Let's see... 19th century... what did we have...? Oh, that's right! We had the Hague Conventions. And before that? First Geneva Convention. A madrassa is like a Sunday school. It's where children go. Someone who graduates a madrassa cannot be deemed a judicial Islamic scholar by any reasonable person. There are real schools that are far more important that a simple madrassa. Al-Azhar. Medina University. And just because someone graduates from an Islamic school, it does not automatically make them a judiciary. Just as one who graduates from law school is not automatically a lawyer or a judge.
We can keep going back to the 18th or 17th or 9th century if you want to keep intentionally trying to obfuscate. International law on any number of subjects is not contained in any of those documents. The treaties mentioned are laws that essentially deal with the way that nations deal with soldiers of other nations. Nothing else. The remainder of international law during that period was essentially common law. It is law built on precedent and generally accepted first principals, mutually acknowledged by all parties, not written and signed treaties. Another very nice obfuscation to avoid dealing with the point. Choose whatever point you would say someone is minimally qualified to issue a fatwa. We will call that "state x". Does the fatwa issued by an individual who has just achieved "state x" have the same weight, import, and seriousness as a fatwa issued by an individual who is a Grand Mufti?
Islamically, they are the same. Socially, each depends on the issuer. There are also things like, a Sunni fatwa can be completely meaningless to non-Sunnis.
You could have summarized with this. Thanks, and good luck. I too hope things end up the way you want them to end up (no violence).
Retract what? I never said you condemned anyone for "condemning terrrorism". I said you pooh poohed (an old fashioned term for downplaying). Considering that you have continued to downplay the signfigance of those Muslims who have condemned terrorism while continuing to come back to argue about Islam causes violence I would consider that pooh poohing.
Other posters already addressed this but while those figures are leaders among segments of Islam. Islam as a whole has no central hierarchy and the edicts of one leader are likely to have little bearing on the views of other Muslims.
See my response to DonnyMost. It seems like the two of you don't understand the term "pooh poohed" (it isn't the same as "condemn") That is problably my fault as its a rather quaint and old fashioned term. As for playing to the majority of the posters of thed D&D it seems to me like you are trying very hard to endear yourself to two of the most verbose posters, DD and DonnyMost. And I agree on that and if you recall I criticized Mathloom for it. My point all along is to respect free speech but that also means that people have a right to state their offense. Even Muslims. For this thread in particular as I said before I don't support Revolution Muslim and there threats but I think much much more is being made of them than they deserve.
Really...? If this the case, try not to use such ambiguous terms next times. And for what it is worth, I haven't seen much condemnation of the violence in here from our religious posters, and even if that were the case, I'm far more bothered by people excusing it (which has been the norm in this thread) than just not condemning it. Silence is no admission of support for violence, but making excuses for violence is secondary support at minimum. Not that I even did "downplay" anything (go ahead and feel free to define this to get rid of any ambiguity, since it's about as clearly defined as "pooh pooh"), but go ahead and show me if you like, cause I already looked through all the posts, but not that it matters, cause what significance does their supposed "condemning" of violence have? It really doesn't mean anything, nor does it affect anything other than posters opinion towards them as people. Is that supposed to change the fact that these things still happen? Does it make the case for continuing to propagate religious texts which give people violent directives (and promote censorship, etc) any stronger? No. That is the main point of this discussion, so I suggest you stick to that. This is bullcrap judoka, and you know it. I never once downplayed, minimalized, de-emphasized, attempted to discredit, or questioned anyone's condemnation of terrorism. If they condemn terrorism, I am under no obligation to praise them, highlight their condemnation, or otherwise, and not doing so does *not* qualify as "downplaying". Their condemning of terrorism is not even the point of this thread. Condemning terrorism is quite frankly an expected and bare minimum notion which means little, but despite that has been SORELY absent from many, many posters in this thread. If you refuse to retract this statement, then I'll assume that you possess a broken definition of "downplay" that suits your own purposes. I am sorely disappointed in you making such careless, unfounded statements. I think the lesson here is be more careful with your word choice. "Pooh pooh" is far too ambiguous, as is "downplay". Leave no room for interpretation. Be specific.
Then go and find any post where I would have "downplayed"/"pooh poohed" a condemnation of violence by a Muslim poster. Thanks for your apology in advance.
I would point to this post: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5263136 I stated in the post that you were responding to that several Muslims posters had been just as offended by the rhetoric and actions of the extremists. Your response was "Just as is not enough" and then posted a cartoon of Muslims getting outraged over a lot of things while not saying much about terrorism. That is clearly pooh poohing condemnations of violence by Muslims as clearly the intent is to downplay the many condemnations made by Muslims over terrorism. "Thanks for your apology in advance" seriously? This along with arguing that my position is only to curry popularity strikes me as rather childish.
Please show me the concrete condemnations of terrorism by Muslim posters you are referring to, and my reply to those condemnations that would have been "pooh poohing" their condemnation. I stand by my generic statement that being "just as" offended by a death threat is not enough when compared to being offended by a cartoon. I believe that if both offends you equally (or the cartoon offends you more than a death threat), something is wrong with your value system.
Here's a fine example, and it's one you quoted yourself. South Park makes the poster "outraged" and "disgusted" by this "crap". Meanwhile the one who issued a death threat is merely an "idiot". So although they have condemned it in a way, they are apparently not "just as" pissed off by the death threats as the cartoon, the cartoon seems to be the more serious issue!
Damn donny. 100 theoretical reps for your excellent defense of free speech from the attacks of the apologist crowd. Well done.
I apologize for using such a quaint term as it seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding it. That said there have been several post from Muslim posters in this thread condemning the actions and rhetoric of extremist. On the first page of this thread, the 10th post there is one. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5258808 I don't think Muslim posters are being silent or supporting violence. I have already cited the post where you downplay the condemnations made by Muslims in regard to violence and extremist rhetoric and I would say even in this posts where you say "I'm far more bothered by people excusing it (which has been the norm in this thread) than just not condemning it. Silence is no admission of support for violence, but making excuses for violence is secondary support at minimum." is downplaying as again you see it as the norm that people are excusing violence when given the explicit condemnations made I don't see that at all. I'm not aware of posters continuing to propagate religious texts which give people violent directives. If anything the Muslim posters seem to be going out of the way to show how the violence is based on misinterpretations of those religious texts. I also see Muslims explaining why they are offended by it and I don't see a problem with them expressing their offense at what they see is sacriligious. I draw the line at violence but as noted many Muslims are also condemning violent actions and rhetoric.
Or people are the problem since this type of violence happens in every culture. Like I have stated in many other threads I believe that these type of idiots use religion as a excuse to act this way. furthermore it is a minority that does these type of things. Does that excuse it. of course not but you cannot blame every Muslim for the actions of these idiots. Just as you cannot blame every American for the invasion and killing of innocent people in Iraq. I remember when there was an outrage in the Netherlands about the Act Madonna did in a life show. She sang a song on a crucifix. And there were some people who were outraged and protested against the show wanting ti banned (basically they are idiots). In every group there are these type of idiots. And that minority give the rest of their religion a bad name. The same happen with Soccer fans who fight with each other, it has nothing to do with soccer, only with a couple of idiots who want to riot. IMHO religion itself is not bad, and every religion preaches peach and love for your fellow man. However the thing I do not like about religion is that people can claim that god laws is more important than human laws (at least their interpretation of God laws). That is sort of scary. But I think that people who do terrible things in the name of a god, would also do them if it wasn't for a religion. They would find another reason to kill someone (like skin color, or favorite sport team, or country). I wonder is there anybody who doesn't think this is just a ploy of them to get more attention for south park. I do not believe they censored it as a result of the threats, they censored it because that way south park would get more attention.
Isn't expressing offense at someone else's free speech also free speech? I see Donny's defense of free speech as rather one sided.
I cited this earlier and so has stobartjohn http://bbs.clutchfans.net/newreply....reply&p=5258808 This is on the first page of this thread. Reading that post I don't think that Muslim posters are equally offended by the cartoon and death threats. They are as offended as you are that death threats are bing made.
This is also true. The funny thing with free speech is that people who favor free speech usually only favor it when it suits them (Geert Wilders is a perfect example of it). For example: If you are in favor of free speech and you feel people should be able to make fun of Mohammed than you should also allow people to be mad about it and show their outrage, since free speech is important (of course violence is not part of free speech). If you believe in free speech, than why is it illegal to deny the holocaust? I never understood that. There is free speech, but you are not allowed to deny the holocaust. Just strange. Like I said before you should be able to make jokes of mohammed, but I do think it shows lack of class if you do it just to hurt Islamic people. IMHO South park makes great shows, and i do not see any problem in what they do. But if people think they go to far, they should be able to show their disaproval (NOT with violence)
