Somali axe man attempts to kill 75 yr old Danish cartoonist for Muhammad cartoon

I'll tell you what, if you show me a single place where I "bashed Islam" in this thread, I will convert.

If not, I expect your apology forthwith.

TIA.

 

See, where you're wrong is when you add human emotion to the mix. The cartoonist should have had enough sense to have known that if he was going to draw a cartoon where a Prophet for a certain faith had a bomb attached to their head, that cartoonist may have in fact put more than just his life in jeopardy. At the point where these radicals respond to taunts and people inciting them, this was someone inciting, whether it was meant or not, and the cartoonist may have in fact harmed more than just himself, but maybe even a group of people, from the recent attacks these guys are able and willing.

 

1) No, the % does not need to be equal. It is unlikely that the number would be the same. It is highly likely that there would be less wealthy Jews than wealthy Muslims as a percenteage of their population in the coutnry. Why do you think itshould be indistinguishable? Are there just as many wealthy Jews as there are wealthy Muslims in America for example (as a percentage of their population)? It is not the case anywhere in the world.

2) What makes you think any Iranian or any Muslim can just join the Revolutionary Guard? Jews are not the exception here.

3) The law for apostasy is not the same because Sharia caters to the specific interests of each group of people. For example, Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. The idea is that rights may not all be the same, but the total package for all groups is equal in value. So me and you may have 10 rights each, all different from each other, but we consider the sum of our 10's to be equal.

4) It is not speerate but equal. Everyone has the same rights in addition to rights tailor-made for specific groups. It is not ok for rights NOT to be equal just because it is an Islamic Republic. I don't care to draw a parallel to the "South". Persian Jews can get on a plane and leave Iran and say whatever they like to say just like the million of other Iranians who have done so. They are not slaves of other civilian Muslims in the country. They are in Iran by choice, not by force. The example is completely irrelevant.

 

They did try to get the guy fired, it didn't work (however he did get a few death threats), that's when things got crazy...imagine posting a cartoon of a black guy in the New York Times with the N word across his chest while depicting the typical stereotypes about black people in America, would there be a few death threats? I would imagine so, that would hold true for any race or religion. Especially a group that has a preexisting feeling of being attacked. With that said, the violence that occurred due to the publications reinforced the accusations being made against Muslims.

 

No dude, Ottomaton and DaDakota are NOT in the same category. If anything, I think Ottomaton brings a lot of great discussion to these threads and tries very hard to stick to articles, books, statistics, facts, etc.. He is bashing the application of Islam in certain places which is fine - it's something we should all do if and when appropriate.

DaDakota is the polar opposite. He hates all religions and everything he says stems from, rather than TO, that IMO. He's not very big on the articles, books, statistics, that kind of information.

To be fair, I think you should reconsider your stance.

 

Really? Seriously confirm that you think there is no difference if the 'average Jew' or the 'average Muslim' wanted to join the Guards. Maybe the Guards are more familial now, but my understanding is that it used to be all about ideological purity. Muslims were recruited when they showed sufficient dedication to Khomeini's particular version of Shia Iranian Islamic ideological purity. A Jew would be dismissed out of hand.

Again, if you reverse situations, switch Jew and Muslim and vice versa. If you aren't willing to accept that as a state of equality, then it doesn't suddenly become equality when your "side" is on top.

Everything you said is entirely true for blacks in the South after the Civil War. In fact, the whole country of Liberia was created analogously to Israel for former slaves. Maybe you don't have the background in US history to make it clear. I certainly wouldn't understand if you started pulling old-school Ottomans with the exception of Enver Pasha and one or two others.

But it vexes me that you can't see that in the Islamic Republic, all religions are not equal and that there are avenues of power and influence that are not prohibited for Muslims, but are for Jews. And this isn't a value judgment related to whether those differences are relatively important. Maybe under ideal conditions there is no apparent difference. But in the Islamic Republic, Islam comes first. And I don't think that is bad or wrong if it is going to be the Islamic Republic.

If I flip the situation as stated above, would the Muslims be happy with that? Seriously, step back for a second. Imagine for a second that you are a Jew and think about how that would seem to them.

The restrictions on mosques in Switzerland make Islam less equal. As a Muslim, every day you go to worship, and realize that the people have decided that you can only exercise your freedoms if you don't do it in a public way. I will say that they are unequivocally less equal. And from my perspective, there are more limitations for a Jew in Iran than Muslims in Switzerland.

Maybe, imagine we instituted "Christian Sharia" in the USA, where all the things available to the Muslims in Iran are available to Muslims in the USA, like government jobs, etc. And Muslims are limited by this "Christian Sharia" are you cool with saying the Muslims in the USA would be equal to American Christians in this situation?

(And now that I think about it, I don't know if 'sharia' is even the right word. Is Vali-ye faqih really 'sharia'? I wonder if calling it sharia makes some of the Iranian structures seem more integral to the historical legalism of Islam than it is?)

 

Sorry, just saw this one.

In theory, I follow. But I can't think of any right, or series of rights which I would considered to be equal to the chance to run the structures that govern the state. Controlling your own fate is incomparable to any package of benefits that may be doled out to you by others.

 

1) Can you show me this express prohibition please? Though I wouldn't be surprised, I wasn't aware that it existed.

In any case, the point is that not anyone can join the IRGC. It is a privilege and not a right.

2) I can't see that Persian Jews have some kind of roadblock to being succesful imposed by the Iranian government. I see that there are roadblocks imposed by the average Iranian due to a perception that doing business with Jews is not good. Also, I still don't know other than through observation that Persian Jews are less likely to be wealthy that non-Jewish persians?

3) I'm guessing you meant everything available to Muslims in Iran is available to non-Muslims in America in your example? If I were in a Christian country which imposed Christian Sharia, I'd consider it fair. I'm hesitant to use the word equal because the rights are not identical - but in sum, they are equal.

I don't want you to confuse my comments to think that I think it's swell being a Persian Jew in Iran. In theory, I see things as equal. In practice, it is probably abused. More importantly, I think the abuse is not government policy. It is on an individual basis and your knowledge of Muslim-Jewish relations is deep enough to know that regardless of whether the rights are guaranteed by law, it would not stop discrimination from occurring.

Note: I'm not that familiar with US history, but the analogy between the American South and Jews in Iran, even upto 50 years ago, is far fetched. There is no group of people in hoodies setting Jews on fire. There is no speration in terms of where everyone lives. There are no seperate buses. More importantly, Persian Jews living among non-Jewish Persians is a 1,500 year old story.

If you were arguing on the Bahai side of things rather than the Jewish side of things, I would agree with you. But as I see it, a Persian Jew has everything going for him in Iran, just as much as a Persian Muslim. The erality of the matter is that there is a certain group or category of Persians which receive everything you are talking about, and that group is more deeply deefined than just by religion. Everyone else is in the same hole.

 

Agreed, but the inability to control your own fate is not isolated to jews is all I'm saying. My friend who was born in Iran has no chance of becoming Supreme Leader, and that has nothing to do with his religion, it has to do with bloodline.

 

Don't get me started on what Sharia is lol.

Sharia is not one centralized system of law. Sharia in Iran is different than Sharia in Saudi Arabia.

Vali or Velayat e Faqih is an evolved Shiite concept which allegedly is based on Sharia. It says that the head of state should be a Faqih (Islamic Scholar/Jurist/whatever).

Apparently the roots of this theory goes back to whether Abu Bakr or Ali should have been the first caliph. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Caliphs which the Shiite don't like are not exactly Faqihs.

In this whole Sunni vs Shiite war, lots of theories were created just to make a point, or to distinguish themselves, or to make a mockery, etc... I think this is one of those things. I also don't think that it is a coincidence that it was popularized in the 1970's by Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

So he should have been intimidated by some set of rules that he might not even be aware of? Or care for?

No, he should trust that a free society gives him the ability to parody or make fun of religious icons.

Sorry, you can't live in fear, that is the bully, thug tactics I was talking about.

DD

 

The cartoonist is not scum. Did you see any Christians try to kill the makers of Monty Python when they did that "Always look on the bright side of life" sequence where, if you wanted to see it that way, Jesus was ridiculed?

You do not understand the concept of freedom of speech at all.

Oh, I get it - you are only "deserving" of the right to speak freely as long as it doesn't offend some Muslims.

You are one of the most moderate and intelligent Muslims in this debate, and still you do not understand the concept of freedom of speech at all. That is the disturbing part.

Again, you are equating someone exercising his right to freedom of speech and actually in a HUMOROUS way (whether you agree with that sense of humor or not) with psychotic murderers. That's out of whack.

The cartoonist was completely right, and the actions of Muslim psychos who try to kill him do prove it. He is not the one creating tension - he is the one pointing out how screwed up many Muslims' understanding of tolerance and freedom of speech is. The sad thing is that you, as an intelligent, well-spoken and relatively moderate poster who still doesn't get it are a perfect example of that.

And that is exactly the problem. He did not ruin his life. He was courageous to bring light to the fact that Muslims as a whole are not very tolerant of other beliefs. Yes, only a small percentage of them will go as far as killing, but many, even the moderate ones like you, believe that "the guy deserves it".

Case in point. Another Muslim poster equating painting a cartoon to killing someone.

Good post, I repped you for it, and I agree with you that the vast majority is peaceful, but as mathloom himself pointed out...

 

A wonderful post SJC...simply well spoken and right on the money.

Rep earned....

The concept of free speech is the concept of tolerance for every view, even some that may be adhorent to you.......

DD

 

I agree with Around the World and find the attitude towards freedom of speech by some posters disturbing.

What you are describing though isn't a freedom if it is limited by coercion. Yes there are consequences to speech that may involve violence but that violence is also meant to be stopped by law. The idea of the freedom of speech is to allow someone to express themselves free from coercion. That doesn't mean that they aren't free from consequence but under a society that values speech violence isn't considered a valid response. In fact if a guy punches you for cussing out his mother he is more at fault than you are.

A death threat though is a different category than just offensive speech. While the cartoons where offensive it wasn't a threat of violence towards anyone.

The other problem with reasoning that violence is a justifiable response towards offensive speech is that that can go both way. Many Muslims have made disparaging remarks about Western countries and cultures under your reasoning that would be justification for Westerners to attack Muslims or anyone else who feels sufficiently offended by someone else.

Except you are essentially defending the axeman. You are saying this should be expected and that it is excused by ignorance and poverty and justified on the basis of the offensive nature of cartoons. While I can sympathize with feeling very offended by the cartoons I find it disturbing that you would consider violence a not only legitimate but expected response.

 

<br>
Ok, first off i'm not intolerant at all. As I've pointed out many times in the past, I don't really even believe in that religion. Sure, I was born Muslim. Hip hip hooray! I really could care less. What irks me is is you playing this off as if the cartoonist did nothing wrong. Let me ask you something oh great DD one.... Is purposely creating tension a good thing to do? Is it the right thing to do? Should he be applauded for it? Great, you created more controversy for a subject that was already ripping at the seams because of tension!! Have a cookie on our behalf....



Since you like to defend every action as "freedom of speech" let me throw out a scenario for you. You can in turn tell me how you would react.

A) You have a teenage daughter. You go out in public with her. You overhear a man telling his friend all the sexual things he would do to her. Your daughter is mortified. The man hasn't done anything wrong though. It's not sexual harrassment because he never said it to your daughter. He was just saying what was on his mind, privately to his friend. Freedom of speech, right?

 

Yes, sometimes it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy for the rest of people to see.

Tons of times it takes people to stand up for the rights they believe in, and that isn't always a real friendly experience.

Sure is, and while rude, and contentious it is not worth killing him over....thus the entire point.

DD

 

DD

Why do you continue to post here even after saying you would leave (multiple times I may add)?

You could spend your time more efficiently by writing a better script for your Rockets Talk show. God knows you need it. Oh wait, YOU know you need it.

 

I don't need scripts, I free flow my man.....it is all about the free flow of information.

I would not expect you to understand or to like it....I mean freedom of speech is not your bag, baby...



D

 

You obviously do need scripts, since watching one your Rockets Talk shows is similar to what intelligent people feel when watching the O'Reilly Factor. You are as pathetic as the Danish cartoonist, who uses freedom of speech as a guise to provoke incitement.

Apparently you believe freedom of expression has no responsibilities. To you, it would be acceptable to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

 

Jumping to conclusions after insulting in the first paragraph, and you say I am inciting.

LOL......

The Danish cartoonist was pointing out the intolerance and hypocrisies in a free society, sorry if you don't like it, just turn the other cheek.....

BTW - I am no fan of Bill O'reilly....couldn't you have at least given me a Keith Oberman comparison?

DD