Irony in Islam

[Tiger's Eye]

I think many muslims are as sensitive about Islam being portrayed as an inherently violent religion as jewish people are about the holocaust.

 

I don't see the difference between mocking the holocaust' date=' mocking child abuse in the catholic church, or mocking Mohammad.

 

 

There is a special danger though I guess in those portrayals of Mohammad. Everytime western culture and the world in general absorbs one more "islam is thrives on bombs" meme the millions of peaceful muslims in areas like Indonesia and elsewhere loose a little of their hold on their religion to militant muslims.

Here you have militant islam trying to take over the faith, and here are western cultures completely happy to say as far as we are concerned, they already have won.

 

There more we accept the Fawells and Robertsons as representative of Christiantity in the US and believe we have to deal with those types to deal with christians in America, the more marginalized moderate christians become.

 

So I guess, having thought about it, I can see the danger in allowing oneself to generalize (memes are infectious) about a group, but I am at more appalled by people killing over insults, which is even more destructive.[/quote']

 

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to make any comparisons between the Muslims and Jews or imply which one was worse or of the sort. I'm just really appalled that the Iranian newspapers would take such a drastic in order to make a point. They are well aware of the reactions that will be provoked from this cartoon contest, and that's the really disappointing part. This is becoming so absurd.

[Tiger's Eye]

I'm just guessing, too, but I think that you might mean...

 

Don’t quote me on this because I haven’t fully researched it...but

 

I was under the impression that there was a division Islam...one large liberal tolerant group...and one much more intolerant smaller group.

 

The Sunnis and the Shi'ites? Those are the two main sects of Islam' date=' I believe. I thought that it had something to do with the Prophet, but I don't remember...

 

also

 

I'm pretty sure that around the 11th century and for about 200 years,

Christian Knights wearing the red cross marched to take the holy lands from Muslims.

 

Comprised of French German ...etc the knights finally captured Jerusalem... where a production line of Muslim Execution began.

 

 

The knights Templar had a red cross on a white background...while the Knights of St John marched under a white cross on a black background.

 

Hmmmm...... I was gonna say the Crusades, but I must be wrong then. Can't help you there, sry.

[Bettina]

Bettina' date=' ever tried talking to fundamentalist Christians? You'll get a similar response.

 

What I was getting at before, which you seemed to miss the point of is this;

You are quite happy to demand death for someone who transgresses the laws of your nation, or who in your opinion, deserves it. Yet you are not willing to grant exactly the same right to others. That was the irony.

 

In the case in point, the protestors are demanding death for people who, in their opinion deserve it, you have also made the argument that you demand death for some people who, in your opinion deserve it. From where I sit, you're both wrong.[/quote']

 

Nope. I don't believe I missed a thing nor do I consider myself wrong. Anyone who murders a little girl for personal pleasure has nothing to do with laws of a nation if they call themselves a nation. It has to do with crimes against humanity, being a human being, and knowing right from wrong. Not killing over a stupid cartoon.

 

Bettina

[ski_power]

If the iranian newspaper is doing something like that, then doesn't it prove their fanaticism.

 

BTW, is there any country that's a religious christian state?

Yah, the Sunni's and Shi'ites are from 2 diff. prophets. See my previous post for a general idea.

 

What's the holocaust(sorry if I caused any hurt feelings)?

 

JohnB, a Daniel to you, a second Daniel...well said man.

[Rosetta]

Holocaust - Period when 6 million Jews (sorry if I'm wrong here because I can't remember the exact number) were killed by Hitler.

 

Bettina, I'd have to say that you're committing a fallacy here.

 

Just because some people from a certain religion etc are extremist doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

I may be a non-Christian (I'm a Hindu) and some fundamentalist Christians go around trying to force their views on everybody but I don't go calling for Christianity to be done away with just because of those few black sheep.

 

There are good as well as bad people in every religion. Human thought processes are very complicated and therefore not entirely uniform and corresponding to each religion. I may look at a concept and take it differently from the person next to me. (E.g. I go "A cat has four legs". The person next to me says "No no, a cat has three legs" and tries forcing his views on everyone. I am right, he is wrong, and he's causing unrest by forcing his views on everyone. Does that mean we go around killing all cats in existence? It's the same thing. Is Islam a religion which speaks of bombing innocent people? I should think not. It all depends on how someone takes it)

 

It's the same thing as gays. Sure, most people (myself included) can't stand gays going around trying to host sex parties when straight people can't (it has happened in Singapore where I live) but that does not mean we should discriminate against all gays. Most of them are just like normal people, quiet and leading their own normal lives.

 

It's the same thing. Most Muslims can think for themselves, just like you and me. They may have their own opinions but they're mindful of others as well. They're innocent people; they should not have their identity stripped away just because of a few black sheep.

 

If world leaders thought your way then Islam would be done away with because it's too extremist, Christianity would be done away with because it's too fundamentalist, Hinduism would be done away with because it requires you to fast on certain days and therefore may cause gastric pain (weak example at this point I know but you get my point)

 

That would mean almost every belief would be annihilated and people all over affected just because of a few always-existent black sheep.

 

It's kind of weird to think of these kind of extremely significant decisions being made just because of a few terrorists, does it not?

[reverse]

.

 

 

 

It’s human nature.

Any group in any situation will resort to extreme behavior if they feel the system is not catering to their needs.

How else will they be heard?

 

 

 

 

.

[Aardvark]

Don’t quote me on this because I haven’t fully researched it...but

 

I was under the impression that there was a division Islam...one large liberal tolerant group...and one much more intolerant smaller group.

 

No. Islam has been a warlike religion' date=' which expanded by military conquest right from the very start when Mohammed himself led attacks on unbelievers and slaughtered them. That pretty much summrises Islamic history, invasion of India, invasion of the East Indies, invasion of Turkey, invasion of the Balkans, invasion of North and East Africa, invasion of Spain. Islam has always spread by military aggression.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that around the 11th century and for about 200 years,

Christian Knights wearing the red cross marched to take the holy lands from Muslims.

 

Comprised of French German ...etc the knights finally captured Jerusalem... where a production line of Muslim Execution began.

 

Yes, the Muslims invaded and conquered the Holy Lands. The Christians responded by trying to recapture the Holy Lands from the Islamic invaders. In the end the Muslim invaders won, both sides commited horrible atrocities.

 

The idea that this historical event constitutes some sort of terrible crime against Islam is strangely prevalent. Part of the culture of victimhood that is a large trait of modern Islam and is pandered to by large segments of Western opinion.

[ski_power]

It's so sad sometimes. What does the mohd. dude get out of this? Can people follow their own free will. If he was a true prophet, god would have told him let people follow what they like, dont force them and slaughter them. It's not like I'm partial to people who follow islam.

 

So does that mean Mohd. is a fake?

 

When Aardvark said Mohammed himself led attacks, then does that make anywhere above a human, does it even keep him at human level. I think not...

[ku]

I don't see how calling a country or culture "uncivilized" is relevant in this thread, since it is a group of people belonging to a specific religion, not a specific culture (though, generally, Islam is a part of several cultures, not vice versa. Same goes for countries), that is angry by this event.

 

Following from the principle of methodological individualism, I would suggest that it is not the country that is uncivilized but a subset of the individuals that make up that country. For a country to be uncivilized the barbarity would have to originate from the political system that defines the country, i.e. the government. For example, if the government officially practices gay bashings and burning of witches, and if these acts are uncivilized, then the country would be uncivilized. But this does not mean that all individuals within that country are uncivilized. The word "country" I assume focuses more on the government, those higher up in the power chain. The word "nation," however, many may agree would refer to the people in general that occupy the region bounded by the political borders defined by the power of the state.

 

That a few or many individuals would take offence at a cartoon and then respond in an extreme way I don't think reflects on the country or the nation.

 

In a political system that enforces freedom of expression, given that the ideas circulating (e.g. on the Internet) is virtually infinite, then if you look hard enough you are likely to find something that will offend you. Religious people like Christians and Muslims, when they browse the Internet, often come across pornography or even homosexual pornography, which would really offend some religious people. There are many things on the Internet that offend me, but I think that just for the society to operate smoothly freedom of expression should be allowed, but just as people have the right to freely express opinion, people should exercise their right to block offensive content from reaching them. For the example of pornography this is the reason that ratings are made by the MPAA. This increases the ability of people to discern content that may offend them. Content filtering software like Content Protect work well to filter unwanted content on the Internet.

 

You cannot change human nature and it is extremely difficult to change the world, but the next best thing you can do is to change your perception of the world.

[JohnB]

Nope. I don't believe I missed a thing nor do I consider myself wrong. Anyone who murders a little girl for personal pleasure has nothing to do with laws of a nation if they call themselves a nation. It has to do with crimes against humanity, being a human being, and knowing right from wrong. Not killing over a stupid cartoon.

Bettina, my point was that you are doing exactly the same thing as they are. I'm talking about the principle involved. Everything else is merely degrees of severity.

 

Simply stated the principle is this; "That a person should have the right to call for the death of others who (in that person's opinion) have committed a sufficiently severe crime."

 

I say "No". You say "Yes" then go on to post links where someone else is doing exactly what you believe they have the right to do. Isn't this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 

Rosetta, welcome to the forums. A different viewpoint is always welcome.

[ski_power]

JohnB, Man

A third Daniel to you, a fourth even

 

You've hit the nail right on it's head

[Bettina]

Bettina' date=' my point was that you are doing exactly the same thing as they are. I'm talking about the principle involved. Everything else is merely degrees of severity.

 

Simply stated the principle is this; "That a person should have the right to call for the death of others who (in that person's opinion) have committed a sufficiently severe crime."

 

I say "No". You say "Yes" then go on to post links where someone else is doing exactly what you believe they have the right to do. Isn't this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 

Rosetta, welcome to the forums. A different viewpoint is always welcome.[/quote']

 

Sorry I can't give you a "daniel" whatever that is, but I understand the principle. That part is simple. The hard part is stating the principle should allow the death of another person because of a cartoon drawing.

 

Bettina

[Aardvark]

 

Simply stated the principle is this; "That a person should have the right to call for the death of others who (in that person's opinion) have committed a sufficiently severe crime."

 

Actually the principle is not quite that simple. Bettina is calling for a criminal to face a legal, judical process that could result in death. Many of the protesting Muslims are calling for murder.

 

Regardless of your views on capital punishment there is a significant difference between murdering a person and subjecting someone to the legal process, where they are entitled to a full defence under clear established rules.

 

What Bettina is calling for is completely different from what the extremist Muslims are calling for, not just in a matter of degree but also in a matter of principle.

[JohnB]

Aardvark, Bettina posted a link to homa.org showing Iranian laws, pointing to Article 513 as an example to back her case.

 

These are laws of a sovereign nation, that follow that nation's legal system. Hence Iran is passing laws regarding what crimes are deserving of the DP within the confines of their legal system. This is somehow "wrong" while the US doing exactly the same thing is somehow "right". Why?

 

Whether we agree with the laws or the punishments in either nation involved is not the point. The point is that if one nation should be allowed this freedom (to enact laws under their judicial code), then it must be extended to all nations.

Regardless of your views on capital punishment there is a significant difference between murdering a person and subjecting someone to the legal process, where they are entitled to a full defence under clear established rules.

So how do you deal morally with a nation that passes a law that says it's illegal, punishable by death, to be black? Provided they get a trial under that nations legal code it's all right? Or the "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases," proclaimed July 14, 1933 by the Nazis? That was done in a nice legal framework and between 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilized. This was followed by Hitler's October 1939 decree empowering physicians to grant a "mercy death" to those "considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." Again all nice and legal.

 

Any Iranian protestors (I don't know about the laws in other Islamic nations) are calling for a punishment that is perfectly legal under their legal system, just as Bettina was calling for a punishment that is legal under America's legal system. So how are they different?

 

Exactly how is the behaviour of the Muslim mobs any different from the mobs that gather outside courthouses in the West demanding death for an offender? (We get them in Oz too, which is strange since we don't have the DP. Just goes to show we have our share of idiots too.) Supposedly under our system, there is presumption of innocence, but these mobs don't seem to be interested in that, do they?

 

So again, muslim mobs calling for death outside the legal system shows the barbarity of those nations, but US ( or Australian) mobs doing exactly the same thing shows how civilized we are? (The Oz mobs of this type show how far we have yet to go.)

The hard part is stating the principle should allow the death of another person because of a cartoon drawing.

The principle doesn't state that at all. It deals only with the rights of the individual to demand certain punishments for certain crimes. It's a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, a "Yes, but..." doesn't work. My answer is a simple "No", you're going for the "Yes, but..." and I'm calling you on it. Show why it's all right for you to do something but wrong for someone else to do it.

 

The thing with a principle is that you can't limit it, you have to phrase it right the first time or it lands you in a world of trouble. Your founding fathers knew this. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." Sound familiar? It doesn't say "unless you're black, or hispanic, or whatever". As soon as you start to put conditions on principles, they cease to be principles.

 

Ski, what the hell is a "daniel", I've never heard the term before and I'm starting to suffer from terminal curiousity.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark, Bettina posted a link to homa.org showing Iranian laws, pointing to Article 513 as an example to back her case.

 

The links Bettina posted that checked show Muslims commiting killings without the support of any laws. In particular she linked to a news article about muslims in Afghanistan killing people in a demonstration about the cartoons.

 

It is clear that many Muslims are calling for killing of the cartoonists without even the fig leaf of legal sanction. That is the salient point.

 

These are laws of a sovereign nation, that follow that nation's legal system. Hence Iran is passing laws regarding what crimes are deserving of the DP within the confines of their legal system.

 

This is a confusion of two different principles. As Bettina has pointed out, large numbers of Muslims are calling for murder. The fact that Iran also has ways of legally killing people does not detract from that.

 

This is somehow "wrong" while the US doing exactly the same thing is somehow "right". Why?

 

I don't recall anyone making that argument in this thread, i'm certainly not making it myself.

 

Whether we agree with the laws or the punishments in either nation involved is not the point. The point is that if one nation should be allowed this freedom (to enact laws under their judicial code), then it must be extended to all nations.

 

That assumes that all nations are equal. I'd argue that a repressive, theocratic state is not equal to a liberal democracy and to treat it as if it were would be cultural relativism and an abdication of reason.

 

So how do you deal morally with a nation that passes a law that says it's illegal, punishable by death, to be black? Provided they get a trial under that nations legal code it's all right?

 

No, it's not 'all right'. It's simply a different matter from killing without a legal framework. Pointing out the difference doesn't make it right. It makes it a different matter. Killing without a legal framework is straightforward murder. Killing within a legal framework might still be wrong.

 

Incidentally your argument there seems to contradict your argument that nations should have the equal freedom to enact whatever laws they like.

 

 

Or the "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases,"[/i'] proclaimed July 14, 1933 by the Nazis? That was done in a nice legal framework and between 300,000 to 400,000 people were sterilized. This was followed by Hitler's October 1939 decree empowering physicians to grant a "mercy death" to those "considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." Again all nice and legal.

 

And again, pointing out that extra legal killing is wrong does not, Ipso facto, make legal killing right.

 

Any Iranian protestors (I don't know about the laws in other Islamic nations) are calling for a punishment that is perfectly legal under their legal system,

 

No, the protestors are calling for Danish citizens, in Denmark to be killed for acts commited in Denmark.

 

What law under Irans legal system presumes jurisdiction over Denmark?

 

just as Bettina was calling for a punishment that is legal under America's legal system. So how are they different?

 

There are several differences, both of principle, degree and apparent justice.

 

The Iranian protestors are calling for illegal murder, even under their laws it is not legal to kill a Dane in Denmark for an act committed in Denmark. Bettina is calling for a legally convicted murderer to be killed. That is a difference of principle. In terms of degree, Bettina is calling for someone to be killed for commiting a brutal murder. The Iranian protestors are calling for someone to be killed for drawing a cartoon. Unless you completely abdicate your reasoning to cultural relativism that obviously a serious difference of degree. In terms of justice, killing someone for drawing a cartoon is manifestly disproportionate, whatever escaticies of self indulgent outrage the protestors wish to revelin, whilst killing someone for child murder is a clearly proportionate response, even if you don't actually agree with it.

 

Exactly how is the behaviour of the Muslim mobs any different from the mobs that gather outside courthouses in the West demanding death for an offender?

 

The Muslim mobs are threatening violence themselves and calling for extra legal murder. At least the Western mobs are calling for killing by a state sanctioned system of justice. That still leaves the Western mob looking pretty contemptable, but not at threatening, dangerous or numerous as the Muslim mobs who have attacked and killed people, unlike the Western mobs outside courthouses.

 

(We get them in Oz too, which is strange since we don't have the DP. Just goes to show we have our share of idiots too.) Supposedly under our system, there is presumption of innocence, but these mobs don't seem to be interested in that, do they?

 

Every nation has its share of bloodthirsty morons. What matters is whether they are pandered to.

 

So again, muslim mobs calling for death outside the legal system shows the barbarity of those nations, but US ( or Australian) mobs doing exactly the same thing shows how civilized we are? (The Oz mobs of this type show how far we have yet to go.)

 

Muslim mobs who burn down buildings and kill people are surpassing the western mobs in the barbarity stakes. I can't remember any Muslim embassies being burnt down by Western mobs, even after provocations such as major terrorist attacks. Yet Muslim mobs burn down embassies because of a few cartoons. In terms of barbarity the Muslim mob is winning.

 

The principle doesn't state that at all. It deals only with the rights of the individual to demand certain punishments for certain crimes. It's a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, a "Yes, but..." doesn't work. My answer is a simple "No", you're going for the "Yes, but..." and I'm calling you on it. Show why it's all right for you to do something but wrong for someone else to do it.

 

The principle i'm pointing out is the difference between a society based on law and a society based on force. Calling for someone to be killed by a legal system is different from calling for someone to be simply murdered.

 

As for why it might be right for one nation to have the right to impose capital punishment but not another. Some nations are more civilised than other nations. You use the example of Nazi Germany. A clear example of a less civilised, barbarous state. This states legal system has less moral authority than more civilised nations such as, for example, Australia.

 

Not all nations are equal, some are more civilised than others, therefore they are entitled to more moral authority and respect of their actions and institutions.

 

The thing with a principle is that you can't limit it, you have to phrase it right the first time or it lands you in a world of trouble.

 

The real world isn't amenable to absolutist principles, Burkian conservatism is a much better recogniction of reality. Otherwise you end up with stupid 'principles' such as the unfettered right to bear arms.

 

Your founding fathers knew this. [i']"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."

 

Some confusion there, my founding fathers never said any such thing and i think those founding fathers were talking a lot of tripe. (my founding fathers probably said something like, ''give us your land, animals, women and any money you have and we might not slaughter you all, ha ha ha.....etc'')

 

Sound familiar? It doesn't say "unless you're black, or hispanic, or whatever". As soon as you start to put conditions on principles, they cease to be[/b'] principles.

 

Putting conditions on principles is how you put them into practice. Principles such as the right to vote are great, but you need conditions such as being at least 18 and not being a lunatic. Reasonable conditions i think you'd agree?

[Bettina]

JohnB....I was planning a reply to you but Aardvark has pretty much echoed my words so I will refrain. However I'm surprised by the quote below.

 

So how do you deal morally with a nation that passes a law that says it's illegal, punishable by death, to be black?

 

Since "you called me on it" I will answer the only way I know how...If a country did just that, where thousands of blacks were being eliminated because its the law of that nation, then I would invade it, disolve that government from the face of the earth and fix their laws. Is this what you expected me to say?

 

Your definition of right and wrong are very different than mine and I think Evil should be fought no matter where it slithers.

 

Bettina

[reverse]

I just heard the strangest thing on the radio.

 

The DJ is blasting the group that wants the terrorist turban cartoons banned …

while in the following breath..

demanding that the South park episode with the Blood and Virgin Mary be taken off the air.

 

See.. they seem like the same issue to me.

 

Do we allow freedom of speech if it is going to hurt a lot of people’s deep religious feelings.

Or a parallel….

Do we allow the freedom to not wear a seatbelt …

If people are going to go through a car windshields…

no..

we restrict freedom sometimes in the favor of a greater good.

 

Is it that difficult to figure out?

[Severian]

A better analogy would be shouting in public. If someone in a crowed street started shouting out loudly that in his opinion all black people were inferior to white people (but not encouraging any discrimination - just stating it as an opinion), we would all get pretty upset about it. But you could argue that this is freedom of speech.

[reverse]

See… now… what should have happened is that top people of Islam should have taken the cartoonist to court… for misrepresenting their religion as a bunch of explosive personalities.

 

You are allowed to speak freely…but it better not be a bunch of hooey.

That’s not free speech…that’s slander or deformation …

[Bettina]

I believe in freedom of speech above all else.

 

If the Islamics ignored the cartoon, it would have stopped the same day. They just like to fight, kill, condemn, burn, rape, behead, fly planes into skyscrapers, blow kids up, stab pregnant women, kidnap, threaten, and build nukes to blow up Israel.

 

Its what they do.

 

Bettina

 

Bettina

[Aardvark]

I just heard the strangest thing on the radio.

 

The DJ is blasting the group that wants the terrorist turban cartoons banned …

while in the following breath..

demanding that the South park episode with the Blood and Virgin Mary be taken off the air.

 

See.. they seem like the same issue to me.

 

Yes and that example illustrates the matter nicely. Calling for censorship of a cartoon because you don't like it is wrong.

 

Do we allow freedom of speech if it is going to hurt a lot of people’s deep religious feelings.

 

Yes. That's part of living in a tolerant society' date=' you have to tolerate speech that you find offensive.

 

Or a parallel….

Do we allow the freedom to not wear a seatbelt …

If people are going to go through a car windshields…

no..

 

I've no problem with allowing people that freedom, but that's a different issue. Physical safety isn't the same issue as free speech

 

we restrict freedom sometimes in the favor of a greater good.

 

And that greater good would be?

 

Is it that difficult to figure out?

 

No, it's very easy to work out.

 

In a free society people should be free to print satirical cartoons. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

[Aardvark]

See… now… what should have happened is that top people of Islam should have taken the cartoonist to court… for misrepresenting their religion as a bunch of explosive personalities.

 

I think they'd have lost that particular case.

 

You are allowed to speak freely…but it better not be a bunch of hooey.

That’s not free speech…that’s slander or deformation …

 

Are you arguing that the cartoons in question were slanderous? (actually it would be libel but i understand what you mean)

 

Arguing that the cartoons were wrong because they were slanderous is a completely different thing from arguing that they were wrong because they were offensive.

[reverse]

Yes and that example illustrates the matter nicely. Calling for censorship of a cartoon because you don't like it is wrong.

Yes. That's part of living in a tolerant society' date=' you have to tolerate speechthat you find offensive.

I've no problem with allowing people that freedom, but that's a different issue. Physical safety isn't the same issue as free speech

And that greater good would be?

No, it's very easy to work out.

In a free society people should be free to print satirical cartoons. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.[/quote']

 

see now I can tell you are an idealist.

 

I'm a pragmatist on the other hand.

 

I hate being in a room full of people talking about absolutes...

Let them get out at ground level and smell the real world...bet all that high talk evaporates in a second.

[reverse]

I think they'd have lost that particular case.

Are you arguing that the cartoons in question were slanderous? (actually it would be libel but I understand what you mean)

Arguing that the cartoons were wrong because they were slanderous is a completely different thing from arguing that they were wrong because they were offensive.

 

MMM...not sure how to classify them exactly...just looking for a way for two powerful factions to go head to head and pay with their own time and money instead of getting everyday people all fired up.

[Aardvark]

see now I can tell you are an idealist.

 

I'm a pragmatist on the other hand.

 

I hate being in a room full of people talking about absolutes...

Let them get out at ground level and smell the real world...bet all that high talk evaporates in a second.

 

How about this for a pragmatic approach, the only way a free society can exist is with tolerance. And tolerance means tolerating things that offend you.

 

Otherwise all those people at ground level are going to start fighting each other.

 

In this case it is the Muslims who are going to need to learn the meaning of tolerance. Threatening to kill people because their feelings have been hurt isn't acceptable behaviour and should not be pandered to.