Apparently, you have the same problem. Or is understanding only a one way street? Yes, I have all of the listed except God. Additionally I've seen Muslim depictions of Mohammad.
I can see that but also you have to call attention to it, to make it better. If someone is not pointing out the lunacy of the stance, or how the Islamists are using bullying tactics, they will get away with it. I have no issue with someone pointing out the hypocrisy about the cartoon drawings of Mohammed. DD
Yep, that's all this is. It's an interesting exercise in brining out the intolerance of a small part of the Muslim community. That they would threaten someone's life for cartoons in this day and age is mind boggling.
The lunacy of violent reaction against drawing a cartoon is automatically pointed out by the sheer fact that it is a violent reaction against a cartoon. Possibly offending millions because of the actions of hundreds is a stupid way to draw attention the lunacy of the reaction. Instead it draws attention a different kind of lunacy. That of those willing to offend for the sake of offending and hiding behind the idea that it's suposedly about free speech.
If you want people to get used to something, you have to desensitize them. The only way to do that is repeated exposure. Hiding in a conference room somewhere and talking about it doesn't have that effect. It used to offend Christians to deny the divinity of Jesus. Repeated exposure to the idea that not everybody agrees with them is the only thing that fixed that little bit of intolerance. Following your rules, we'd still be living in a society catering to Christians and blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.
I think you're confusing rights with simply decency. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to not talk about something just because it upsets someone (freedom of speech), I'm saying you should have to decency not to. To me, it's as simple as thinking: does what I did just inadvertently piss someone off? Yes? Okay, I'll stop. Unless you're trying to piss them off. Then you're just being a dick.
Not at all. I think you are confusing the two. If people in the 18th and 19th Century had said, "Well, we could piss them off, but its better if we don't." they would have stood quietly in their corner being polite as more and more rights were taken away and finally the right that they were too polite to use was eliminated. The actual act of pissing off the Christians with secularism is what made them realize that not everybody shares their absolutist worldview and that, while they could believe whatever it is they want to among themselves, they couldn't impose that worldview on everybody else. As a result, the only people who still think it should be a crime to take the lord's name in vain are fringe crazies like Pat Robertson. Without someone actually getting in the face of the people seeking to impose biblical laws and punishment on the USA and pissing them off, the country would be run by people like Pat Robertson, and Islam would probably be illegal.
Okay, so making offensive cartoons to Muslims will save us from being eliminated. OK. There are times when you need to do something that'll piss some folks off. This is not one of those times.
Sometimes it's a means to an end. Don't take it as such an absolute thing. We had to piss off the Brits in order to gain independence. It's sometimes necessary. With this cartoon crap? Completely unnecessary and just a way for people to vent how much they don't respect a particular religion. Unless, of course, you really feel Muslims are intruding into your life and that this is a necessary thing to do...
No I don't. I see your point of view. I just don't agree with it. You on the other hand have bluntly stated that you're incapable of seeing the other side. Apparently, either you see it or it doesn't exist right? Playing on technicalities again. Point being, Muslims hold the same contempt for all those depictions as they do for the Prophet PBUH. It's not a one-off glorifying of Muhammad. It is exactly the opposite actually - the whole ban on depiction concept is because previous branches of Islam had turned depictions into idols, and infused them with racism, etc. In the weaker Hadiths, Muhammad PBUH is sometimes described as having abright complexion and rosy cheeks - the process of making him white and "pretty" was unfolded just 50-100 years after his passing. This is what the 'rule' aims to protect. It does not apply to all, it just applies to people who may suddenly become objects of idol-worship. Also key, and I'm glad you stated it, is that in the past, depictions were not attacked this way. Reason being, the Muslims were more sane and the depictions had a more noble rationale. If you still can't see why it's important to Muslims, then it's difficult to think you ever will. As far as you're concerned, the violent people have to be prosecuted as per the law. The end. Their religion is non of my or your business. When they break the law, punish them. Plain and simple. You're not going to convince a guy who doesn't care about DYING that he shouldn't commit violence. The way to reach him is his inlet for information which is mediated by an Islamic scholar. So go out and get the Islamic scholar. You will find there are virtually no people on earth who ignore scholars, follow the Quran and are violent. The part of the equation that is causing the problems is the scholars. Plain, simple.
So because some may use depict Mohammed in a racist way, that makes all depictions offensive? I don't get that, though if Muslims want to police themselves on this issue that's their business. But I don't think they should be dictating to others how to depict him. Its not like Mohammed is a fictional character from a Muslim story, and as such the very idea of Mohammed "belongs" to Muslims. He was an historical figure, and his legacy is felt by Muslims and non-Muslims.
I disagree, you are bringing the attention to those that are complacent in their views of it, and by proxy are ok with it. The only way this stops is Islam polices itself, which it has honestly been doing a really poor job of in this century. This is part of the problem Muslims should have the same level of contempt for their brethren that are preaching violence because of the depiction. It is ok to be offended, it is not ok to preach violence, or to be complacent about it because you also happen to be somewhat offended. DD
I perfectly understand the concept of veneration. I just don't believe that you have the right to force it on me. I'm not sure where you think I said it doesn't exist. Maybe you could quote that to me?
No, it's because the negative effects for society which come from liberal depictions of the Prophet will outweigh the positive effects. I have repeated this several times - Muslims are not a race or country, and therefore there will not be any policing or group-wide initiatives. There is no board of directors for this entire group. There is no CEO. There is no nothing. 1 billion Muslims might as well each be practicing a different religion because that's how it's meant to be treated Islamically. The only unifying factor between all of them in one-ness of God and beliefs in messengerS/prophetS and an attempt at being a better person. There is no group strategy. Muslims are not ALLOWED to dictate how others depict them. They are free to express their opinions. Their actions must be lawful. They can't try to kill anyone except in SELF-defense, Jihad or bringing to justice a rapist/murderer/etc (assuming no regret). Muhammad PBUH belongs to no one. It is debatable whether the ban on depiction is even valid. But this is not the point. No one is disagreeing here. The only point with any confusion is whether it is stupid to put yourself in danger for what is supposedly freedom of speech. If the goal is protecting free speech, this is not the way. If you want to teach free speech, this is not the way. This is essentially a media-war and people react to wars with self-defense. It will not protect free speech. It will not reduce terror. It will not make people more free. It will not do anything positive. Nothing will change on 21 May 2010. Some people will be threatened with death, there will be outrage, there will be polarization leading to more distance. The very same kind of distance that led to the misunderstanding of free speech in the first place. This distance thing is what has to go. It is what causes the problem. But there are some people, even in this thread *ahem*, who attempt to position this as solving the problem when it in fact feeds their need to distance themselves from people they inherently dislike. Let's say for a second that you were an Islamophobe. Wouldn't this thing make you feel awesome? Think about it.
A good book on the history of religion and the law in the USA would be a good start. The total uproar and public outcry at the outcome of the Scopes Monkey Trial and related Butler Act which made it illegal to teach anything but the Christian creation story would be a good indicator of how the religious people used to believe that they could bludgeon people over the head with the bible. Given the never-ending stream of Supreme Court cases from the very beginning dealing with the separation of church and state right up to the last few years where Christians were going to court because they found it offensive to have to have to remove the ten commandments from courthouses, I wonder why it is really necessary. But I guess you aren't in the USA so you may not be familiar with the history. A quick Google indicates that this book comes fairly well recommended, and the author is a historian of repute, though I can't say that I've read it myself. You might also consider reading one of the right's distortions on the same subject to see how they believe things should be.
And who said they have the right to FORCE it on you? Everyone agrees that the people who attacked should be in jail. There is no one disagreeing with this. Absolutely no one. I'm pretty sure that even the attacker would tell you he deserves to be in jail. You are repeating this thing over and over and no one disagrees. Well, you say you don't see it, and then you carry on under the assumption that there is no other side.
You are the one telling everyone how upset you and every other Muslim in the world are going to be if I don't properly venerate your prophet. It seems to me pretty much an understood. If that's changed, let me know. I understand your side. I find it dangerous.
How? What negative effects will society suffer because someone makes a cartoon drawing of Mohammed? This sounds like a huge overeaction to me. EXACTLY ! DD
