Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Row over Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad with bomb

Religion Islam Cartoons of Muhammad

  • Please log in to reply
267 replies to this topic

#61 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 02:02 PM

Thats not what I would have expected, but it makes sense. They dont want people becoming martyrs because they are despirate, they want people who are cool headed, skilled and really believe.

Edited by Schmokie_Dragon, 05 February 2006 - 02:06 PM.

Posted Image

#62 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,654 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 02:22 PM

All the major world religions came about in cultures far removed from what we call "modernity."  Views towards violence and draconian punishments were far different than we have today.  The subjugation of women by men and the strict regulation of sexuality in behalf of procreation and of assuring men that the children their wives bore were indeed theirs were simply assumed as natural.

Any religious practitioners who go back to the version of their religion that flourished thousands or even hundreds of years ago are going to be at odds with the practices of 21st century secular democracies.  But it does appear that there is less "reform Islam" and more "fundmentalist Islam" active in Europe than there is fundamentalism of any other sort of religion.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#63 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 03:34 PM

Thanks Kalistra, I'd made this point before(with the very same person) and was going to reinterate it again but you saved methe trouble by linking to that study. Those who are organizing and participating in terrorism aren't the poor or the particularly downtrodden. This isn't some sort of Marxist style "people's revolt" where one class is rising up against another, this is a group of moderate to well educated people who have formed technically and organizationally sophisticated networks whose goals of achieving political and religous domination are readily apparent in thier own statements.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#64 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 03:39 PM

View Posttennyson, on Feb 5 2006, 10:34 PM, said:

this is a group of moderate to well educated people who have formed technically and organizationally sophisticated networks whose goals of achieving political and religous domination are readily apparent in thier own statements.

One of the most dramatic things about the bombings last July in London was the video found after the event, where one of the bombers, a well educated middle-class Brit explains concisely and rationally why he felt that his actions to be were the right ones.

No hysteria, no frothing at the mouth, no stereotype of a sword wielding maniac anarchist who wants to bring down society.

I found it very chilling to be honest.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#65 Pallas

Pallas

    Wicked--Like the Witch of the West

  • Islander
  • 833 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 03:50 PM

You're welcome Tennyson.

Kal.
We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea--Aristotle

#66 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 04:08 PM

ditto. Not nice. Its much easier to deal with these things when it is "us" vs "them". Once those attacking us seem to be able to relate to our lives it becomes much more difficult.
Posted Image

#67 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:14 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Feb 5 2006, 12:31 PM, said:

...my own experience with moderate Muslim students who denounce not only terrorism but also the particularly nasty brand of Islamic fundamentalism that's behind it--and a dear friend from Malaysia who is Muslim and most decidedly not a supporter of terrorism...
Aha! Now there's a reason that's not political correctness!

Unfortunately, what it is instead is projecting one's own personal experiences onto something else that is known to be many times larger than one's own personal experience, which is invalid thinking because too small of a sample can too easily misrepresent the whole. I also have met some people who call themselves Muslims and are perfectly good people. I've probably met others and not even known it because we didn't talk about religion. In college, I routinely walked by an Islam temple on my way to and from my Bujinkan Taijutsu dojo. I doubt that I've ever met or been particularly near a terrorist or anyone particularly similar to them. But none of that changes my awareness of the big picture outside and beyond the scope of my own experience.

View PostSpectacles, on Feb 5 2006, 12:31 PM, said:

I don't argue that there can be only one true form of Islam or Christianity. I argue, in fact, that there are varieties
Then what was the deal when you said that some people who call themselves Christians (followers of Fallwell-types) aren't really Christians? Did some words get lost from that sentence while you were typing & editing it?

View PostSpectacles, on Feb 5 2006, 12:31 PM, said:

I will agree with anyone who argues that militant Islamism is a serious, serious problem. I disagree with any attempts to brand all Muslims as militant Islamists
That is not what I've done. In fact I'm making MORE of a point of dissociating them from the militant folks and recognizing the vast difference in their beliefs and behaviors, by calling them separate religions. It's not a matter of denying that those friends you mentioned exist or claiming that they must be terrorists or terrorist wannabes; it's a matter of claiming that they're SO different from the terrorists and follow SUCH a different religion that the same words shouldn't be used for both.

#68 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:26 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on Feb 5 2006, 12:22 PM, said:

I was muslim up until 2 years ago.
You've said yourself that you quit calling yourself one because you didn't believe and weren't following what Islam teaches. Someone who doesn't believe and doesn't follow the defining teachings of a given religion isn't really a member of that religion, whether (s)he's called one or not.

View PostQueenTiye, on Feb 5 2006, 12:22 PM, said:

You don't know any moderate muslims?  Try looking.  You'll be sure to find some if you want to.
I know about the people you're talking about. But they're not really followers of Islam; they're followers of something else, for which the name Islam is just mistakenly misused.

#69 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:34 PM

Quote

Thanks Kalistra, I'd made this point before(with the very same person) and was going to reinterate it again but you saved methe trouble by linking to that study. Those who are organizing and participating in terrorism aren't the poor or the particularly downtrodden. This isn't some sort of Marxist style "people's revolt" where one class is rising up against another, this is a group of moderate to well educated people who have formed technically and organizationally sophisticated networks whose goals of achieving political and religous domination are readily apparent in thier own statements.

Apparently you guys missed the rest of what I said? No, it's not JUST poverty but poverty has many side effects that make matters worse. Poor countries are more "at risk" because they lack resources to properly care for their population, defend their borders etc...I ALSO made mention of the lack of control that people have in the determination of their own lives and futures.

Quote

They have no hope for the future, no means to prosper and give their families a better life, they have no say in their own destinies. Now if we felt like this, what do you think the outcome would be? Didn't we have a Boston Tea Party and a Revolutionary war over feeling we had no say, no control of our own destinies? Weren't our ancestors willing to fight and die for the chance to have a life that THEY chose and a chance to better their situations?

Did you think I "just" meant financial control? If you did, then let me clarify...Poverty, coupled with a lack of control (aka...political freedoms, political voice in your country's policies and overall direction, not just financial control) breeds terrorism. Poverty ALONE won't do it but combined with lack of political freedom and participation, WILL. I will grant you that terrorist organisations are run by the more affluent and well educated (Bin Laden being a prime example) but why do they succeed in alluding capture? Because so many of the average folks HIDE THEM. Those average folks may not strap a bomb to their chests but many of them, in their own way participate by offering safe haven, food and simply not offering up what they DO know. Was the revolutionary war organised and concieved of by the common colonist or did the more affluent of higher education and social status bring that about? Were the founding fathers "poor folks"? NO but they appealed to the aspirations of the common man. BTW...before you jump all over the comparisons to our own foundations as a nation, I'm NOT claiming these terrorists have any such high idea's or goals, just pointing out that often movements that inspire the support of the common man aren't founded by them. Why did we see the result we got in the Palestinian elections? A large part is attributed to their community outreach, the appeal to the common man. They offered help, services to the locals. So while the leaders of the movement by and large are more affluent and educated, they're message has appeal for those who aren't.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#70 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:34 PM

Quote

Delvo: Aha! Now there's a reason that's not political correctness!

Unfortunately, what it is instead is projecting one's own personal experiences onto something else that is known to be many times larger than one's own personal experience, which is invalid thinking because too small of a sample can too easily misrepresent the whole. I also have met some people who call themselves Muslims and are perfectly good people. I've probably met others and not even known it because we didn't talk about religion. In college, I routinely walked by an Islam temple on my way to and from my Bujinkan Taijutsu dojo. I doubt that I've ever met or been particularly near a terrorist or anyone particularly similar to them. But none of that changes my awareness of the big picture outside and beyond the scope of my own experience.


Yes. And the big picture, which you see with a logic that is beyond my humble ken is this:

Quote

Delvo: Islam is inherently a religion of bloodthirst.

To which I can only respond by repeating myself:

Quote

However, knowing a number of wonderful people who are Muslims, I make a firm distinction between militant Islam and Islam as a whole. Just as I make a distinction between militant Christian Identity nuts and Christianity. Hell, I make a distinction between Falwell, Robertson, and their follows and Christians.

I think it's a stretch to say that it's PC to be reluctant to condemn all of Islam for the radical ideology of the Wahhabists and the like. Seems to me that such an acknowledgment is simply fact-based and logical. There are plenty of Muslims who, while offended by the cartoons, aren't calling for the cartoonists to be amputated or beheaded. We need to keep that in mind. It's the ones who are literally calling for the cartoonists head that I have a problem with. Not my Muslim friends who aren't.

And so now we go in circles.

I disagree with you that "Islam is inherently a religion of bloodthirst" and that people, like me, who refrain from pronouncing it thus are concerned with being PC. Shoot, George Bush himself went out of his way after 9/11 to announce that the problem isn't Islam; the problem is a particular ideological offshoot of Islam. I remember this well because I actually agreed with him on something. ;)

I try to avoid condeming all Christians for the beliefs of some sects. I do the same with regard to Islam. That in no way means that I'm giving the Wahhabist radicals and other Islamists a free pass--and, as I said, I haven't for many years now. They are a problem. A serious one. I think we actually agree on this point.

Edited by Spectacles, 05 February 2006 - 05:35 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#71 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:57 PM

Quote

I disagree with you that "Islam is inherently a religion of bloodthirst" and that people, like me, who refrain from pronouncing it thus are concerned with being PC. Shoot, George Bush himself went out of his way after 9/11 to announce that the problem isn't Islam; the problem is a particular ideological offshoot of Islam.
Yeah...and he was being PC Specs...and he is wrong. All Muslims do not support terrorism, but the religion itself apparently does.(I've read too much material directly from the Qu'ran itself to come to any other conclusion) It's a point worth repeating, even if the POTUS is afraid to.

Quote

Thanks Kalistra, I'd made this point before(with the very same person) and was going to reinterate it again but you saved methe trouble by linking to that study. Those who are organizing and participating in terrorism aren't the poor or the particularly downtrodden. This isn't some sort of Marxist style "people's revolt" where one class is rising up against another, this is a group of moderate to well educated people who have formed technically and organizationally sophisticated networks whose goals of achieving political and religous domination are readily apparent in thier own statements.
Funny when I read Lin's post followed by Kalistra, I thought exactly the same thing tennyson....that I'd been saved the trouble of shooting down the ridiculous argument that poverty causes terrorism.(and let's face it Lin...that's what you wrote...and your "clarifaction" basically boils down to "ok not every supporter of terror is poor but uh...some are". Excusing criminality with the ‘ol "poor and downtrodden" canard won't get you all that far here I'm happy to say.

-scherzo

Edited by scherzo, 05 February 2006 - 05:58 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#72 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:09 PM

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick but I had the impression that Delvo was making the point that Islam, as founded by Mo. and written in the Qur'an is a violent one compared to other religions like Christianity which preach peace and goodwill almost exclusively. And much of the Qur'an, from what I have read, is very open to interpretation and the radicals can very easily find areas that supprot their veiws. Now, those of the religion who believe in peace and goodwill may actualy be more unlike Islam as it was intended than those who are more radical. Which means that raw Islam is a religion of "bloodlust" (to put it strongly) and those who follow Islam in a more moderate fashion may as well have a diffarent name (ie, are not really Muslims)

Thats just the way I interpreted what Delvo said.
Posted Image

#73 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:31 PM

Quote

Funny when I read Lin's post followed by Kalistra, I thought exactly the same thing tennyson....that I'd been saved the trouble of shooting down the ridiculous argument that poverty causes terrorism.(and let's face it Lin...that's what you wrote...and your "clarifaction" basically boils down to "ok not every supporter of terror is poor but uh...some are". Excusing criminality with the ‘ol "poor and downtrodden" canard won't get you all that far here I'm happy to say.

Fortunately for me, I don't lose any sleep worrying about how YOU interpet a post Scherzo. At the moment I have a raging sinus infection that off and on leaves my head pounding and my ears hammering, so how you take anything I say at the moment is NOT a big concern. I wrote to clarify my meaning, take it however you like. ;)
Posted Image
Posted Image

#74 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:38 PM

Lin731, I'm not disputing nor have I ever disputed the idea that alleviating poverty or giving people access to more political freedoms would help but Al-Queda was founded in probably the wealthiest country in the Middle East outside of Isreal, Saudi Arabia, where free medical care for all, free phone calls, free gas and a host of other services were available to all due to all that oil wealth. People were in general not struggling to feed thier families or afford basic services, the state provided it all. It's founder was not a person who grew up in poverty but an hier to one of the wealthiest construction firms in the country and as much as certain aspects of Al-Queda's ideology may appeal to the masses who are in poverty so did the antisemitism and call to values that led to the tyranny of Nazism. Yet this wealthy nation brought forth this ideology.
If these people truly cared about the masses that they say they are speaking for them then some of those millions of dollars that have been funneled through charities to Al-Queda's coffers would have actually went to help those people rather than to train and organize thousands to kill.  
HAMAS, for as loathsome are its ideological underpinnings has at least succeeded in providing basic services for people who need it,while Al-Queda simply brings death and tyranny to those who might actually lead the nations it operates in to a better future. I guess with HAMAS we have seen the folly of grafting democracy onto an area whose civil institutions are virtually nonexistant but the goal of trying to generate that civil society and support democracy is a noble one that I think we can both agree is a good thing to try to support at the same time that we do what we can to stop the continiung spread of militant Islam.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#75 Pallas

Pallas

    Wicked--Like the Witch of the West

  • Islander
  • 833 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:40 PM

Quote

No, it's not JUST poverty but poverty has many side effects that make matters worse. Poor countries are more "at risk" because they lack resources to properly care for their population, defend their borders etc...I ALSO made mention of the lack of control that people have in the determination of their own lives and futures.

The article also points out that the poorest of the poor countries don't have a terrorist problem like the Middle East and Northern Africa does. It also states that there has been no conclusive evidence that there is a correlation between poor people and supporters of terrorism.

Quote

Poverty, coupled with a lack of control (aka...political freedoms, political voice in your country's policies and overall direction, not just financial control) breeds terrorism. Poverty ALONE won't do it but combined with lack of political freedom and participation, WILL. I will grant you that terrorist organisations are run by the more affluent and well educated (Bin Laden being a prime example) but why do they succeed in alluding capture? Because so many of the average folks HIDE THEM. Those average folks may not strap a bomb to their chests but many of them, in their own way participate by offering safe haven, food and simply not offering up what they DO know.


I don't believe this to be true. First of all, the lack of control isn't something most people, especially in poorer regions and in the poorest of regions, is going to be worried about simply because they already know they don't have any control. They're more concerned about how to get food, clean water and a place to live while the terrorists are out making their lives miserable by committing acts that forces the West to cut off foreign aid that could be used to help them.

Secondly, people most concerned with civil rights are not poor. The ability to be concerned with civil rights is a luxury that most poor people can't afford to worry about. They have more pressing issues such as food, water and shelter. So unless you can prove that there is a correlation between poor people and concern for civil rights in conjunction to supporting terrorist activity, I think you're mistaken.

Also, terrorists succeed in alluding capture probably because they have wealthy and powerful political connections that keep them under the radar such as the Taliban of Afghanistan and the governments of the Middle East who don't actively encourage but don't deter terrorist activities either.

Kal.
We can do noble acts without ruling the earth and sea--Aristotle

#76 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 06:47 PM

Hmm.  Interesting thread.  Seems to me that in some quarters "Muslim" is the new "black"--religious bigotry now socially acceptable where racial bigotry is not--complete with the distinction between "good" Mulsims who conform to Western modes of thought and action and the "uppity hajis" who don't.  

Don't believe it?  Just try substituting Jim Crow caricatures for the cartoons of Mohammed, and imagine the different response.
Posted Image

#77 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 07:46 PM

View Postwaterpanther, on Feb 5 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

Hmm.  Interesting thread.  Seems to me that in some quarters "Muslim" is the new "black"--religious bigotry now socially acceptable where racial bigotry is not--complete with the distinction between "good" Mulsims who conform to Western modes of thought and action and the "uppity hajis" who don't.  

Don't believe it?  Just try substituting Jim Crow caricatures for the cartoons of Mohammed, and imagine the different response.

Waterpanther, you know I'm on your side most of the time, and I don't like the nasty streak of Muslim-bashing that's welled to the surface in the wake of this incident, but...you're absolutely wrong here, and the Jim Crow analogy is a deeply flawed one.  Very few people are arguing that Muslims didn't have the right to be angry or offended at the cartoons in question, or protest them within legal boundaries.  But sorry, they don't get a special exemption from being the targets of obnoxious speech because of their hurt sensibilities.  And demanding that the Danish government censor the cartoons and "punish" those responsible?  The rioting, the threats, the violence against western embassies?   That's just pure thuggery.

And it's not like these cartoons were printed on leaflets and dropped over Riyadh or Cairo or Damascus.  They appeared in newspapers in Europe.  And the last time I checked, Saudi Arabia and Syria don't get a veto power over speech in Copenhagen and Paris.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#78 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 07:50 PM

While attacking those who would dare to be critical of Islam seem to still be the way to face off with critics who are pointing that Islam has been given a free ride when it comes to being critical of faiths.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#79 Fragsta

Fragsta

    The grandmaster of doom!

  • Islander
  • 554 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 08:00 PM

I would like to take this opportunity to show you this website:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

It's a website set up by muslim youths, which I found through my Lebanese cousin. Take it however you like. One particular paragraph to point out here:

Quote

We will note that we find the cartoons to be incendiary, insulting and very abrasive.  We also take issue with the general stance of the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which has a reputation for publishing inflammatory material.  Yet, it would be wrong to take away their freedom of expression, regardless of how horrid their material is.  We affirm our belief in freedom of expression and people’s right to express whatever opinions they hold.  However, at the same time there is a need to realize that freedom of expression is a responsibility that should not be used to gratuitously insult people’s beliefs.

But whatever you do, do not take that quote I just made out of the context. It is part of a huge lot of apologies etc, and it isn't standalone, just an important part of it.

That website is an example of the under-represented Muslims we don't hear about in papers.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that whatever I say that may seem like I'm giving excuses to the groups of Muslims who are giving death threats to non-Islamic people and burning down embassies, I'm not. Those people are fools, and their actions cannot be justified, but it doesn't mean they don't have reason. Those people I believe should be dealt with by the laws of the countries they reside in and given the exact same treatment anyone else in that position would get. However, I don't like to see whole groups misrepresented by smaller subgroups.
Posted ImagePosted Image
Noticed my avatar and sig changing? Yours can too with the random sig imager!

#80 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 08:11 PM

View Postwaterpanther, on Feb 5 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

Hmm.  Interesting thread.  Seems to me that in some quarters "Muslim" is the new "black"--religious bigotry now socially acceptable where racial bigotry is not--complete with the distinction between "good" Mulsims who conform to Western modes of thought and action and the "uppity hajis" who don't.  

Don't believe it?  Just try substituting Jim Crow caricatures for the cartoons of Mohammed, and imagine the different response.

The two are completly unrelated. We are not saying that all of Islam is bad, they are all wrong, they are all radicals. And even if we were, being Islamic is a choice, is a statement of belief that says alot about an individuals character. It is not something they cannot help, like colour, something which has no reflection on who they are as people.

I may have the wrong end of the stick, but the tone of your post could be interpreted to suggest that you in some way think that the Muslim reaction to a gross generalisation of their faith (in a couple of cases) was appropriate or excusable. Reacting to words and images printed in a free state that is not your own with violence and incitement to mass murder is NEVER ok. It is never justified. These cartoons, however reckles and tasteless, were not attacks on Islam or requests for violence of any kind. They were not trying to stir the masses against Islam. They were not even targetting moderates in any way. They were specificaly targeting radicals who, quite frankly, need someone to show them they are not untouchable.

And these western modes of thought and action are in this case the right ones. These "good" Muslims believe in peace, goodwill, freedoms etc, beliefs that much of the wester world share. These "uppity hajis" believe that life is not as important as ideology. That they can sacrafice the lifes of innocents who are in no way related to their cause in order to get a political message through.

I think, in this case, we have every right to fight against them. It is not bigotry to state that there are radicals who exist, who are killing and who are a serious threat in the world. It is not bigotry to state that Islam as written in the Qur'an is a militant religion. Very little of what has been said has a trace of bigotry.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Islam, Cartoons of Muhammad

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users