Mohammed cartoons

[passer-by]

It's not understanding, it's "trying diplomacy before act of war". I can't believe it's really the cartoons that caused it, but that they were a means to the end: the riots. I thought that the riots started after the cartoons were republished, to which I found a political agenda and I've been reading a million of world newspapers to try and see who's favoured the most at the moment.
I think the West is no free of criminal behaviour. We have bad seeds among us, which are not muslims, and this should mean something. Ã, I also think that there is something wrong with Islam, or else I would become a muslim myself. But I can also find mistakes in other religions as well, including christianity.
If it is convenient for some to forget that there are muslim women without burkhas, it's also convenient for me to remember that there are places in the west where premarital sex is a mortal sin while shooting the woman for the offense isn't.

[Nacho]

I am not claiming that the West is free of sin, but the spirit of a lot of people during this days is saying is that East is, or at least, has less sins than the ones the West have.

And, sorry, but... no.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Snarky, we do have freedom of speech in these forums, in the sense that we're actually free to post whatever we want. We are free to insult people. However, we will also have to deal with the consequences of what we've said. In some cases, the consequences is it being deleted because we didn't follow a certain rule or other, or because we are among people who think that what we said was highly questionable.

Consequences. Freedom of speech exists, but people need to have the brains and the maturity to figure out and accepct consequences.

In this cartoon issue, do I think cartoonists should stop making political/religious/controversial humour? Not at all. But they should know the possible consequences. And I daresay they do, if they're going to go controversial.

It's not their fault that some people think some silly drawing are worth killing for.

Ok, let's put it like this: Some guy thinks it's funny to make a drawing of a religious leader. Many other people think he's blasphemed, and in course of rioiting against one drawing kill 12 people. Don't tell me it's the artist who should have realized people would kill because of a drawing. Especially not nowadays, when we're all so proud of being so globalized and free and democratic and stuff.

[passer-by]

I am not claiming that the West is free of sin, but the spirit of a lot of people during this days is saying is that East is, or at least, has less sins than the ones the West have.

And, sorry, but... no.

And I'm trying to say that it's not comparison of cultures that matters to me at this point, since I have already compared and chosen the ways of the West, but how we are going to handle the situation. What we are currently doing is adding oil to the flames and giving ammunition to the fanatics. I don't like us reacting the way we blame others for using. My concern is not culture-clash related, but political manipulations from both sides. Culture is used from both sides to ignite flames and I don't like it.
As for freedom of speech, it's my side's actions I'm worried about.

[Nacho]

Sometimes when I am really depressed I think we should REALLY leave them alone. I mean, leaving them with their petrol and with their religion, if that's what they really want...

And take away the planes (was it an invention of the Wright brothers, no?), and the electricity (It was Franklin who started to understand how to use it, no?) and the TVs, and the guns, of course, and the cars, which were invented by a german guy, and the computers, the internet, the printers, the DVDs and the CDs, the atomic energy, and everything smelling to the West.

But then I calm down and I think that they don't deserve to come back to the middle age because just a little portion of them really wants to.

So, Cp, they must choose, as you did. It's not possible, IMO, just to have the good things of the West and remain with the things we don't like, like fundamentalism. Do they want to share? Ok... renounce to something.

[Nikolas]

And take away the planes (was it an invention of the Wright brothers, no?), and the electricity (It was Franklin who started to understand how to use it, no?) and the TVs, and the guns, of course, and the cars, which were invented by a german guy, and the computers, the internet, the printers, the DVDs and the CDs, the atomic energy, and everything smelling to the West.

And after that let's kill 'em and take their petrol as well!

Yeah!

This is what I call being a proud European!

btw, don't forget that Number invention (as we know them today) bellong to the Arabs. Have fun doing all of those things without numbers. 

[Nacho]

Point 1: The "bomb them and take the petrol" is something you added, and it would offend me quite a lot if you were pretending to put that words in my post. I've typed "Leave them with the petrol..."

I don't know if you haven't quoted my uncorrecty by mistake or it's  been intentioned... Hope it's been a missunderstood.

Point 2: (The numbers) It's a vox populi that has spreaded quite well and I knew someone was going to say that. Unfortunatelly for them, the fact that we're using their numbers doesn't imply that we wouldn't have been able to develop the mathematics with another kind of symbols. All the cultures have did it.

[Nikolas]

Please don't get offended. It was a pethetique try towards sarcasm... I knwo you didn't say that. I quoted you to make sure everybody knows you didn't say that...

About the numbers, I aslo know you would say that, but the same goes for the other things you mention. Simply put, I find your post to show and idea of western superiority... and this is something, although westener myself, I don't agree...

We're friends right?

[Nacho]

 

He's chopping!!!

I knew you were going to say that! See! I was right when I said you are too pure! 

I was kidding. But, back on topic, you're essentially wrong about the "numbers stuff". Because whereas the numbers are a "basic" knowleadge, the inventions I talked about come from the industrial and tecnological revolution, and it's assuming too much saying than any culture would finally reach that point. Actually, only one archieved it. We can't stablish that the conditions that made both revolutuions possible could have been possible in other place and in other time.

[passer-by]

btw, don't forget that Number invention (as we know them today) bellong to the Arabs. Have fun doing all of those things without numbers.Ã, 

You don't mean numbers as a whole, I suppose . I guess multiplying XVIII*XIXÃ,  or IK*IH is going to be a pain since I'm used to 1,2,3..., but it can be done.


Oh, and when we talk about the East, do we include China, Japan, India etc etc or only "mainly muslim" ones?

[Nacho]

Not sure! I am studying now the history of Japan, and ASAP as I finish I'll be able to tell if they could have reached the pre-industrial revolution state. But that must wait. I am at the shogunate period atm.

What I can say that IMO Japan is a good example of keeping it's religion and costumes without renounce to the good things that the West have *cough*after the WWII, of course*cough*

As for China and India, well, I was talking of the muslim world, as fas as it concerns about this thread.

[Babar]

Farlander, I actually think it's a good idea that there is no hierarchy. I personally don't believe it is necessary. There were very few Caliphs (leaders of the Islamic People) who did much good.

Tuomas, I realise you don't believe in religion. I do. We do not agree on this point. Ok. But I don't blindly follow anything. I question everything I see. I haven't seen anything to dissuade me yet.

Jet, somehow I knew, that if those cartoons made it to this thread, you'd be the one to do it. Kudos to you  . Very interesting opinions you have there!

Snarky, the points I posted are very clearly written in the Quran. I can't answer for what large groups of muslims do. Somehow, because I claim to be Muslim, I am expected to answer for all other's who claim to be Muslim, otherwise I'm supporting them. Just for the record , I condemn all the violence that these people are doing.
About the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them. In this way, I could say with absolute assurity that the cartoonists knew they were going to incite muslims. There was no positive aspect to what they did. They were not published with a view to informing the world of the evils that occur in Islamic countries. They were published, plain and simple, for the heck of publishing derogatory images of Muhammad. That was clearly intentioned. They didn't publish cartoons of "a person" doing these things.
That is why I mentioned hurt and mental anguish. There is no place in the world where "Freedom" means the right of one person to hurt another. For example, I cannot bodily injure someone because I live in a free country. However, I have the freedom to bodily injure someone so as to incapacitate them so that they would not injure someone else. In the same way, Freedom of Speech does not mean the right of one person to hurt another. Admittedly, if someone is doing something wrong, I should not be prevented from saying it. However, this does not mean that I should purposely insult someone.

[Nacho]

But Babar, there must be some way to avoid any moron to becom Imam and say whatever hw wants. Here in Spain there was the Imam of Fuengirola which wrote in a book "the propper ways of hitting to your wife, with a wet orange tree stick to avoid making scarfs" and no senses like that... That makes the Islam to have a very bad raputation, and that's unfair. And it's dangerous because you seem to keep more attention to what Imams say, whereas we usually don't give a **** about what the Pope says.

Which is the tool Islam has for protecting itself against those "moronics Imams"?

[HillBilly]

About the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them.

I agree with what you're saying here, but we cannot limit the Freedom of Speech in any way. Who's to decide what can or can't be said?

If we for example made it illegal to draw Mohammed, or insult Islam, it would not improve the situation. Sure, it's not a very nice thing to do, but where would it end? Soon other religions would demand the same. Then we'd have to remove all the Jesus jokes from Family Guy. You'd be punished for making fun of Scientology. There's just too many beliefs out there to respect them all. And what of the atheists, like myself? I don't believe in any God, should I be insulted by the one dollar bill("In God we trust")?

The world is getting smaller and smaller. And the best thing any muslim who feels insulted by this could  do, is deal with it. People will piss you off and insult you, in one way or the other. I don't think this has too much to do with freedom of speech, but more with not having to accede to another religion's taboos and beliefs in today's multicultural society. Just because a religion is really big, don't mean we have to agree with it.

I think we're heading for quite the cultural clash, and it should be interesting to see how this evolves during our lifetime.

As a side note, 1500 muslims demonstrated in Oslo today, and not a single rock was thrown! They did, however, write a letter to our goverment to bring back the Blasphemy Paragraph. If that ever happens, I'm moving to Sweden.

[Babar]

Farlander, an Imam is really just a person who leads the prayer. That is their only function. What an Imam says is not any more right than what anyone else says. I could lead a prayer once, and give myself the title of Imam because of that (infact I did! So I will! Henceforth I shall be known as the Imam Babar!) and then write a book about "How best to cook the infidel". It doesn't make my opinion correct. People should use logic about what they hear and read.

Hilly, I didn't say it should be made illegal. Why can't people be nice on their own, without needing laws as an excuse to be nice? The Newspaper had full knowledge about the contents of the Cartoons and the feelings that muslims would have for them.

[HillBilly]

Why can't people be nice on their own, without needing laws as an excuse to be nice?

Because being "nice" is relative, and people have different opinions around different subjects. If someone videotaped a whole day of my life, I'm sure at atleast one point would do something that offended someone. I'm still not going to regret living that day.

[Snarky]

Snarky, the points I posted are very clearly written in the Quran.

I'm sure they are. But why is your interpretation of the Quran more valid than, say, Osama bin Laden's?

You say these people have abandoned the principles of Islam. Osama would probably say the same thing about you. There's really no objective way to decide who's right, or who gets to call themselves a Muslim.

About the freedom of speech thing- well, I see it like this. Like I said, if someone has something to criticise, they can criticise it. If you have a problem with this or that religion/political group/person/whatever, say it. Explain it. I don't however, find it the slightest bit productive to (for example) call them an asshole. I'd hope that common sense would generally prevail. Even if I had the absolute Freedom of Speech to insult someone, why should I do it? Forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that peace with my fellow man is more important than the freedom to insult them. In this way, I could say with absolute assurity that the cartoonists knew they were going to incite muslims. There was no positive aspect to what they did. They were not published with a view to informing the world of the evils that occur in Islamic countries. They were published, plain and simple, for the heck of publishing derogatory images of Muhammad. That was clearly intentioned. They didn't publish cartoons of "a person" doing these things.
That is why I mentioned hurt and mental anguish. There is no place in the world where "Freedom" means the right of one person to hurt another. For example, I cannot bodily injure someone because I live in a free country. However, I have the freedom to bodily injure someone so as to incapacitate them so that they would not injure someone else. In the same way, Freedom of Speech does not mean the right of one person to hurt another. Admittedly, if someone is doing something wrong, I should not be prevented from saying it. However, this does not mean that I should purposely insult someone.

You can have opinions about what others should or should not do. However, it's their choice. The question is whether, if they choose to insult someone (purposely or otherwise), should they be stopped from doing so? Should they face legal consequences? Should they be fair game for violent payback?

[Nacho]

Well, there have been a lot of opinions here... but, we can agree than Babar's interpretation of the Quran is better than Bin Laden's, can't we? 

So... What can be done to spread Babar's interpretations better than the Bin's one? It must be difficult without a religious leader or a "council" or a "Vatican", call it the way you want...

Dunno... I'll have to investigate more, this is weird for Christian standarts. Ginny, can you PM giving info about the "pope" in Judaism, if he exists?

[passer-by]

You can have opinions about what others should or should not do. However, it's their choice.

I think pervs and serial killers are bad. That they should not do what they do, becasue it is not moral and it threatens other people's lives or wellbeing. You say I have to accept their choice for freedom's sake? Or that we should discuss whether they are immoral and threatening?

I don't apply the above to the cartoons , of course.

[Babar]

Snarky, my points 1 to 7 are written clearly, black and white in the Quran. They don't really leave room for interpretation. I could post the relevant verses, but I don't want this to turn into a quote-fest. If you really want them, I can PM them to you. The point about fatwas, like I said, it depends on whether the fatwa is in line with the Quran.
I'd also be very interested to see Osama's interpretation of the Quran. He bases his fight on the assumption that America has overtaken Mecca. That's a far stretch. Farl, it is also Osama's mission to become the Caliph. Like I said, I think Islam is better off without a leader right now.

Like I said, it would be so much better if everyone could be nice for the sake of it, not because of the law. However, the law is not the only limit to "Freedom of Speech". As funny as it sounds, common sense is also a limit. When such a broad sweeping generalised insult is made, there are bound to be borderline cases that DO use "violent payback". It's not legal, it's not correct, it shouldn't be so, but it is.