peaceful and stable Europe.
So you're terribly concerned about the impact that immigration will have on our culture, but you're more than happy to change our culture to suit Islam? That's a little inconsistent, wouldn't you say?I don't see immigration as an economic issue. I see it more as a political and cultural issue. I'm far more concerned about the impact that large-scale immigration will have on our culture and our identity as a nation than I am about it's economic impact.0 -
djpbarry, please don't ruin this for me. Just play along and see how far I can take this.0
-
O'Morris
0 -
I think you're in a very small minority. Most people place infinitely more value on their religious beliefs than they do on their political or philosophical beliefs.
Depends on where you are. In Ireland so may people are disillusioned with religion possibly a majority they don't know what to believe. Do you think they place religious belief as special? In the rest of North west Europe such as the UK, Benelux and Scandinavian countries atheists are in a majority.I'm not talking about giving any special treatment to people on account of their religious beliefs. I just think that a crime motivated by religion is not the same as one that isn't. An unprovoked crime is much worse than a provoked one. If a muslim feels they have been provoked to act violently in response to a serious insult then that should be taken into account when punishing them for that crime.
Ok so if I just place my political and philosophical beliefs in a religious context I should be entitled to the same treatment as Christians and Muslims. I could for instance believe the flying spaghetti monster wants me to bring about a social liberal revolution in this country and condones the use of force and any restriction placed upon individuals such as outlawing abortion or polygamy should be violently resisted. Who will decide whether my beliefs are sincere and upon what evidence should they rely?0 -
-
The women themselves don't seem to have any problem with it.
Are you being serious? Why would you think that? Because, I doubt a Muslim women could actually complain about having to wear that yoke without getting the **** kicked out of her. At least that what would happen if she did go around down in male clothes.It should be your business.
Really. So if my next door neighbor quietly brings home a different women every night without hassle, and I cant hear them having sex, in fact I am oblivious to this players sexual life, and it doesn't impact me WHATSOEVER, but yet it is still my business???? Me no comprehende.A muslim recognises that women have a different nature to the nature of men and that they should therefore be treated differently. It's the same way that if you had a pet dog, you would treat that dog with as much respect as you would treat another human.
Thats funny. You claim they are not treated like subordinates and then compare them to pets. Way to go.
Ok so if the women are forced to cover up, and the men are not, who can that possibly be respectful? The men are treated better then women. That is a fact. That is inequality.How would you react if someone published a book that was insulting of your mother or another member of your family?
I would go to the courts (yes, the courts!!! I would not take my own values to heart a petrol bomb somebody I would actually use the system that has been tried and tested for centuries - stupid me). The I would actually prove my mother existed. At this point the muslim would be thrown out: Allah cannot be proven and even if he does one cannot claim to be related to him.It's easier for us to change our behaviour than it is for the muslims to change theirs.
Im really starting to think that you are taking the piss. If you are please stop.You would still expect to be treated with respect regardless of the culture of the country. All I'm asking is that we treat muslims with respect.
Theres a difference between respecting them and submitting to all their values. I do treat muslims with respect. However when they come here and start saying that Irish law should be changed and that they have divine rights to do as they always done, and that the prophet cannot be talked about etc etc that is showing disrespect of us.
Respect is mutual.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.
Stupid me for taking the bait. Cheers.0
Advertisement