posted February 11, 2006 09:12 AM              

quote:

---

Being offended by this is not the best response, in my opinion.

---

These people seem to have loads of respect for their prophet ( well duh ), and having him smeared with mud by an “open minded” western country can be seen as an attack on them.

Of course this is just an assumption.

posted February 11, 2006 09:22 PM              

You are absolutely correct in saying that the actions of America (in the relatively recent past) and of Western powers in general over the longer term have been in many respects reprehansible - even when done with good intent (or good intent by some), much has occured in the vein of the ends justifying the means, often with disasterous results.
If you wish to do some digging through old posts, you will see that I am not great fan of such tactics, nor am I of this current Administration.
If we wish to assign blame, there's plenty to be had in this Hemisphere.

But I also, honestly, after a history of making it a habit to review a broad range of news sources and talking to as wide a range of people as I can manage (that's been curtailed a bit by my present circumstances), think that the Islamic diasporia should sieze this opportunity to look within as well as without for the source of its troubles.
An attitude that whatever the US or the West in general does must be in persecution of Islam and Muslims is neither a healthy nor constructive one.
Assigning blame to "the Jews" or Zionism for seemingly every ill that can be named...is not healthy.
There is fault to be found within as well - and many do not seem willing to think that.

My husband has just returned from getting a movie, so I'll finish this later.

Goodnight.

(I was going to respond to the following in particular.)

quote:

---

Anyway the point of this rant is that Arabs are not uneducated villains like the media portrays them. There is a method to the madness, a motivation to the anger. There is a reason and it could be justified if the recipients mind was open.

---

posted February 14, 2006 02:44 AM              

Johnny, at this point I feel the urge only to point one thing out quickly before I return again. What you say about the virgins in heaven mentioned in the Quran may seem gross to you, but your disrespect is definitely offensive. Don't pretend that there aren't equally weird things about multiple wives, menstruation and nonvirginity taboo, homosexuality, bestiality, and what not in the Bible. I am not mudslinging but saying that in those times, a lot went, and also, that sexuality was not restricted but a lot of times used symbolically. Did Noah really live to be 300 years old or whatever else? When Allah spoke to the Jahilia Arabs of the 600s, of course He had to speak to them in a language they would understand (and the Quran mentions this). The houris are widely understood to be symbolic by most Islamic scholars. And anyway that is not the motivation for going to heaven; it is to please Allah. The houris (virgins) are part of the beauty of heaven, just as the flowing rivers and gardens of fruit etc. And nowhere does it say they will be 'sex slaves'. Women are said to be provided with 'ghalman'--young boys to serve them , of COURSE not meant to be sexually. Besides, if you read the oldest text discovered by and perhaps written by mankind, Gilgamesh, temple prostitutes are not even a biggie, in fact they are ordinary. The temple prostitute is the woman who tames Enkidu and brings him to humanity. This is Sumerian literature, the Sumerians from whom Abraham rose, who is the father of all three Abrahamic religions.

You must take all things within context...

be back to talk later.

posted February 14, 2006 10:45 AM              

The limits to free speech
Cartoon wars

Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West

AFP

“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.

Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.

No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred.
Drawing the line

In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”.

Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.

In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.
It's good to talk

It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?

No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

~~~

This quote, in particular, was what I kept dancing around in my own head but never quite got out:

quote:

---

People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam.

---

posted February 14, 2006 06:55 PM              

I only wish my President had the balls to say it.

I vote for the free publication of any and all rude and offensive cartoons and the right to foolishly debate the truth of Holocaust.

posted February 16, 2006 08:53 PM            

Ok then.

quote:

---

Don't pretend that there aren't equally weird things about multiple wives, menstruation and nonvirginity taboo, homosexuality, bestiality, and what not in the Bible. I am not mudslinging but saying that in those times, a lot went, and also, that sexuality was not restricted but a lot of times used symbolically

---

SGA, you could mudsling all you wanted and it wouldn't bother me a bit. I get the impression you think I'm a follower of some Judeo-Christian religion, who'd possibly be irritated by you pointing out the numerous ridiculous things in the Bible. I'm not, so don't worry.

Besides, it's not like a lot doesn't go today, too.

quote:

---

And nowhere does it say they will be 'sex slaves'. Women are said to be provided with 'ghalman'--young boys to serve them , of COURSE not meant to be sexually.

---

I was reading about this, and I believe you are right. This leads me, however, back to something I said earlier.

quote:

---

If I were a Muslim, this simply would not offend me, because I would absolutely not incorporate whatever scriptures talk about this into my belief system. -Johnny

---

If these beliefs about a reward of sex-slaves for martyrs is not part of the Islamic faith, what is the big deal about these cartoons?

posted February 16, 2006 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

God bless the cheese eating surrender monkeys and their way with words!

---

posted February 17, 2006 01:14 AM              

The reason that Muslims in general expect, and perhaps 'demand' , although that is not the proper word, respect for Prophet Mohammad, is that they themselves hold all the religious figures in ENORMOUS sacred status, Jesus and Moses included. In fact Muslims will never even refer to Jesus and Moses as Jesus and Moses, it is so disrespectful...they have to be called Prophet (nabi) Isa or Musa, and then followed by (may god be pleased with them), etc. The Bible and Torah like the Quran must be touched only if a Muslim is clean, he/she must perform ablution before touching holy scripture. The holy books should be placed at the highest shelf in a room so as not to put your feet above it, etc etc etc the list goes on.

Muslims expect respect for Islam because they seriously respect other religions.

Also I have nothing against the Bible. It is very interesting literature to me, but as Holy Scripture, its contradictions are confusing to me. However all religions fascinate me...am taking a 'Dev of Jewish thot' class right now really interesting...this is such a tangent but I love that Jews dont believe in Satan as Devil/tempter like Christians and Muslims do. They hold all evil as a direct result of the mistakes and bad intentions man has, and think of Satan as a challenge to Gods Omnipotence. Interesting.

Anyway Prox at this point I will say one thing but I will be back. I am working two jobs and doin 6 classes (eek!). But right now Ill say one thing, that being this:

In Muslim company I always tell them to shape up. Only we are responsible for our own state. The world has a history of conquest and defeat...at one point Muslims conquered , now they are being defeated, so face the facts...there is something we lost and that is integrity, intelligence and unity and thus we are suffering as a result of our own civil wars, gluttonous monarchs and inability to advance intellectualism beyond what had developed. I tell many that if the Palestinians had not sold their land to the Jews for the creation of Israel, a lot would not have happened.

When Im in non Muslim company I tell people of all the things the Muslims did as way of contribution to the world. If not for Muslim philosophy and preservation of athiestic Greek texts the renaissance may have perhaps not occured...or been very delayed. I mention the Muslim peak period and try to dispel stereotypes about Arab ignorance. I try to basically, give a glimpse of Arab side of the story...and on the Israel/Palestine issue point out that the Balfour declaration was akin to the slicing and dicing of Africa, where the indigenous tribes were not even considered while the European governments divided and conquered them as if they were cattle.

Why do I do that?

Because I feel that I have to play devils advocate just to make one group see the other side and the other group see the first side

Thus I dont disagree with many things you've said. However there are some points where I do disagree.

posted February 17, 2006 12:53 PM              

quote:

---

Sigh. People just get offended too darn easily. Political correctness has to be one of the biggest ailments of Western civilization.

---

i don't know, but i think johnny's being 'offended' was just a little ironic humor?

i thought it was funny....

sorry if i misunderstood.....

posted February 17, 2006 09:50 PM              

quote:

---

Since idolatry is "the worship of a physical object," it is intended to prevent Muslims from worshipping images of mohammed instead of Mohammed himself.

---

Hmmm Im trying to understand that myself. I guess if some Muslims have a visual of the Prophet pbuh, there is a possibility they could go overboard and start worshipping him. Perhaps akin to how some people worship celebrities because they're plastered all over the tabloids, and just about everywhere. Also I want to clarify, Muslims don't and should not worship Prophet Muhammed pbuh. Though he does receive our respect and blessings, and is highly revered because of his example and the fact that revelation was brought down to him via the Holy spirit and angel Gabriel.

quote:

---

This leads me to believe that many Muslims are not so offended by the "graven image" of Mohammed, as Yang hinted at, but instead by the way he and Islam in general are portrayed. Of course, some of these cartoons *were* intended to be offensive, but I also think they made a valid point, which the behavior of some Muslims in Iran and elsewhere has done nothing to refute. Surely, everyone can see the irony of Muslims rioting, burning, and killing over cartoons depicting Muslims as violent?

---

I think there are some 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. And a very small percentage of them are extremists. And unfortunately the media only shows the Muslims that are rioting, burning things down and calling for the death of the cartoonists. For some reason you dont hear the many more voices of reason or much focus on the peaceful rallies or discussions that would give way to dialogue. Why doesn't the media show the more 'moderate' Muslims. They're in every nation. And so is CNN. Where's the freedom of speech here? The media, the HUGE propaganda machine it is, by continuously propagating these negative images are going to make uninformed and uneducated people think Muslims are baffoons and make uneducated Muslims think that they should be rioting and using violence like other dumb Muslims they see on tv.

quote:

---

And what about this cartoon with Allah up in heaven, telling the suicide bombers that they're out of virgins? If I were a Muslim, this simply would not offend me, because I would absolutely not incorporate whatever scriptures talk about this into my belief system. Just what is this belief, anyway? Virgin sex-slaves for martyrdom? Sounds like child abuse to me. Anyone who is offended by a cartoon depicting the absurdity of this needs to seriously re-evaluate themselves, I think.

---

That does sound disrespectful, but there probably are some Muslim men who believe this. The Quran never says this but there is a hadith that does mention 72 virgins.

The Quran only mentions Hur al-ayn which describes the Companions in Heaven and does imply purity. Now I dont think there is a way to completely fathom what is implicated here. It is different from the humanly and earthly idea of purity and even sex humans know of. Well in the Quran, Heaven is described as something no eye has seen, or that has ever occurred to the human heart. Thus this is not a description of physical type things we know of in this world. And I can understand that one way to describe the Companions is to relate them in a sexual context since sexual pleasure is the highest level of pleasure that can be found on this earthly plane, and it’s something humans can relate to.

posted February 19, 2006 05:46 AM            

quote:

---

I think there are some 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. And a very small percentage of them are extremists.

---

If that hadn't knocked the wind out of me, I think I might scream.

posted February 19, 2006 09:41 PM              

Tink Im not sure I completely understand what you're trying to convey. Forgive me if I'm not answering or replying to your intentions...

posted February 19, 2006 10:30 PM              

Love
SG

posted February 19, 2006 10:35 PM              

The truth is just that there is a huge Arab christian and druze minority and they are about as sick of the Western invasions and injustices as the Muslims are, or perhaps even more so. There is a reason that the Arab Christians, Armenians and Greek Orthodox minorities align themselves with the Arab Muslims instead of with the Israelis in Jerusalem or the US forces in Iraq. The only sect of society that is aligning itself with US in Iraq is the shiites because they are so sick of Saddam (a sunni, but moreso just a plain dicKtator who does NOT represent sunnis lol), that they are not realizing the mistake in letting US in again. The US established the Saddam administration in the first place, so what makes the shiites in Iraq think that anyone else the US brings will be any better? The problem is simply lack of awareness and education on their part, which the rest of the Iraqis, and Arabs for that part, can see plain and clear.

posted February 19, 2006 10:46 PM              

Daydreamer - I'm trying to say that Islam is going through an extremist phase. And I don't think it will do Muslims any good to live in a state of denial about it.(I am NOT saying that Islam is inherently extremist. I hope I've made that last part especially clear, because I don't want anyone to get the idea that I believe Mohammed was wicked and Islam is evil. That is an absurd notion. I have complete faith that each Path, followed properly, leads to salvation.) Exactly what the reason is for this phase we could all debate until our typing fingers fall off. Oppressed? Ok. Lots of groups are. Muslims have been the oppressed and have been the oppressors - just like every other group on the planet. I assume you mean by the West? Ok. Although we could make an equally strong argument that they are also oppressed by their own corrupt, totalitarian governments.

quote:

---

When someone comes and invades your land, your home and tells you what to do and how to run your life you will fight against it, you will fight for your freedom.

---

Of course. When an Israeli tank is bulldozing your house, pretty concepts like freedom of speach suddenly lose a certain immediate sense of importance, don't they? You'll get no argument from me on that one. Works both ways though.

posted February 20, 2006 01:05 AM              

And I'm not trying to convince anyone that the only people on this planet that are oppressed are Muslim. That's ridiculous! And I’m not arguing that there aren't also totalitarian and corrupt governments oppressing their own people. I understand it's not so simple to group people and ideologies...as in the West. If any term should be used to represent those who oppress it would be those who are influenced by greed, haughtiness, the hunger for power and dominion and those who disrespect and abuse of God’s creations.

I hope we're not getting into battles of who committed what genocides, started what crusades and caused what holocausts. There have been heinous things done one both sides, and even in the name of God.

History's injustices are done. And individuals will be accountable for them.

posted February 20, 2006 02:33 AM              

Taliban's act shows their ignorance and illiteracy. Are you comparing their act with that of America? They must have known the value of historical monuments!!
Or is it that they dont care any other civilization??