Islam

[Pinball]

The cartoons were published in a liberal democracy which has freedom of speech. Just as we are repeatedly asked to respect Islamic culture and values, so they should respect ours. I mean, it's not as if we're beheading hostages and broadcasting it on BBC News.

Just because certain components of current Muslim civilisation are backward feudalistic fuckwits is their problem, not ours.

Ooh, that feels better. Sun-like rant out :-)

[MojoJojo]

The cartoons were published in a liberal democracy which has freedom of speech. Just as we are repeatedly asked to respect Islamic culture and values, so they should respect ours. I mean, it's not as if we're beheading hostages and broadcasting it on BBC News.

That's not the issue. Newspapers have the right t publish whatever they want, but that doesn't mean whatever they publish is right. I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that if I refer to all women as "vapid whores" that I'm not a cunt.  And just because a newspaper has the right to print offensive cartoons, doesn't mean they are right to do so.

[sproggy]

Anyone catch the Al Ghurabaa guy on Newsnight last night?

Came across as a rude, arrogant misogynist and did a wonderful job of promoting Islamaphobia.

[George]

The cartoons were published in a liberal democracy....

Seriously, define a liberal democracy and I'll give you a myopia...

Icon:

[LadyDay]

The cartoons were published in a liberal democracy which has freedom of speech. Just as we are repeatedly asked to respect Islamic culture and values, so they should respect ours. I mean, it's not as if we're beheading hostages and broadcasting it on BBC News.

Just because certain components of current Muslim civilisation are backward feudalistic fuckwits is their problem, not ours.

Ooh, that feels better. Sun-like rant out :-)

So why is it we don't show film of hostages being beheaded or soldiers dead bodies on TV? Why do we not show certain things before the watershed?


Because we don't wish to offend anyone.

[Blumf]

If you agree that the behaviour of the Muslim community is justified by the actions of an aggressive west, ...

This is a common misinterpretation that often comes up in any of these sorts of discussions. Saying that the west must accept some responsibility for the rise of Islamic extremism is most definately a different thing than saying that the actions of muslim extremists are justified.

I agree to this, my point in that part of the post was more to the issue that jutl was just engaging in idle finger pointing whilst avoiding more core issues.

[George]

So why is it we don't show film of hostages being beheaded or soldiers dead bodies on TV? Why do we not show certain things before the watershed?

So, ''We'' don't show that very thing precisely because it  might offend ostensibility?

The point remains (both by your's and Pinball's) that over-reaction is self sensorship.


Oh, I'd be a crap God, cannae convince anyone.

piece.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

Isn't this the main worry about this whole debate, what the west is actually concerned about?
The newspaper editor who started all this was saying that because we're dealing with extremists, any compromise made will only be a stop-gap before concessions are demanded. I think it was on the radio. He was pretty unapologetic, but he was taking the same stand as yer man Hitch.

Its something that does worry me, how we're going to deal with this.

On the one hand we believe people have the right to live their lives any way they want providing they give due consideration to others.  Its a great life, and has helped made this the land of milk and honey, a free western democracy. This looks so good that lots of people (Muslim and otherwise) emigrate here over the last few decades, and our Muslim population grows to its current state.
But some of these Muslims (the extremists), now that they are here, aren't happy with the way we live. They live here now, and so we should respect their beliefs and adjust our way of life to suit them - anything else is an insult to their religion. And so they rail against the very thing (freedom) that made them want to come here in the first place.
Meanwhile we've been here all along, more the merrier etc. Consideration for people's religion isnt that much to ask, but when it stretches to changing values and ways of life its not going to happen, so I can understand why Paxo was banging on about a fundamental clash of cultures the other night.

The trouble is, theres perceived to be a fine line between thinking this, and being Nick Griffin.

I've seen people arguing over the nature of compromise of the last few pages - I think the current worry and Hitchens' point was that no compromise will ever be enough for the people in question, and any compromise by the very nature of Islam will have to be on the side of the West rather than from Islam. So perhaps people are worried about 'mission creep' to revive an '04 buzzword.

As to whether Islam itself is fundamentally wicked, I dunno, but it seems to certainly sustain the ability of foamy-bearded wackjobs to incite apparently normal people into lynch-mobs - but that religion for ya, its going to be the death of us all. No, really.

[terminallyrelaxed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm

Ball's in their court now.

Firebombing sweepstakes anyone?

[Harfyyn Teuport]

So why is it we don't show film of hostages being beheaded or soldiers dead bodies on TV? Why do we not show certain things before the watershed?

Because we don't wish to offend anyone.

There's also a trend in western society of alienating the concept of 'our casualties of war' from real, perceivable human pain, thus representing them as faceless numbers instead. Killed Iraqis at roadsides are often shown strewn across streets etc.

See also the double standard of the kind of gruesome pictures of car crashes, road accidents one sees in photography and the outright horror people expressed at the concept of Princess Diana being photographed in the same way.

[Purple Tentacle]

I agree with everything terminallyrelaxed said there.

I've grown worryingly harderline on this issue in recent days, I've even shouted 'then fuck off out of the country then' at the telly to the cunts calling for the death to all those who 'mock' Islam. Which isn't to say that I'm heading towards the slippery slope of joining the BNP and demanding compulsary repatriation for all non Ancient Britons, but for fuck's sake, if i moved to Turkey, say, I would live there with respect for their customs, and not throw a shitfit when complete strangers did something i find offensive, like storing live chickens in cages in markets in the sun, for instance.


While of course we shouldn't demand that immigrants lose their national identity and religion and start supporting England in the cricket, etc, is it so bad to say 'if you don't like it, then fuck off, frankly.'

[Zuffic]

The trouble is, theres perceived to be a fine line between thinking this, and being Nick Griffin.

I have it on good authority that criticism of Islam makes you 'perilously close' to being a BNP supporter.

[George]

Ball's in their court now. Firebombing sweepstakes anyone?

Absolutely

[terminallyrelaxed]

Here's a risky one then.

Hitch raised another point, about childishness. Its an interesting idea, but one thats occurred to me in the past. Lets think about this from a male perspective (pretending briefly that theres a female one in extremist Islam).

Everything according to this thousand year old book, no moral conundrums. Thats handy.
Women are livestock, and goods to be traded don't need opinions. Thats handy.
Anyone who doesnt live life by the same values should be killed instantly, no discussion. Thats handy too.
Stick to this and when you die you'll get 100 virgins all just for you. Yes, thats right you'll be able to do things in heaven that you would be stoned for in life, and as a good Muslim you wouldn't want to do those thigns anyway, in heaven or not, but you can do them inheaven.

So basically half the race is inferior to you and kept in its place.

I mean, its a bit juvenile isnt it? OK, if you were trying to sell something to a hormonal 14-year-old with learning difficulties then maybe, but its all a little convenient isnt it? No wonder its so tempting....

I know I've massively oversimplified somethings there and probably don't know what I'm talking about, but if I can gain those impressions then you can see how easy it is for an already bitter, angry person who feels hard done by to be converted.....

[Harfyyn Teuport]

I have it on good authority that criticism of Islam makes you 'perilously close' to being a BNP supporter.

But your 'criticism of Islam' is just poorly defined and wilfully muddled. Your distinctions between the cultural tenets of many varied and diverse states, the original doctrines of an ancient book and the disgusting behaviour of a tiny minority of the many hundred millions of peaceful practitioners of the faith are haphazardly allocated.

If you want to criticise Islamic religious doctrine for the vile things strewn within it, you cannot do so without acknowledging the equally vile things in Jewish/Christian tradition, many of which could be read as literal translations from the latter.

If you want to criticise repressive and abusive Islamic/Arabic states, secular and theocratic, you cannot do so without acknowledging that many other non-Arabic/Islamic countries worldwide are guilty of the same or worse, and there are other common denominators between all of them; totalitarian government, repression of labour movement, American support and/or funding and exploitative economic pressure upon their populations.

If you want to criticise the radical, violent minority of the religion, then do so and never refrain from doing so, but try to understand the perspective those radical Muslims have. The IRA were born out of a long standing national movement against repression of their rights, and economic and political disenfranchisement. Almost the entire Muslim world is subject to similar pressures, internal or external.

[Pinball]

So why is it we don't show film of hostages being beheaded or soldiers dead bodies on TV? Why do we not show certain things before the watershed?

Because we don't wish to offend anyone.

I'm anti-censorship, and personally would be delighted for the above to be broadcast instead of the usual vapid, prejudiced crap. If people saw the real horrors of war, perhaps they wouldn't so sheepishly accept it. Blair's lies would seem more worrisome when accompanied by pictures of dead children IMO.

As for "The Cartoons", I agree it was stupid and insensitive of the Danish and French newspaper to publish them, but let's get real here. Islamic newspapers satirise in cartoons Moses, Jews, Jesus, Christians, America and "us" all the time, using the most unpleasant of imagery on occasion. And you know what? I don't care. At least, not to the extent of wishing censorship on everyone because it interferes with my precious, never to be challenged belief system.

Frankly, I'm surprised at how sensitive extremist Muslims are, given their other behaviour.

Now that the EU as a whole is being targeted, maybe we should cancel all financial support Europe gives to the Palestinians, which accounts for 40% of the entire budget of the Palestinian Authority? Surely a good Muslim wouldn't take handouts from infidels?

And as for rioting Muslims in the (relatively) "liberal West", I'd say it's crunch time. Which side are they on? Because if they genuinely want to kill us, they should be locked up. Frankly, if it gets much worse Muslims will have to be rounded up into camps, as happened to Japanese in America during WW2. I hope to fuck things never get  that bad, but who knows at the moment? Some of these fucktards are wishing a 911-type event on us. Now that's offensive, rather more so than cartoons of some twat in a turban.

[El Unicornio, mang]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_cartoons

TEHRAN, Iran - A prominent Iranian newspaper said Tuesday it would hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West extends the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Does anyone else find that a tad...immature?

(apologies if that's already been posted)

[Pinball]

If you want to criticise Islamic religious doctrine for the vile things strewn within it, you cannot do so without acknowledging the equally vile things in Jewish/Christian tradition, many of which could be read as literal translations from the latter.

I completely agree.

[terminallyrelaxed]

[Harfyyn Teuport]

I know, you've said you've oversimplified and are speaking hypothetically so I've taken you in the spirit intended.

Here's a risky one then.

Hitch raised another point, about childishness. Its an interesting idea, but one thats occurred to me in the past. Lets think about this from a male perspective (pretending briefly that theres a female one in extremist Islam).

Everything according to this thousand year old book, no moral conundrums. Thats handy. And universal in written religion. Where Islam differs is that no Muslim can tell another Muslim how to act or behave. Islam is personal and non-judgemental
Women are livestock, and goods to be traded don't need opinions. Thats handy. And universal in Jewish/Christian tradition
Anyone who doesnt live life by the same values should be killed instantly, no discussion. Thats handy too. This is anathema to Islam. In a thread about Islam and not 'violent cunts of any religion', this has no place.
Stick to this and when you die you'll get 100 virgins all just for you. Yes, thats right you'll be able to do things in heaven that you would be stoned for in life, and as a good Muslim you wouldn't want to do those thigns anyway, in heaven or not, but you can do them inheaven. Aren't the virgins seen as being symbolic of 'anything you want?' I honestly don't know so I will give you that one as a puzzling contradiction, which it is.

So basically half the race is inferior to you and kept in its place. Adam's rib

[Blumf]

I agree with everything terminallyrelaxed said there.

Seconded, particularly...

The trouble is, theres perceived to be a fine line between thinking this, and being Nick Griffin.

[terminallyrelaxed]

[
The IRA were born out of a long standing national movement against repression of their rights, and economic and political disenfranchisement.

Thats right.

Almost the entire Muslim world is subject to similar pressures, internal or external.

How so? Care to enlighten us? May well be the case in some countries where Muslims are in the minority, but 'almost the entire Muslim world'? Absolute bollocks.

[terminallyrelaxed]

I know, you've said you've oversimplified and are speaking hypothetically so I've taken you in the spirit intended.

Here's a risky one then.

Hitch raised another point, about childishness. Its an interesting idea, but one thats occurred to me in the past. Lets think about this from a male perspective (pretending briefly that theres a female one in extremist Islam).

Everything according to this thousand year old book, no moral conundrums. Thats handy. And universal in written religion. Where Islam differs is that no Muslim can tell another Muslim how to act or behave. Islam is personal and non-judgemental
Women are livestock, and goods to be traded don't need opinions. Thats handy. And universal in Jewish/Christian tradition
Anyone who doesnt live life by the same values should be killed instantly, no discussion. Thats handy too. This is anathema to Islam. In a thread about Islam and not 'violent cunts of any religion', this has no place.
Stick to this and when you die you'll get 100 virgins all just for you. Yes, thats right you'll be able to do things in heaven that you would be stoned for in life, and as a good Muslim you wouldn't want to do those thigns anyway, in heaven or not, but you can do them inheaven. Aren't the virgins seen as being symbolic of 'anything you want?' I honestly don't know so I will give you that one as a puzzling contradiction, which it is.

So basically half the race is inferior to you and kept in its place. Adam's rib

Very clever. Your points would hold water if I was talking about Islam, rather than extremist interpretations of it.

[terminallyrelaxed]

And, actually, you've inadvertently raised another point: that all those other religions you hold it up against have changed, evolved with time - apart from the extremist arms of same. The difference is that the the extremists arms of those religions would have a tough time insighting fairly moderate believers to riot and mayhem.

[Zuffic]

But your 'criticism of Islam' is just poorly defined and wilfully muddled. Your distinctions between the cultural tenets of many varied and diverse states, the original doctrines of an ancient book and the disgusting behaviour of a tiny minority of the many hundred millions of peaceful practitioners of the faith are haphazardly allocated.

I object to the phrase "tiny minority". It can be easily pointed out that enormous violent crowds gathered in order to ransack embassies (surely this could be considered an act of terrorism every bit as much as an attack on people - after all an embassy is considered a piece of that country's territory), yet no such crowds ever amass in order to - for example - place a fatwa on Bin Laden for being un-Islamic. I've mentioned elsewhere the Free Muslim organisation in America who organised a march against terrorism which attracted only 50 attendees. Nobody is yet to sufficiently explain why these hundreds of millions of peaceful practitioners are so reticent to form groups who will loudly and publicly decry the wrngdoing, and evildoers, within Islamic society. But if you need 10,000 blokes to set fire to some stuff you can get your shit together at the drop of a hat (encouraged by the Syrian government according to a report in The Independent - so hardly a minority fringe group either). There is a distict hollowness in this idea that the 'extremist minority' and the 'moderate majority' are as separate as they ought to be. There just does not seem to exist a robust-enough condemnation of one by the other, in my opinion.

If you want to criticise Islamic religious doctrine for the vile things strewn within it, you cannot do so without acknowledging the equally vile things in Jewish/Christian tradition, many of which could be read as literal translations from the latter.

Anything written down in Jewish or Christian scripture that you would consider 'vile' is almost certainly also disagreed with by a huge fraction of those communities as well. The trouble with Islam is that it is literal, not interpretive. As a Muslim you are simply not allowed to disagree with it. And besides, this isn't the point. I'm judging Islam on the actions of its practitioners not a bunch of words. Would you disagree with the statement that 'Nearly all terrorists are Muslims'? And what is the usual stated reasoning behind their actions? As far as I can tell it is usually Allah. To quote the Hamas charter 'Death in the name of Allah is our loftiest goal'. Again, not a fringe group, a majority organisation, democratically elected.

If you want to criticise repressive and abusive Islamic/Arabic states, secular and theocratic, you cannot do so without acknowledging that many other non-Arabic/Islamic countries worldwide are guilty of the same or worse, and there are other common denominators between all of them; totalitarian government, repression of labour movement, American support and/or funding and exploitative economic pressure upon their populations.

Examples please of non Islamic countries who perform atrocities such as FGM or ritualistic beheadings in the name of a faith... You may also like to consider Nigeria which indulges in a particularly vigorous implementation of Sharia law (replete with amputations and other such aspects of Islamic 'civilization'), and has no American funding or support. Sure it has a totalitarian government and a repression of its citizens - because that is part of Sharia... so a bit circular to suggest that one is caused by the other. Sharia is fascism, and exists in this example completely distinct from America, or Zionists, or blah blah blah. It's self-serving, and completely mandated by the faith. That I can find other countries in the world to criticise for different reasons is straying from the point.

If you want to criticise the radical, violent minority of the religion, then do so and never refrain from doing so, but try to understand the perspective those radical Muslims have. The IRA were born out of a long standing national movement against repression of their rights, and economic and political disenfranchisement. Almost the entire Muslim world is subject to similar pressures, internal or external.

I can't imagine for a moment that any reasonable analogy can be made between the IRA and radical Islam.

[Harfyyn Teuport]

[
The IRA were born out of a long standing national movement against repression of their rights, and economic and political disenfranchisement.

Thats right.

Almost the entire Muslim world is subject to similar pressures, internal or external.

How so? Care to enlighten us? May well be the case in some countries where Muslims are in the minority, but 'almost the entire Muslim world'? Absolute bollocks.

Most Muslims live below the poverty line. Earth trends has more information and some handy maps.

The Muslim world numbers approximately 1.5 billion people. Approximately 1.3 billion of these live in either the Middle East, Central/South East Asia or Northern/Sub-Saharan Africa.

[George]

The trouble with Islam is that it is literal, not interpretive. As a Muslim you are simply not allowed to disagree with it.

Seconded.

[Pinball]

Most Muslims live below the poverty line.

A question I find interesting is - Does the "hyper-religiosity" lead to poverty or result from it? My suspicion is the latter, although current extremisms are keeping 'em poor, I reckon.

Dark Ages in the 21st Century. Sad sad sad...

[MonkeyDrummer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm

Ball's in their court now.

Firebombing sweepstakes anyone?

He got 7 years - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690224.stm

[terminallyrelaxed]

Most Muslims live below the poverty line. Earth trends has more information and some handy maps.

The Muslim world numbers approximately 1.5 billion people. Approximately 1.3 billion of these live in either the Middle East, Central/South East Asia or Northern/Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indeed they do. But not as a result of the British Government's colonial policy or the antics of the 'Royal' Ulster Constabulary. I'm sorry, but the analogy just doesnt fly whichever way you cut it.
A sense of injustice? I'll bet all those destitute people feel it keenly, still nothing to do with stoning anyone in a miniskirt, sorry. You could argue that international money markets keep the third world in its place. I could argue that many of the people who play them and benefit from the profits are Muslim, just like their Saharan brothers.