Not exactly. There is the concept of Instant Karma that justifies self-defense and Karma in general implies that if you do something expect something bad to happen back to you. In many sects of Buddhism compassion plays a key role and violence even retaliatory violence is discouraged out of compassion but at the same time there is a reason why the monks of Shao Lin Temple, where Ch'an / Zen Buddhism developed, studied martial arts.
The only religion I can truly think of that might teach some sort of pacifism is probably some variety of Taoism.
If it makes you feel better, mathloom was reamed in the danish cartoonist thread, and justifiably so. His opinions on the matter, as restated here, represent a fundamental disconnect between what he "preaches" about islam and what he "practices". I would agree with you that mathloom, as a "moderate" muslim generally scares the **** out of me with his conflicting and subjective ideologies.
what is it with this picture? i have had 2 classes show this picture before, weird. i am a mes minor so i take a lot of classes on the Qur'an
I agree with criticizing him about his view on the cartoon incident but honestly whats to be scared of? His position was simple. He might have "hated" the cartoonist for what he did but he certainly didnt support violence against him. And knowing how important imagery of Mohammed is to Muslims, I can see how that view comes about even if I dont agree with it personally. I dont see how you can expect Moderate Islam to equate to some Eurocentric secularism that all of us identify with. If you're honestly expecting that, then we have no hope of ever coming to some sort of reconciliation with moderate forms of Islam and it will only allow more radical varieties to continue what they're doing.
Yes he did. What troubles me (scared may be too strong) is how mathloom echoes support for free speech in one sentence and in the next supports retaliation against those who make use of it, as evidenced in the above quote and this one below too:
Ok dude. Duly noted. People were mean to you. We get it. Put on your big-girl panties now and walk that **** off. :grin:
Have to sort out your labels. I'm not a moderate, don't want to be a moderate. Not an extremist, don't want to be an extremist. I'm a fundamentalist, not the definition of fundamentalists that you hear on the news. Far from an extremist. Far from being a moderate. Fundamentalist = sticks to core Quraanic beliefs, is not interested in length of beard, does not consider anything or everything a chance for 72 virgins, do not want any violence, love democracy, etc etc.. In the mainstream world, there is unfortunately no word for people who believe as I do even though there are lots of people with similar beliefs... Because, well, we don't make fireworks like extremists and we don't conform to norms just because they are norms like moderates do I guess. I don't know. Just because I don't agree with no-ramifications freedom of speech doesn't mean I don't see all the benefits in it that you see. It doesn't mean I want to curtail the freedom to do it, it just means I want to ensure that there are fair checks and balances in place to ensure that freedom of speech is not used to create problems in a country, society or community. I don't have a problem with free speech as a whole. I don't have a problem with criticism of Islam or depiction of the Prophet by whoever wants to do it. I have a problem specifically with the character, personality and intentions of the Danish cartoonist. I believe his actions intentionally elicited a reaction which hurt a lot of people who were not involved in the action or reaction. I can't respect it, sorry for being different.
I want to make it very clear that I appreciate this post and that I harbor no crazy animosity towards you. I appreciate civil discussion - especially given your point of view and patience. A couple of points: These checks and balances already exist. Unfortunately (for you) they do not prohibit making fun of religion regardless of the callous nature any such attack entails. However, there definitely are allowances for ramifications. No one is protected from counter-statements or public villification. What is protected is your right to say it without fear of physical retribution. If you want to enact "ramifications" on the cartoonist, you are free to do so: write a speech, a letter to the editor, organize a boycott etc. There are a myriad of peaceful, civilized ways to express your anger. I believe another facet of his actions was to demonstrate that muslims have a tendency to shirk the responsible methods I outlined above in favor of unlawful physical retribution or support thereof. He certainly succeeded in that vein. Unfortunately, your responses here on this BBS proved him right.
I don't ask that they prohibit making fun of religion. I just ask that if you intentionally provoke anyone or anything, there are some ramifications to that. As I said earlier, on a smaller scale, it's like me waving my hands all over your face and singing "I'm not touching you." In order for me NOT to get irritated, I must feel that the action is unacceptable. If the guy can do it, and I don't touch him, and I expect that nothing will happen to fix this, it will create anger on my part. Regardless of what the law says, it will create anger on my part. If he then goes to another person and I see him doing the same thing, when that guy smacks him in the face, I will laugh. You take anyone's posession which they're most passionate about, you piss on it with no good reason, you will have this reaction. Again, I'm not saying no one is allowed to make fun of religion. This must be absolutely clear. I was fine with the South Park thing, or have you conveniently forgotten that? I have a personal problem with the cartoonist. His action is contrary to most of what I believe in - bringing people closer together. If there's a law for/against that is not the issue. To me, this person embodies what I view as the cancer in a society or community, and I place a very high value on community. You won't see me attacking him. You won't see me condoning attacks against him. However, if he is paranoid and scared while walking down a street (no indication of danger at all), that's what he deserves. There are two parties to blame here: the cartoonist and the extremists. The extremists plead insanity. That leaves the cartoonist. It doesn't seem we'll get to a very common ground. I want you to know though that I appreciate you discussing this with me, and I understand your side of the argument. It's a difference in values between us, not better or worse I guess, just different. I don't see my perspective or anyone who holds my perspective engaging in any violence or encouraging any violence or, in fact, doing anything other than trying to bring all different types of people closer together. I see something I don't like, I flip the channel. I read something I don't like, I disagree. I hear something I don't like, I turn it off. In reality, there are very few things I can't tolerate long enough to hear all the way through before turning it off. I make it a point to experience things I don't like. If you see some craziness or dnger in that, then to each their own. Obviously, I see danger in a person like the Danish cartoonist to society. If you can imagine the life of the moderate Muslims in Denmark after 9/11, and then this guy comes along and isolates and polarizes them even more (Wait for it) IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.... You feel a real injustice has been done to them, just so Mr Cartoonist can conlude his "if I poke an extremist will they act like an extremist" experiment, conluding with "HA! I told you so!!". Big whoop. It didn't show anything that everyone in the world didn't know. Extremists are extremists. No one should suffer for Mr Cartoonist to make his captain obvious observation. I watched a documentary about Scandinavian Muslims, showing their life changing from before 9/11 to after the cartoons. Maybe if you watch it, you will be able to see what I'm saying better. I'll try to find it if you're interested.
That's exactly what I am talking about in the other thread (using the "I'm offended" card to force your standards upon others). Your basic misunderstanding is that if it offends YOU, there must be ramifications. But if that is the case, then the sensitivities of a particular group define the standards for everyone. And at that point, there is no freedom of speech, but only a freedom of speech as defined by the sensitivities of particular groups, which amounts to no freedom of speech. That's why this cannot work in a free country. No it is not, and even then, you are not allowed to hit me. Too easy of an excuse. You are happy with the fact that the extremists threaten the cartoonist, but you let them get away with pleading insanity. The danger are the people who were ALLOWED AS GUESTS AND IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNTRY AND WHO SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR THAT AND ACCEPT THE RULES OF THOSE WHO EXTENDED THEIR HOSPITALITY TO THEM and who instead try to force THEIR rules which do not include an understanding of the concept of freedom of speech upon the hosts, and start threatening one of them. They were all allowed into the country and have been enjoying the benefits of living in a country with a high standard of living and with many freedoms. They should appreciate that instead of constantly "being outraged" when things don't go their way.
- You again miss the point. I don't care about the cartoon. I don't care that they set up a Quran-burning rally. I don't care about any of those things. If 1 billion people are irritated or angered by the action, something is wrong. I certainly don't blame a mentally ill person for their actions - this is not uncommon in a free society. They need help. - They are not guests. They are as Danish as any other Danish person. They are as American as Obama and as German as Aygul Ozkan. - They don't owe anything more to their countries than any other member of those countries. - No one said there is a right to hit you. Just saying there should be a control for you not to wave your hands in front of my face for the sole purpose of provoking me.
Of course the question arises of how easily provoked a person is ... I'd say there's a substantial difference between a cartoon drawn by someone one has never met, and someone getting in your face and waving their hands around. It seems to me that Muslims are very, very easily provoked.
Fixed that for you. Fortunately, it is not true that 1 billion were actually offended, there are a lot more reasonable Muslims out there. 40 % of the Muslims in Denmark are asylum seekers which means they are no Danish citizens yet, and I assume there is another large percentage that has been granted asylum or the right to stay, but doesn't have citizenship yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Denmark Digest that - they are people who are asking to be allowed into the country and to live off of Danish taxpayers money at least in the beginning and at the same time some of them are trying to dictate to them what is to be considered offensive or not. And since you mention Aygul Ozkan: For me, this goes to show how open-minded Germany is nowadays: A Muslim woman decides to become a member of a Christian political party and is made a minister of a state. I welcome this. I could not imagine the reverse happening in Saudi-Arabia, could you? To me, she is a very positive example of integration from both sides. Hmm. This is a viewpoint one can take, but let me just tell you how I would see it if it was me. Let's assume I were accepted into the USA or another country, first on a visa with a green card, and perhaps later as a citizen. I think I would be grateful and would be especially careful to respect the customs of the country that was kind enough to let me in - rather than trying to tell them what they can do or not do. Let's say it was Spain - if it's a centuries-old tradition that they have bullfights and I am an animal-rights activist who has just immigrated to Spain, I personally would probably not try and tell them they cannot have bullfights. It's like being invited to someone else's home when you don't drink alcohol yourself, and then telling them they are not allowed to drink alcohol because it offends you (that exact same thing happened here in Germany with Iranian officials at an embassy reception, by the way).
