Muslim anger at Mohammed Cartoon & Freedom of speech

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't get the muslim press or al jazeria (?), and i don't attend mosques or muslim schools, but i'd be willing to be that they have said offensive things about other countries, leaders, religions at one point or another.

 

They do. "American blood must flow," extremist clerics scream. "American limbs must be cut off. Mothers must mourn their sons. Wives must become widows." SkinWalker is right when he says that Islam is a violent religion, but it is militant Islam that is the problem. Mordorate Muslims are not going to be the ones hijacking planes, the same as mordorate Christians are not going to be killing homosexuals, mordorate Jews are not going to wage war on Germany because of the holocaust. If you know anything about the Jedi then you would know that there is good and evil in all, including Islam. There are good Muslims, and quite obviously people such as Bin Laden are bad Muslims, twisting the words of the Koran to justify the murder of children in their terrorist acts.

[toms]

More stupidity

 

"Two died in the northwestern city of Peshawar after police tried to quell around 50,000 demonstrators who torched a KFC outlet and trashed a Norwegian mobile phone company's offices.

 

Around 500 protesters set fire to 16 buses at a bus terminal owned by a South Korean company."

 

Islam is a generally violent religion. This much is clear.

 

This does sum up the problem with the islamic response.. its disproportionate and badly targeted. Its highly questionable whether the Dnish government has any control/responsibility over its press... but i'm pretty sure that the South Koreans don't have any say over what danish papers print.

 

The correct response might have been to boycott goods owned by that chain, and even to make nasty cartoons about the danish.

 

One has to wonder how much the LACK of a free press in many muslim countries allows demagogues and extremists to whip up these kinds of rages. I can't imagine all these people would still be rioting if they had seen the images.. i suspect that they have had the whole situation blown out f all proportion by people with their own agenda.

 

That said, mob rage does tend to be untargeted... after 9/11 a lot of non-muslim people got attacked (seeks, hindus, etc..).

[Kurgan]

Probably true. Mobs have little intelligence after all. Witness the LA riots after the Rodney King incident for example or the Watts riots before that. Do mostly black mobs attacking and looting businesses/homes owned by other minorities protest racism?

 

I would be willing to bet money that most of the people doing the violence in these actions haven't even seen the actual cartoons in question. I can see it being appropriated as another anti-Western rumble, with thrill seekers going along for the ride.

 

Plenty of Muslims who were offended by the cartoons have protested the actios of the extremists. Because in the end the verdict of observers (as so well demonstrated in this thread) is that "Islam is a religion of violence and intolerance," exactly the message sent by the cartoonists in the first place.

[Aristotélēsticus]

I think that this will be the last thing I post here, coz you don’t seem to get me and you keep going on circles around the same thing…

 

for those who said that Islam is a violent religion, I say to them you cant judge a religion until you read its book, because words are one but people defer and thus their understandings defer, in the Koran god says after mentioning Able and Kane story:

"He who kills one life kills the world entire and he who saves one life save the world entire"

So if someone kill people saying that his religion told him to do so, then its not the religion's fault, End of discussion.

 

Muslem religious leaders has claimed that this violence is not justified, and that’s its against islam, and I quote from a prvious post (which looks like none saw):

"i remember that "Hasan Nasr-allah" said that "one should not obey god from which he disobey him" refering to the fact that you must not said that you are muslem them cause damage to people."

 

One last thing remains, I don’t know why its difficult for you to understand (except Nancy Allen``) that there are bad and good people in Islam, just like every religion, muslem are divided into sects, and in the past times there were wars between them (just like every religion), so they are deferent, that’s why some called other religious groups "infidels", while in the Koran god said:

"Christians, Jews, Zoroasters and every other religion, he who was good hearted and hath faith in his god, he shall not fear, for god will grant him a place beside him"

 

i don’t know why to disagree, I've agreed with you that why the mob did is bad, and some of you agreed that what the Danish did is bad too, so I cant find any reason to disagreement.

[txa1265]

i don’t know why to disagree, I've agreed with you that why the mob did is bad, and some of you agreed that what the Danish did is bad too, so I cant find any reason to disagreement.

 

I think the problem comes from what appears to be your treatment of them as equal wrongs. Again, the 'I don't like your tie, so you shoot me' analogy - not equal.

 

And, as a member of a university fraternity in the mid 80's when hazing and liability and so on were becoming big issues, I can certainly understand what you are saying about not wanting to be lumped together as one entity. However, what some fraternities have done over the years is to accentuate the positive and make themselves good members of the community. We had outreach programs 20 years ago, donating thousands yearly to charities local and national, helping out neighbors, offering other services, and engaging the community regarding our parties. Did we ever live down 'Animal House' (our nickname was 'the zoo')? No - but by actively working with our community, people did not have an immediately negative reaction and knew that not all fraternities or fraternity members were bad kids.

 

Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?

 

I guess I'm saying the the aggregate impression of a community is given by the aggregate of behaviors coming from that community. When you see a mixed set of bahaviors, you know there isn't universal agreement, and that there are different belief systems at work. When it is almost monilithically represented by a single behavior, then what do you assume? Either people agree explicitly or implicitly with the behavior, don't care enough to oppose it, or are scared to oppose it.

 

Mike

[Aristotélēsticus]

Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?

Mike

 

what about those who did not protest? those who did protest against the bombing in Jordan? those who protest against the bombings in spain and londodn in the arabic countries? those who protest against 9/11? those who are fighting terrorism everyday in jornals and blogs? those who paied thier lives because thier writings about al-quaida? it is not thier fault if you dont know about them, and it is not thier fault if most of your country's media are bush supporters and wanted to show you that we are primitive people who lives on oil and women and that your leader is the one who will free us and shift us into civilization.

[toms]

I think that this will be the last thing I post here, coz you don’t seem to get me and you keep going on circles around the same thing…

That tends to happen here. Can't think of a single thread that has ever ended in total agreement. thats debates for you.

 

Where are the 100,000 Muslim protests *against* violence, *against* terrorism, *against* extremism and *against* Al-Quaida? Plenty of Americans oppose the war in Iraw - and they voice that concern. Yet aside from a few clerics on talk shows, where is the huge coice of the overwhelmingly peaceful muslim community?

 

That would help. Though the media is always more likely to show negative events than positive. And extremists are always likely to make more noise than liberals. I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.

 

while in the Koran god said:

"Christians, Jews, Zoroasters and every other religion, he who was good hearted and hath faith in his god, he shall not fear, for god will grant him a place beside him"

Interesting. Though from what i understand there are different interpretations. As I understand it Islam used to be pretty moderate, but the House of Saud has been promoting a more extreme interpretation of islam that is a lot less tollerant of non-muslims (kuffir?).

They fund huge numbers of religious schools around the world, and as part of this funding they insist on sending their translations of the koran and one of their teachers to the schools.

If anything is responsible for the spread of hard-line islam in the world it is the saudi royal family.

 

So you might find that these days not alot of muslims would agree with your translation given above.

[txa1265]

I wonder if the news in Muslim countries ever shows the anti-war movement.. or just portrays the west as a unified force.. like the media over here portrays islam.

That is an *excellent* point - which I saw cropping up with his 'media are pro-Bush' statement, when in reality the media almost monolithically *hate* Bush (except for 'fair & balanced TV') but will tend to give any president the benefit of the doubt. Of course, they are all royally peeved when they get screwed over, like with the build-up to Iraq ... or the Cheney thing.

 

Mike

[Aristotélēsticus]

@toms: i am not talking about total agreement here, what i am saying is that i did say in almoast every post that the mobs are wrong, but i find in everypost someone said, hey you are wrong the mob are violent, what i meant to say, is that we do have agreement on this point so what is the benefit of keeping mention it.

 

i am with you of what've said about saud, the translation of Koran to other languages galong with thier own intrepretions, gives a wrong believes to those in foregin countries especially in pakestan and afghanestan.

[Nancy Allen``]

Either people agree explicitly or implicitly with the behavior, don't care enough to oppose it, or are scared to oppose it.

 

And that's one of the big problems, how people fear reprisals for supporting or opposing a point of view. It may sound over the top that people have ended up dead for being on the side of one opinion or another, but the sad fact is people have been specifically targeted for opposing militant Islam, for supporting militant Islam. No wonder there is not many people speaking out. Our world is decidedly more reasonable than the one the people who instigate violence and hatred come from.

[SkinWalker]

I think we can all generally agree on several things: 1) the mobs of Muslims that have resorted to violence are wrong; 2) All Muslims aren *not* violent; 3) the Koran (I have actually studied it in some detail) does not advocate violence; 4) individuals (clerics and the influential figures) are good at manipulating the beliefs of good Muslims into thinking violence is the right thing to do.

 

I think what we disagree on is the validity cartoon depictions of Muhammed or Islamic figures and to what degree should actions like this be tolerated. I'm in complete agreement with those Muslims who are upset with the depictions. Fine. They can protest, boycott, whatever. But the overwhelmingly prominent reaction from both religious and governmental sources from within the Islamic religion was one of violence - either in deed or word.

 

This, I assert, serves to effectively demonstrate the very point that the cartoons were making.

 

I also assert that those in Western society has the right and duty to speak out against religion using cartoons, essays, satire, parody, ridicule, whatever. This is called Free Speech and Freedom of the Press --moreover, it is a principle of Freedom of Religion, ironically.

[Kurgan]

Well I can see moderate muslims in the countries where the riots are taking place being afraid to speak out for fear of being targetted by violence themselves, but in other parts of the world they ought to speak out. The same issue was trotted out when 9/11 happened. Various talking heads asserted that no muslims denounced 9/11 because secretly they were all glad that American infidels died or something. From what I remember it was basically just rhetoric. There weren't any million man marches against it, but suffice to say they weren't silent either.

 

I guess that's the thing though, when you're considered a "strange" religion (Muslims are only 3% of the US population, last I checked, but 1% more than Jews, who are generally well respected in the country) people don't trust you and assume the worst about you. One bad apple spoils it all for your public and you have to work extra hard to live it down. It's not fair, but that's how fickle public perception is.

 

I agree the mobs around the world is shameful and an embarrassment to any Muslim who seeks peace. All the more reason to denounce them I guess...

[Nancy Allen``]

Certainly in countries where militant Islam is the rule clerics and supporters of the Muslim faith would not want to speak out, and I urge them to get out of those places no matter how much they love it, if they can. But even in civillised societies reprisals can occur, from those who believe America and the west should be exterminated, by racist bigots who see all Muslims as terrorists. I know myself that I would not push for, say, aboriginals to either live like native aboriginal people or to be treated the same as everyone else, not to be given all the benefits they recieve because of the trauma over the stolen generation, white man discovering Australia, playing the race card as a get out of jail free card, or openly criticise the call to change the Australian flag to the Aboriginal one and the national anthem to a didgirido. That's because if I did that, all the half caste criminals, all the ones that attack white man would come after me. I know that is a rough comment to make about them, but that's how it stands. You cannot criticise them even if what you say is true.

[Kurgan]

It sounds like this is one area in religion where Skin has a leg up on me. I've studied Islam, but not the Qu'ran per se. I've probably read only a dozen or so passages from it (have my own translation, but haven't read the whole thing). Similarly with the Hadith, I've only read a few select passages and don't really have a working knowledge of the thing as a whole.

 

I got the impression that it was in some ways like interpreting the Bible, some isolated texts appear to advocate violence, while others appear to advocate peace. So those in favor of violent action selectively quote the more forceful passages, applying them to current events to suit their agenda and so forth. Of course Muslim apologists for the peace side will tell you Jihad is more about the personal struggle for holiness and a just society rather than armed conflict against "unbelievers". And to them, even holy struggle against unbelievers should be defensive in nature, similar to Christian Just War theological principles. Of course there is where you get all kinds of interpretations seeking to justify what's going on. Like calling suicide bombers "martyrs" rather than suicides, because martyrs go to heaven, while suicides go to hell, in Islamic thought. Muslims aren't supposed to fight other Muslims, so if you want to do that you label your opponents apostates, so if they're not really Muslims, it's okay to fight them. And so on...

[lord ignarn]

You see, it´s allways the same fight between the most fanatical elements and the moderate ones, same in all the religions. The fanatics use to be leaded by priests that use sacred texts in their own benefice. Meanwhile the moderates suffer with the situation. The same applies to the "heretics".

 

I think that we can say that all this crisis has been heated up just to show the force of some fanatics, using the religion as they wish. And right now, with some deaths in demonstrations, and some boicot the whole crisis has gone away. At least now it doesn´t interest to feed more the anger.

 

Or that seems. Why has all this finished so suddenly?, is it really finished?

[Nancy Allen``]

Hell no!

 

[lord ignarn]

What do you mean, Nancy? This isn´t finished?

 

Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

 

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.

[Nancy Allen``]

What do you mean, Nancy? This isn´t finished?

 

Oh I don't think so, not by a long shot.

 

Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

 

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.

 

No, the act of 'free provocation' is not something that should be encouraged. It could be argued that the Muslim extremists are doing just that with their competition for a holocaust cartoon. But as cliched as the saying is, two wrongs do not always make a right. In this instance the issue had died, but had been dragged up again for little other than to poke fun at it. On the other hand, if someone were to draw me as...I dunno, Aayla Secura, I'd laugh. There is a diffirence between feeling as though you are being persecuted and not being able to take a joke or take criticism, and the Danish cartoons on their own would fall into the latter catagory, but now that you mention it I find myself agreeing with you that this cartoon has pushed the issue into provocation.

[SkinWalker]

Although I believe in the freedom of speech, I don´t think that the "free provocation" is good. We can make satiras, but just if they are justified. The satira is done in order to shake the people´s mind and to remember the powerfull ones (any of them) that we can also talk about them. Thát´s freedom of speech and it must be ingenious and elegant, not offensive. But the insult is not the way.

 

P.S: I´m not saying the cartoon you posted is an insult, but we must not provocate just for provocate.

 

There are those that would disagree, and I'm one. If a religious cult (or religion) has an effect on society at large, then it is the duty of freethinkers to criticize that religion or cult. Particularly if the effect is deleterious. The Muslim cults in Europe (and I wish Shadow T was posting lately to offer an insight) have presented their European hosts with guests that are violent and beligerant. This is evident in the response of a Muslim cult that murdered Van Gogh about a frickin' movie! Europeans perceive the Muslim religion as oppressive, particularly to women, and there is a certain level of resentment by Europeans to have to accomadate their religious superstitions. The resentment has been met with violence and beligerance.

 

This type of behavior from a guest in your home would receive criticism and even eviction, if not phyiscal response! The people don't have a way to evict or respond phsyically in a legal manner, so they resort to criticism through ridicule -a time honored tradition among Europeans dating to before Islam. The ridicule included parody of their religion as violent and oppressive -they responded with VIOLENCE!

 

It would seem that the criticisms are valid.

 

Moreover, the Islamic immigrants are eager to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the freedoms in European nations, but they object to those freedoms when they interfere with their own superstitions.

 

Any religion that ALLOWS itself to be coopted by a violent minority to oppress or disrupt a society with violence or death deserves whatever criticism it gets. F*** em.

[Kurgan]

Without asking the question if all of the groups we're discussing are united (or are all the protesting Muslims part of a single denomination? Is this a pan-Islamic phenomena?)...

 

You're assuming that members of the 'Freethought' groups will respond to any effect religion has on society. I would hazard to suggest that they will only react if said effect is in disagreement with their own agenda. I'm sure Freethinkers would not begrudge people who donate to disaster relief charities based on religious convictions.

 

Oh wait, perhaps they would! I think I remember a conversation from awhile back that relief donations were just a front for covert missionizing efforts! But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.

 

Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.

 

That is to say "No wonder they are so violent, their religion is false."

 

I'm in agreement that the violent reaction certainly reflects badly on them and is inappropriate. I have no problem with responding to this. But it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed. The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. It would be considered outrageous if Christians argued that a Christian world-view be adopted as the only means of opposing Islamic miscreants in much the same way. Thus this sort of argumentation is a fine rhetorical strategy when preaching to one's choir, it doesn't work in a larger context of mixed beliefs (such as here).

 

If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).

 

If Freethought is arguing that "political corretness" that tends to shield Islam from criticism in the public sphere (I think of our president's continual use of "religion of peace" to refer to Islam, which one could argue is political pandering to a minority of Americans of course) should be eliminated, then I tend to agree. Just because you're a minority does not mean you should be above criticism. Of course it's not American Muslims (right?) that are rioting in response to the Muhammad cartoons.

 

While I do not personally feel in any way attracted to the Muslim faith (though I admire any religion's actions that promote helping the poor, etc), nor do I espouse the desire to wipe out religions I disagree with (though I certainly wouldn't encourage people to join certain ones), I can still denounce their actions as uncalled for, and damaging to the human community as well as to their own credibility. Use of violence against unpopular speech labels oneself as barbaric.

[Kurgan]

PS: The issue of "provocation" is a thorny one, and one I'm not prepared to debate here at least for awhile. The issue of hate speech laws, "don't yell 'movie' in a crowded firehouse", etc. is a whole big issue in its own right. I wish I had more time to discuss it, but I had to get my thoughts out for now. I'll probably check back here and see what has developed in the meantime. Of course its sad when it takes a tragedy to spark discussion, but I enjoy the discourse all the same.

[lord ignarn]

Skin Waker, I didn´t mean to defend the free provocation, it´s just that the people can easily be tricked and said wath to do and think, without asking the reason. That is what must be put into question, if we see a critic we should thinkwhy the critic is done, and then see witch our position on that subjet is. Try to justify our believings it´s a good thing, so we rose stronger in those believings.

 

You can call it faith if you want, but a well based faith won´t fall because a cartoon or a sligth critic.

 

Once more, I didn´t mean to hurt you, Skin Walker.

[SkinWalker]

lord ignarn , I felt no sense of beligerance or animosity from you because of your opinion, I hope I didn't convey that in my post. I was just in a heated discussion with some friends (heated but friendly) over the same topic and perhaps some of my thoughts bled over here.

 

But anyway, I think where Freethinkers will speak up is when this so-called "deleterious effect" comes about.

 

Certainly Freethinker denunciation of the Muslim rioters closely mirrors their denunciation by Christians in this regard.

 

it shows hypocrisy on the part of Freethinkers to suggest that religions are only capable of violence and thus their freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed.

 

Freethinkers do, indeed, speak up about the deleterious effect of religions. But when I'm speaking of freethinkers, I'm using the small "f" not the big "F." I'm not talking about an organization that is aligned against religion (such organizations exist), but rather those that are opposed to the imposition and harm that some religions (mostly the Abrahamic, big-3) and exist in various positions in a given society, perhaps even religious themselves!

 

So I don't think these freethinkers (the individuals, not the few organizations) are suggesting that "religions are only capable of violence" nor are any that I've come across believe that "their [the religious] freedom of speech or religious expression should be curtailed."

 

I'm saying, that free thinking individuals (those not encumbered by the dogma and doctrine of religious superstition to the point that they cannot think for themselves) have a duty to speak out against any entity or institution that advocates violence or creates a deleterious situation for a their society. This is true whether we are talking about individual cults of Islam, Christianity, political parties, special interest groups, etc. This criticism should be open and allowed and should be such that it provokes thought (not violence).

 

Whether or not the cartoonists should have provoked in the manner they chose or not isn't debatable to me. They have the right. The onus of civility falls on the ridiculed to NOT PROVE THEM RIGHT.

 

The ideological goal of wiping out religious beliefs should be put aside in favor of dealing with the immediate concern of religiously motivated violence if the Freethought arguers wish to accorded any credibility, IMHO. [...] If Freethought denounces religion, whatever the occasion, they don't really provide any practical solutions to any issue with regard to religion and its problems (wiping out religion is not a practical solution).

 

Again, no real free thinker would set a goal for "wiping out religious beliefs." Mainly because it would be illogical to conclude that such a condition could be "wiped out" given that religion and belief are probably one of the very things that make us human. Indeed, I've often speculated that it is the condition of belief itself that helped give rise to technological development in Homo sapiens, though this would, perhaps, be suited for another thread. Free thought doesn't imply the denouncement of religion "whatever the occasion." If so, then you would see free thinkers speaking out against and making cartoons about the Navajo Way, Buddhists, or other benevolent or indigenous religions. We don't see this.

[toms]

Well, the British National Party is apparently planning to reproduce the cartoons in its flyers.. and thats never a good sign. Because their intention is never satire or freedom of speech... but to forment divides in the most racially charged bits of the UK so that they can win seats in elections.

 

In an amazing change from their usual "bull in a china shop" approach the UK press has so far refrained from reprinting the cartoons... even the Daily "All problems are due to asylum seeking muslim terrorist rapists" Express!

[Joe©]

I think they really need to calm down and all, so many groups are insulted by the press. I also don't think they are gaining themselves anything by roiting, in fact its only making things worse, at first I thought "stupid danes look what you did" because the cartoons were out of line. But after the Islamics started to flip out I really could care less.

I hope everyone chills out soon. This is causing more problems than it really should...