| Author |
The Danish Mohammad cartoon row - what do you think? |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
2p worth.
I think we sometimes confuse religion with culture. Some cultures tend to express themselves in a 'reserved' manner, and some are more 'emotional'. This appears to more a function of geography of origin than faith.
[addsig] | |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@absin
The thing is that culture and religion are sometimes closely interwoven. This isn't so much the case in Europe anymore where secular values have become increasingly important, but it does still hold true for other areas of the world. Perhaps this in itself is the cultural difference? Does religion play a greater role in people's everday lives in some of the countries where we have seen protests than it does in Europe? I think the answer would be yes it does, but it would be interesting to hear from someone from one of those countries.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-02-07 03:23 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
This keeps being said, yet many people do. Islam is not a secretive organisation that non-Muslims cannot know about. Most people realise that the cartoons were offensive to Muslims, but the point being made here is that that offense does not give anyone the right to commit violence.
|
|
Don't think they do otherwise they would'nt have gone ahead and published such articles!...islam does'nt have to be secretive,just that generally non-muslims fail to understand Islam thats why we have such a clash in the world against the two civilisations..fair point that it does'nt give anyone the right to commit violence,but having said that when you provoke someone by insulting someone who is so incredibly sacred to muslims.some people should undertand why a small minority of muslims would be angry and resort to violence.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
First of all the majority of people do not think that all Muslims are violent. Continually pushing that point is a symptom of a victim culture; the simple fact of the matter is that most people are intelligent enough to realise that the acts of terror and violence we have seen are the actions of extremists and are not representative of Muslims in general.
|
|
Actually thats not the general feeling im getting in this thread,even in the media all you here is that muslims are terrorists and muslims are evil ect...I do think the vast majority of non-muslims think that islam is a violent religion..what us people in the west dont seem to undertstand is that the hatred which is seen against islam in the arab world and muslim world is actually bringing radicals more recruting material and spawning further fanatacism...cartoons such as this will no doubt bring more terrorism on our doorsteps and all because why?...because some idiot in denmark could'nt show basic respect to muslims..think about it!
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
Secondly, I am rather surprised by your comments on erratic behaviour. Human beings, by our nature, are erratic. We are not machines, we do not follow cold logic; we base our actions on reason, intuition and emotions; that's quite a combination of factors!
|
|
Thats basically my point exactly..humans are not machines we do sometimes think with our emotions rather than our brain..In an ideal world we would all think logically and not think about violence towards each other,but its human nature to be violent.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
why have we seen violence and even people being killed as a result of these cartoons? Isn't it rather extreme to break into buildings and set them on fire or that people should be calling for other people's deaths? I can understand people being upset, angry and wanting to voice their disapproval, but I am rather puzzled as to why some apparently feel it necessary to whip the situation up into a maelstrom of fear and hate.
|
|
Extreme to you and I yes but when emotions run high logical thinking goes out of the window.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
It seems to be a perfectly valid to me. Islam regards depictions of the Prophet or of Allah as being blasphemous. Some Christians regard the Jerry Springer opera as being blasphemous. Yet the reactions to the two have been markedly different. One involved peaceful demonstrations and opposition the other involved the burning of buildings and incitement to violence.
|
|
Its been said over and over again in this thread that muslims do not tolerate and will never tolerate any blasphemy against islam or its prophets...you cannot compare modern christianity with Islam...christianity has evolved over the centuries,although christian faith exsist no one in the western world has any real respect for it anymore im sure you would agree...on the other hand Islam has not evolved in any shape or form and is still the way it was when it first arrived 1400 years and will remain unchanged,because that is one of the basic laws of the islamic faith...man cannot change gods words.therefore muslims take their believe very seriously even the ones who dont practice it....anyone who attacks islam in anyway muslims feel it is a peronal attack on them hence the harsh reaction from certain elements within muslims.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
In the EU religion is not above the secular government; religion has no right to dictate state policy. Religion's role in the EU is to guide individuals, not states. As such people, no matter what their religious beliefs, are bound to respect and observe the law.
|
|
Maybe so but the EU surely has policy which states you cannot incite racial or religious hatred and respect individual faiths....The law does'nt and shoud'nt allow anyone to disrepect someones religion,specially if they have no knowledge of that religion.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
Islam should be shown the same respect that any other religion is entitled to. Equally the values of non-Muslims should also be respected. Are Danish Muslims forced to depict Allah or the Prophet? Why should non-Muslim Danes be forced not to? If they choose not to that is a different matter, that is of their own free will. |
|
I agree everyones values and practices should be respected,that is why it is so imported to not to blaspheme islam or any religion.
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
I think what you are doing here is confusing racism with free speech. Free speech does not give one a license to perpetuate suffering. Free speech gives one the right to disagree with others, not the right to attack them. The Danish newspaper did not intend to attack Islam and didn't view the cartoons as such. The intent is important here. The newspaper made a mistake in judging the reaction of the Muslim community; it issued an apology for it. The paper did not go out of its way to attack Islam or to denigrate Muslims.
|
|
There is a very fine line between racism and freedom of speech,i see this is as race issue to some degree as most muslims are from an ethnic background i.e: Arab,Pakistani, ect...why should it be unacceptable to call an asian a p*ki and ok to make a joke about their prophets?..I have seen the cartoons in question and the 99.9% of muslims do actually agree that the cartoons intention was purely to attack islam..why else do you think muslims are angry?..I know the danes have been appologising left right and centre..so has Kofi Annan..but the biggest loser in this whole thing is the Danish who have their image tarnished in the muslim world,.until know dont think anyone cared much about Denmark...they have also lost valuble exports to saudi and the middle east...was it all worth it in the end?
[addsig] |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Culture and religion can be interwoven, indeed. I guess I'm suggeting that say, perhaps, people from India may react (or not react) to a situation in a particular way whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh. Their reaction is a function of culture, not religion.
Many of the protestors may be reacting to the cartoons not because they are Muslim, but because that's how things are done where their fmilies come from.
I don't know; I'm hypothisising.
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
absinthebri i don't think its a culture thing at all....in the protests shown around the world people from all cultures and backgrounds were there..Its purely a religious matter.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
Don't think they do otherwise they would'nt have gone ahead and published such articles!...islam does'nt have to be secretive,just that generally non-muslims fail to understand Islam thats why we have such a clash in the world against the two civilisations..fair point that it does'nt give anyone the right to commit violence,but having said that when you provoke someone by insulting someone who is so incredibly sacred to muslims.some people should undertand why a small minority of muslims would be angry and resort to violence.
|
|
I think what you are missing here is the fact that whether or not the newspaper knew the cartoons would draw criticism from Muslims they had a right to publish them. The newspaper did not publish the cartoons in a deliberate attempt to attack Islam; if the newspaper had deliberately sought to attack Islam and cause trouble then that is a different matter. Publishing something that you know will draw criticism is part of free speech, but there is a difference between that and deliberately attacking and denigrating something. Publishing the cartoons was foolish, but of course we can say that with hindsight since at the time the newspaper would not have known that this is the sort of reaction they would get. I suspect that they thought the would draw criticism and protest, but not like this.
Constantly saying that non-Muslims don't understand Islam merely serves to reinforce barriers. I am sure that many non-Muslims don't understand Islam very much, but I am also sure that plenty do.
Quote:
|
Actually thats not the general feeling im getting in this thread,even in the media all you here is that muslims are terrorists and muslims are evil ect...
|
|
Can you point to some examples please? From what I can see the media in, this country at least, reports fairly objectively. The BBC reported the following quote from an Aghan man:
Quote:
| "They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.
"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said. |
|
There was no hyperbole attached to that comment from the BBC, just the reporting of what the man said. The BBC had reported a day or two earlier on prominent British Muslims denouncing the extremists at the London protest. Admittedly the BBC has run the comment from the Afghan man more than the comments from the British Muslims I just mentioned in their online reports as far as I can see. However, I would again point to the fact that there is no editorial given to either praise or condemn the man's comments as you can see from the article.
In general I see that the media use terms like 'extremist' or 'fundamentalist' when reporting on acts of terror. I don't see any great movement to demonise the Islamic community or to pander to far right-wing rhetoric. Indeed most newspapers launch rather scathing atatcks on people like the BNP who do seek to whip up fear and hatred towards Muslims.
Quote:
|
I do think the vast majority of non-muslims think that islam is a violent religion..
|
|
That view simply isn't borne out by the facts. If that were indedd the case then why are European governments sekeing to forge better relations with Muslim communities? Why aren't Europeans calling on their governments to take a harder line against Muslims? Why haven't we seen mass protests by non-Muslims against Muslims? Why are Europeans, on the whole, opposed to wars in the Middle East against Islamic states? Why are European countries still giving aid to Muslim states?
Quote:
|
what us people in the west dont seem to undertstand is that the hatred which is seen against islam in the arab world and muslim world is actually bringing radicals more recruting material and spawning further fanatacism...cartoons such as this will no doubt bring more terrorism on our doorsteps and all because why?...because some idiot in denmark could'nt show basic respect to muslims..think about it!
|
|
Again we come to a victim culture, which is not supported by reality. The vast majority of Europeans do not hate Muslims, there are no major movements calling for a war on Islam in Europe or advocating that Muslims be discriminated against. Those views are the territory of far right minorities.
For all your protestations of how no respect was shown to Islam I would say that respect is a two way street. The Danish newspaper was perfectly entitled to publish those cartoons, it may not have been the best decision granted, but they have a right to do so. As much as Muslims have the right to have their beliefs respected by non-Muslims so to do non-Muslims have the right to have their way of life respected by Muslims.
Quote:
|
Thats basically my point exactly..humans are not machines we do sometimes think with our emotions rather than our brain..In an ideal world we would all think logically and not think about violence towards each other,but its human nature to be violent.
|
|
Peace is as much part of human nature as violence is. Human beings have the capacity to rise above their baser instincts and act with reason. What exactly is it that the mobs of people who have been attacking buildings want? Where is their anger going? Where will it end up?
Quote:
|
Extreme to you and I yes but when emotions run high logical thinking goes out of the window.
|
|
That is true, but at some point reason returns. Then what? What is to happen after the emotional response has faded? This whole episode will have done little more than to help further the agenda of the far right and Muslim extremists. Cooler heads have to prevail in this situation before anyone else is killed and anymore damage (both physical and socio-political) is done.
Quote:
|
Its been said over and over again in this thread that muslims do not tolerate and will never tolerate any blasphemy against islam or its prophets...you cannot compare modern christianity with Islam...christianity has evolved over the centuries,although christian faith exsist no one in the western world has any real respect for it anymore im sure you would agree...
|
|
People of other religions do not tolerate blasphemy against their religious vews, that is not unique to Islam.
Where exactly is your evidence for no one having respect for Christianity in the Western world? Personally I know of at least six people who have great respect for Christianity. I would also have thought that the millions of people who attend church each week; help out at Christian organisations; do missionary work; seek to bring their children up as good Christians and generally adhere to Christian values also have respect for Christianity.
In saying that one cannot compare Christianity with Islam you are effectively saying that Islam is a special case. It is not. It is a religion like any other; it has its believers, it has its indifferent followers and it has its critics. A Muslim may believe that Islam is the truth and do his utmost to follow an Islamic way of life, but that does not make Islam any more special to anyone else. By attempting to make Islam immune from debate or questioning all that will happen is that people will increasingly do so, but instead of that happening in an atmosphere of genuine interest and enquiry it will run the risk of taking place in a climate of resentment.
Quote:
|
on the other hand Islam has not evolved in any shape or form and is still the way it was when it first arrived 1400 years and will remain unchanged,because that is one of the basic laws of the islamic faith...man cannot change gods words.therefore muslims take their believe very seriously even the ones who dont practice it....anyone who attacks islam in anyway muslims feel it is a peronal attack on them hence the harsh reaction from certain elements within muslims.
|
|
People of other religious persuasions also take their beliefs very seriously. Are you saying that a Muslim is more devout than a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu? If Muslims feel the way you described then that may be fine in an Islamic country, but in a country where there is a mixture of religions and where no one religion is is in a dominant position as far as the law is concerned, Muslims have to respect to the beliefs and traditions of the other people in the country.
If we consider Islamic countries for a moment though, your comment about a religious insult being regarded as a personal insult still raises the issue of the response to such an insult. The extremists who have been inciting this violence, would they react the same way if someone came up and insulted them in the street? Would they organise a demonstration and burn the person's house down? Would they demand a boycott of the person's business or call for him to be killed?
I can understand people being upset over someone insulting them or their religious beliefs, but is that a reason for violence? I may have a limited understanding of the Koran, but I don't believe it advocates the spread of suffering.
Quote:
|
Maybe so but the EU surely has policy which states you cannot incite racial or religious hatred and respect individual faiths....The law does'nt and shoud'nt allow anyone to disrepect someones religion,specially if they have no knowledge of that religion.
|
|
But then that is not what happened; the cartoons were not published out of spite or hatred. There was no intent to attack Islam.
Quote:
|
I agree everyones values and practices should be respected,that is why it is so imported to not to blaspheme islam or any religion.
|
|
But then what is blasphemy? What one person sees as being blasphemous another may see as being perfectly legitimate under free speech. The online Oxford English Dictionary defines blasphemy as:
Quote:
| noun (pl. blasphemies) irreverent talk about God or sacred things.s |
|
Chambers Online Reference defines it as:
Quote:
| blasphemy noun (blasphemies) 1 a speaking about God or sacred matters in a disrespectful or rude way; b an action, word or sign that intentionally insults God, or something held sacred, in such a way. 2 law blasphemous libel. |
|
How are such defintions to be interpreted? If I say that I do not believe in that Jesus was the Son of God? Is that blasphemous since I am denying Jesus' divinity? What if I tell a joke that features God in it? That could be described as 'irreverent'. What exactly should be allowed and what shouldn't be?
I don't think that any religion should be above discussion, debate and questioning. Where I see the difference is in deliberately trying to cause offence.
Quote:
|
There is a very fine line between racism and freedom of speech,i see this is as race issue to some degree as most muslims are from an ethnic background i.e: Arab,Pakistani, ect...why should it be unacceptable to call an asian a p*ki and ok to make a joke about their prophets?..
|
|
Where did race come from? The cartoons were not satarising race, they were starising religion. The term you used can't really be used in any other fashion other than a derogatory one designed to attack someone else based upon notions of racial division. Religion on the other hand is not confined to set groups of people, any human being can believe whatever they wish to believe regardless of skin colour, ethenicity, etc.
Satarisation is a valid form of social commentary. If we are to live in a free society we must be allowed to speak our minds and that includes views on religion. Of course one should not seek to deliberately denigrate others' religious beliefs, but that does not mean to say that one cannot question and examine others' beliefs.
Quote:
|
I have seen the cartoons in question and the 99.9% of muslims do actually agree that the cartoons intention was purely to attack islam.. why else do you think muslims are angry?..
|
|
Then you would be wrong. Does the newspaper in question have a consistently anti-Islamic bias? Has it published other stories which attack Islam? Is the cartoons' creator anti-Islamic? Has the newspaper made no apology in a show of definace against Islam?
Incidentally I would like to know where you got that statistic from. There doesn't seem to have been enough time since the cartoons were first published to interview all the world's Muslims.
Quote:
|
I know the danes have been appologising left right and centre..so has Kofi Annan..but the biggest loser in this whole thing is the Danish who have their image tarnished in the muslim world,.until know dont think anyone cared much about Denmark...they have also lost valuble exports to saudi and the middle east...was it all worth it in the end?
|
|
Well to be humbly honest I think that the reaction in parts of the Muslim world might have sullied the view Danish people held of those countries, but I hope not. Why should the Danish people have their image tarnished? Neither they nor their government had anything to do with the cartoons. The newspaper has apologised, yet the protests go on.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-02-07 06:29 ] |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 04:45:14, axxxr wrote:
absinthebri i don't think its a culture thing at all....in the protests shown around the world people from all cultures and backgrounds were there..Its purely a religious matter.
|
|
So are you suggesting the concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam?
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
What?...no of course not,i think you misinterpreted my original reply.
[addsig] |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
You said it's a purely religious manner, not cultural. Buddhists and Daoists don't call for the beheading of 'blasphemers'. You can say what you want about Buddhism; we will offer merit on your behalf.
You say it's not cultural.
What is it then?
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Please refer to my previous posts....im covering my own tracks here.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
I've just heard on the morning news from ITN that an Israeli newspaper has published the cartoons.
Also on the news was a report about the man who dressed as a suicide bomber during the London protest apologising for his actions. It was also reported that the man is a drug dealer who is currently out of prison on license. Read the ITN article here and the BBC article here.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-07 08:06:08, scotsboyuk wrote:
I've just heard on the morning news from ITN that an Israeli newspaper has published the cartoons.
Also on the news was a report about the man who dressed as a suicide bomber during the London protest apologising for his actions. It was also reported that the man is a drug dealer who is currently out of prison on license. Read the ITN article here and the BBC article here.
|
|
Im not at all surprised at the Israeli's printing it...they have been long standing open enemies of muslims and Islam since the begining of religion..this is not good at all for that region,it will cause further problems now.
yeh i heard about that guy dressed up as a suicide bomber,that was stupid well at least he appologised.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
I think there is a cultural element to this situation, but I think that the religious component is what is making the situation worse than it need be. For instance, purely cultural differences tend not to be absolutes. Someone in one country may think the way people in another country do something is strange or even wrong, but it is unlikely that that view stems from an absolute principle.
When religion come sinto play we can find that opinions are based on absolutes that then cause greater opposition to something than would have been the case if it was entirely a acse of cultural differences.
@axxxr
From what I heard on the news the Israeli paper is publishing the cartoons to defend freedom of speech. I do think it is incredibly stupid of them to do so considering the current situation and indeed the wider situation involving Israel and the Muslim world.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-02-07 07:15 ] |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Let's see how long it takes them to accuse anyone protesting against the Israeli paper of anti-Semitism.
[addsig] |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
We seem to be going around in circles. i'm probably going to cover old ground since you guys respong to each other so damn fast, but i've been working on this offline.....
@scorpionking: I certainly wish there were more people with your attitude 
Sorry, but I disagree. The theme of the article is pretty much bang on. If he has made any factual errors please point them out.
@absinth: I have observed that firsthand myself.
@axxxr: I cannot help but detect a level of arrogance inherent in some of your statements. I understand and respect that you hold strong beliefs and that they are dear to you, but they do not supersede the beliefs of any other individual or group. Your religion is not mine, and therefore I am not bound by your rules.
scots has pretty much covered what I wanted to say so I’ll restrict myself to a few additional points:
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 00:02:35, axxxr wrote:
Im sick of this argument that other religions don't behave this way when we mock they gods or idols...just try to understand that Islam DOES NOT tolerate that |
|
And every other religion, be it Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else, DOES NOT tolerate mockery of its gods, idols, beliefs or practices. Yet almost universally the adherents of these religions manage to maintain enough self-control when expressing their displeasure to avoid getting buildings burned and people killed. On the very rare occasions when this is not the case, it is members of their own faith who are the first to publicly and unequivocally condemn them.
With blatant prevarication and veiled threats of reprisal by so-called “moderate” Islamic leaders (at least in Australia), the same cannot be said in this case. To argue that the differences in behaviour are only because people in the west have “lost respect” for their religions is to deny the sincerity of those beliefs, and is no better than you perceive the cartoonists to be.
Quote:
| not much to ask to show a little respect is it? |
|
And yet you feel free to claim that the Christian beliefs of myself (and tens of millions of others around the world) are somehow less sincere than those of the average Muslim, and imply that because of this vilification of my religion is more acceptable? You accuse others and yet are guilty of the same offence.
What about respect for western beliefs and cultural values? Respect is like money – it must be earned and it’s made round to go round.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
but I am rather puzzled as to why some apparently feel it necessary to whip the situation up into a maelstrom of fear and hate. |
|
I suspect because there is a subgroup who perceive this outcome will be advantageous to their agenda. There are no doubt individuals on both sides who cannot stomach the thought of friendly relations between Islamic and non-Islamic people. It’s not a nice thought, but one I suspect is true.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 03:11:33, scotsboyuk wrote:
The intent is important here. The newspaper made a mistake in judging the reaction of the Muslim community; it issued an apology for it. The paper did not go out of its way to attack Islam or to denigrate Muslims
On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
Don't think they do otherwise they would'nt have gone ahead and published such articles!
On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
I have seen the cartoons in question and the 99.9% of muslims do actually agree that the cartoons intention was purely to attack islam. |
|
scots is absolutely right here. The intent and context is vital to this discussion. If 99.9% of muslims believe the sole intent was to attack Islam (a figure I know you invented and which is certainly not reflective of the public debate within my own country), then that 99.9% are dead wrong.
The cartoons were published not to attack or insult Islam, but as a commentary on the environment of fear and self-censorship which fundamentalist radical Islamic extremists have fomented. The purpose was to illustrate that we should not be silenced merely through intimidation by such individuals and groups, and that western society should not sacrifice its freedoms to such threats. Essentially it was a statement to the effect that ‘In my own country I have a right to express my opinion, even if that opinion is critical of your beliefs, and I will not forsake that right out of fear.’
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
some people should undertand why a small minority of muslims would be angry and resort to violence.
On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
but its human nature to be violent |
|
I would dispute this. I would say it is within human nature to be violent, but an individual must still choose to be so.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
on the other hand Islam has not evolved in any shape or form and is still the way it was when it first arrived 1400 years and will remain unchanged,because that is one of the basic laws of the islamic faith...man cannot change gods words |
|
no, but man’s understanding of those words can evolve and grow. God’s words are true for all time, but that doesn’t mean all of His words have the same meaning for all time. As we are exposed to new developments and new cultures our understanding of those words is challenged by new ideas, which either serves to erode your faith or reaffirm it by realising that a hitherto unknown phenomenon has a place in the overall message.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
Maybe so but the EU surely has policy which states you cannot incite racial or religious hatred and respect individual faiths....The law does'nt and shoud'nt allow anyone to disrepect someones religion,specially if they have no knowledge of that religion. |
|
comments that are purely malicious or deliberately hurtful would come under such laws. Comments made in the spirit of debate or critical analysis would not.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
I agree everyones values and practices should be respected,that is why it is so imported to not to blaspheme islam or any religion. |
|
At this point I want to include the following from the blog of Australian media commentator Tim Blair
” Odd that this concern over maintaining the peace doesn’t limit Muslim commentary on other religions or communities. The Islamic Bookstore in Lakemba (Sydney), for example, sells vicious anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as various anti-Christian titles (Crucifixion – or Cruci-FICTION?). Sheik Khalid Yasin, a regular guest lecturer in Australia, declared that “there’s no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend” and denounced modern clothes as the work of “faggots, homosexuals and lesbians”; Christians, he said, deliberately infected Africans with AIDS. Yasin wouldn’t merely draw cartoons of homosexuals—he’d have them put to death in accordance with Koranic law. One Imam told Australian students that Jews put poison in bananas. Local Iraqis voting in their country’s elections were shot at and otherwise intimidated by Islamic extremists whose banners announced: “You vote, you die.” These friends of free speech were also observed photographing those who dared to vote. Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a supportive Bankstown (Sydney) crowd last year that women deserve to be raped if they wore “satanical” garments, including anything “strapless, backless, [or] sleeveless”, and also “mini-skirts [and] tight jeans.”
All of this is far more hateful and moronic than those twelve Danish cartoons, not one of which depicts the Prophet eating babies, poisoning fruit, or infecting Africans with AIDS. Far from being against hate-speech, many Muslim spokesmen seem to be aggressively for it; until, of course, someone contemplates publishing harmless drawings of an old beardy guy. At that point Sheik Fehmi El-Imam (general secretary of the Board of Imams of Victoria) warns that we risk “disturbing the peace”.”
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
There is a very fine line between racism and freedom of speech,i see this is as race issue to some degree as most muslims are from an ethnic background i.e: Arab,Pakistani, ect...why should it be unacceptable to call an asian a p*ki and ok to make a joke about their prophets? |
|
Racist is a label too easily thrown about nowadays. Islam is not a race, it is a religion with adherents from a multitude of races. While a majority of those adherents are of a particular ethnicity, that is utterly beside the point. The widespread nature of the rioting is such that I doubt anyone could feasibly argue that race is a motivating factor.
Quote:
| On 2006-02-07 04:24:01, axxxr wrote:
I know the danes have been appologising left right and centre. |
|
So why is that not the end of it? They’ve apologized, they were sincere. The cartoons were first published in Sept/Oct last year. How is it reasonable, or even possible, that the reaction is still building unless the true motivation is something else?
The only reason the controversy left denmark was because Danish Imams deliberately set about creating an international incident with images not published by the paper rather than trying to resolve the matter peacefully and locally (I suggest people read the story behind that link).
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where nobody talks to him anymore 
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-02-07 07:40 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-02-07 03:25
