TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...
Pages (18): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...

In Denmark an illustrated book on Mohammeds life was going to be produced, but it turned out that few people dared to illustrate it due to Islam prohibiting iconification of the prophet. As a follow-up on that news, a danish news paper ("Jyllands-posten") asked some cartoonists to draw Mohammed, and they then proceeded to print 12 cartoons of him, accompanied by an article on freedom of speech.
Following this move, the news paper and some of the cartoonists received numerous death threats, and a few danish prominent muslims publicly criticised the paper (which I think is totally ok, btw.). One politician (left winger originating in Palestine) wanted the members of parliament to publicly denounce the paper, which of course didn't gather much support.
Since then Denmark has been the target of severe hate on the Internet from obscure Islamofascist "groups", which doesn't really surprise me, as it only takes one person to create a website. However, Denmark (i.e. the state of Denmark - not the news paper) has received an official letter of discontent from a number of countries with a mostly muslim population. Apparently, these countries are incapable of understanding the principles of a country where the prime minister cannot suppress the press. What surprises me the most, though, is that Bosnia-Hercegovina is one of the countries which expect our PM to bring forth an official apology from the news paper: These are people who participates in the Eurovision Song Contest for crying out loud! How can they be so much in the dark about how a western democracy works?

Anyway, my main point is this: How can it be that muslims accept that non-muslims violate all sorts of aspects of Islam (e.g. I don't honour the Ramadan), but go totally insane over this violation? Are there, like, degrees of sins? Some of them being so bad that even when performed by non-muslims they are disastrous? I don't fucking get it - but as a staunch agnostic liberal it pisses me off no end.

A couple of news paper clips in English that I've been able to find (main points emphasized by me):

Initial complaints (from Jyllands-posten)

quote:

Cartoons have Muslims threatening newspaper Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten has been forced to hire security guard to protect employees from angry Muslims, after it printed a series of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed Death threats have forced daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten to hire security guards to protect its employees, after printing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. The newspaper has been accused of deliberately provoking and insulting Muslims by publishing the cartoons. The newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed. Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper's call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were published in the newspaper earlier this month. Muslim spokesmen demanded that Jyllands-Posten retracted the cartoons and apologised. 'We have taken a few necessary measures in the situation, as some people seem to have taken offence and are sending threats of different kinds,' the newspaper's editor-in-chief, Carsten Juste, told national broadcaster DR. The same day as the newspaper published the cartoons, it received a threatening telephone call against 'one of the twelve illustrators', as the caller said. Shortly afterwards, police arrested a 17-year-old, who admitted to phoning in the threat. Since then, journalists and editors alike have received threats by email and the telephone. The newspaper told its staff to remain alert, but then decided to hire security guards to protect its Copenhagen office. 'Up until now, we have only had receptionists in the lobby. But we don't feel that they should sit down there by themselves, so we posted a guard there as well,' Juste said. Muslim organisations, like the Islamic Religious Community, have demanded an apology, but Juste rejected the idea. He said the cartoons had been a journalistic project to find out how many cartoonists refrained from drawing the prophet out of fear. 'We live in a democracy,' he said. 'That's why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn't set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn't mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.' Juste's opinion was not shared by �rhus imam Raed Hlayhel, who gave an interview to the internet edition of Arabic satellite news channel al-Jazeera to protest the newspaper's cartoons. Hlayhel told al-Jazeera's reporter that he considered the cartoons derisive of Islam, and described one of the drawings as showing Mohammed wearing a turban-like bomb, and another as brandishing a sabre, with two burka-clad women behind him. Hlayhel said he did not understand how such illustrations could be printed with reference to freedom of expression, when Denmark did not tolerate the slightest sign of anti-Semitism. Al-Jazeera concluded that the drawings seemed bizarre.

Things heat up (from Jyllands-posten)

quote:

Holy war against newspaper Internet collages threatening Denmark and daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten with death and retribution have begun circulating on the internet after the newspaper published caricatures of Muslim prophet Mohammed Bombs exploding over pictures of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and blood flowing over the national flag and a map of Denmark are among the images circulating on the internet after the newspaper printed twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed last month. Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things. Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country. The front page of Jyllands-Posten featured prominently on many of the four collages. The newspaper has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the telephone. The newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark. The Glory Brigades have similarities with another internet group calling itself 'Al-Queda's Chapter in Northern Europe', which has also posted threats against Northern European countries and praised the London bombings in July. Though a single individual, or a small group of people, may turn out to be responsible for the internet threats, terrorism researcher Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen from the Danish Institute of International Studies warned against not taking the propaganda seriously. She said Al-Queda and its sympathisers had taken the internet into their service. 'We know that the internet is used both for propaganda and for actual terrorism instructions. It makes it more difficult for intelligence agencies to identify potential terrorists, because the internet reduces their need for physically passing through country's borders in the recruitment and training process,' she said. Dalgaard-Nielsen pointed out, however, that the text on the website looked homemade. The language was more direct and less florid with Koran quotes than the original Al-Queda organisation preferred in their messages. Fourteen days ago, sources in the Italian intelligence service warned that a Moroccan group with a connection to the al-Queda network had members in Scandinavia. S�ren Hove, terrorism researcher at the Odense University, said the message displayed in the collages was so threatening that it should be investigated by the police. On the other hand, he said, such anonymous threats should be taken with a grain of salt. 'We shouldn't allow this to upset us,' he said. 'Anyone with a minimal knowledge of computers and photoshop can create such internet collages just to raise hell. My guess is that it was someone who lives here, who is angry with Jyllands-Posten, which doesn't mean he has the desire or resources to carry the threats out.'

...and the official madness (Iranian Quran News Agency)

quote:

Muslim Ambassadors Condemn Insult to Islam�s Prophet The ambassadors of Muslim countries to Denmark have protested against 12 newspaper caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed [PBUH] in a letter to Denmark's prime minister, his office said, reported Middle East Times. Images of the prophet are considered blasphemous under Islam. The 12 drawings by two cartoonists, which appeared in Denmark's largest circulation daily Jyllands-Posten on September 30, have drawn criticism from across the Muslim community in Denmark, with religious leaders insisting that they are an insult to the Prophet and calling for an official apology. In a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, diplomats from Arab countries and Pakistan, Iran, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Indonesia said that they were offended by the caricatures and demanded an official apology from the newspaper, the prime minister's office said. They requested a meeting with Rasmussen, who is also in charge of media affairs, to express their concern about what they perceive as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam campaigns in the press and certain far-right political circles. Last week as many as 5,000 Muslims demonstrated in Copenhagen against the paper and the drawings, which depicted Prophet Mohammed [PBUH] in different settings. In one of the drawings he appeared with a turban shaped like a bomb strapped to his head. The editors of Jyllands-Posten meanwhile stood by their cartoons and rejected the diplomats' demand for an apology in the name of freedom of expression. "We live in a democracy where satire and caricature are generally accepted, and religion should not set limits on that," chief editor Carsten Juste said. Islam is the second religion in Denmark after the Evangelical-Lutheran state church, with some 180,000 members or 3 percent of the population.

Interesting!

These are the kind of things that makes Muslims look bad. They should defently speak out against the threats and so on, instead of indirectly defending it.

The thing with Bosnia is that in the 1990s Alija Izetbegovic openly invited radical muslim jerks to help him out in the war and spread around some jihad. They were known during the war for their brutality and disregard of human rights. When the war was over some of them settled around and decided to stay, which pretty much changed the country's mentality. Before 1990 the bosnian muslims were totally normal people. They were drinking, eating pork, not wearing scarfs and all the other things normal people do. Now they're worse than Kosovo.

Re: Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Anyway, my main point is this: How can it be that muslims accept that non-muslims violate all sorts of aspects of Islam (e.g. I don't honour the Ramadan), but go totally insane over this violation? Are there, like, degrees of sins? Some of them being so bad that even when performed by non-muslims they are disastrous? I don't fucking get it - but as a staunch agnostic liberal it pisses me off no end.

Well, if the cartoons we're offensive and disrespectful in nature, I can understand why most Muslims would be pissed off. But that's about as far as I'm willing to let them go, being pissed and/or publicly demonstrating their discontent (non-violently ofcourse).

And to answer your question, it's because many muslims are fucking stupid when it comes to their faith. I don't think I need to emphasize how stagnated mainstream Muslim though/culture has become. One big problem is that many, if not most, Muslims make little to no effort to understand their religion and mostly rely on their parents (who are usually just as ignorant) or "Imams" (not that there aren't some good Imams out there, but for the most part they're not very well educated and generally don't know what they're talking about on several issues). What Muslims all around the world rightnow need to do and realize is that Islam needs to be re-interpreted because we don't like in 600 A.D. Arabia anymore! Now this cultural/intellectual stangnace abviously doesn't have good results; most muslims have been conditioned to believe certain things as being completely unacceptable (mainly certain forms of blasphomy/prophet bashing, I can't think of many other issues that would make them flip out) and bearing due penalties which is stupid. They need to realize that first of all, if they live in the West, they are NOT in Muslim societies and therefore should not expect non-Muslims to respect all of their religious sensitivities (especially if they don't know what they are). Secondly, they have to respect the laws of that country and stay within those legal limits. Thirdly, the implication of freedom of speech is that sometimes they will have to listen to views that they absolutely lothe but still have tolerate it, since in a democracy, freedom of speech is everyones right.

But the good news is, that most first generation Muslims (atleast in the US), ppl brought up and raised here, usually tend to eigther make an honest effort themselves to understand/interpret their faith if being religious is what they choose to do OR the reject it and do what they want to do. (Point being, unlike Muslims from the old world, the younger generations are rebelling against the "do what tradition/your parents and religious 'authorities' (I use the term authority very sarcasticly here) tell you to do and don't think for yourself" mentality.)

One last comment I'd like to add, I guess in order to clearly answer your question, its not that Muslims expect non-Muslims to comply with most aspects of Islam (like in your Ramadan example), but they expect them to not disrespect their religion eigther.

U DO NOT DRAW MOHAMMED

especially in some lame ass cartoon

if u do he better be doing cool things like changing water to funk


fekin Denmicks

If the Danish government funds or sponsors this paper I would see some rational in the critism of the muslims.

If the images are as insensitive as the muslims claim (turbine-bomb etc), then yes I don't think it would hurt the paper to apologize for its insensitivity.

However otherwise (if it is not a government funded/sponsored paper) there is really no issue here, this is simply freedom of speech at work. And the proper response is not to threaten to blow up all the Danish people or the newspaper, but simply to voice your concern in civil, peaceful and democratic manner.



btw, Denmark welcome to the club

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 They were drinking, eating pork, not wearing scarfs and all the other things normal people do. Now they're worse than Kosovo.

So they actually try to follow their faith? Fucking freaks.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus If the Danish government funds or sponsors this paper I would see some rational in the critism of the muslims.

There's no such thing as a government funded news paper in Denmark. Two of the TV-networks and four radio stations are allowed to rake in some sort of tax from anyone possessing a radio or a TV, but news papers are independent of state funding.
As to the nature of the drawings, I think some of them were insensitive to feelings of orthodox muslims (the cartoonists were told to "draw Mohammed as they imagined he looked like", no limits were imposed by the paper), but no more insensitive than the tons and tons of caricatures I've seen of Jesus, God, Moses, or whathaveyou.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The thing with Bosnia is that in the 1990s Alija Izetbegovic openly invited radical muslim jerks to help him out in the war and spread around some jihad.

Uhmm, so that means we should blame it on you Croatians and the Serbs for fighting Bosnia in the first place then
Actually, I just found out that Turkey was among the complaining nations, too. *sigh*


shaolin_Z: Thanks for trying to answer my main question. I have a few comments to your reply.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And to answer your question, it's because many muslims are fucking stupid when it comes to their faith. I don't think I need to emphasize how stagnated mainstream Muslim though/culture has become. One big problem is that many, if not most, Muslims make little to no effort to understand their religion and mostly rely on their parents (who are usually just as ignorant) or "Imams" (not that there aren't some good Imams out there, but for the most part they're not very well educated and generally don't know what they're talking about on several issues).

But we're not only talking about conservative and/or poor people here, but government officials. Surely you can expect these to have a minimum of education and reasoning ability?
Btw. I read some article, where some wise guy was quoted as saying that there was in fact no clear ban on drawings of Mohammed in the Quran. You know if that's true?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z But the good news is, that most first generation Muslims (atleast in the US), ppl brought up and raised here, usually tend to eigther make an honest effort themselves to understand/interpret their faith if being religious is what they choose to do OR the reject it and do what they want to do. (Point being, unlike Muslims from the old world, the younger generations are rebelling against the "do what tradition/your parents and religious 'authorities' (I use the term authority very sarcasticly here) tell you to do and don't think for yourself" mentality.)

I think that you're right here. At least the young muslims I know (although only from Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran, so it's a bad sample) are very much at ease.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z One last comment I'd like to add, I guess in order to clearly answer your question, its not that Muslims expect non-Muslims to comply with most aspects of Islam (like in your Ramadan example), but they expect them to not disrespect their religion eigther.

Hmm. I'm not sure what is meant by "disrespect": It's not the case that the believers of Islam is being discriminated against, or that anyone has said that they should not be allowed to practice their faith to whatever extent they like. True, when publishing the drawings the paper knew that there would be conservative muslims who would feel offended, but is that a disrespect of the religion? Are gays disrespectful of Christianity when they hold hand in public, just because they know that it probably agitates fundamentalist Christians?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic As to the nature of the drawings, I think some of them were insensitive to feelings of orthodox muslims (the cartoonists were told to "draw Mohammed as they imagined he looked like", no limits were imposed by the paper), but no more insensitive than the tons and tons of caricatures I've seen of Jesus, God, Moses, or whathaveyou.

That's all fair and fine, but you have to keep in mind that charicatures of Jesus etc come from the same culture that used to be predominantly Christian whereas the Muhmmamad ones don't. So it even easier for people get defensive/offended.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic shaolin_Z: Thanks for trying to answer my main question. I have a few comments to your reply.

It's all good. That what I'm here for

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic But we're not only talking about conservative and/or poor people here, but government officials. Surely you can expect these to have a minimum of education and reasoning ability?

Well, they're probably acting mostly on public pressure/expectations of them to do/say something. And to be honest, most "muslim" countries have incredibly corrupt Governments/leaders for the most part. They couldn't care less about Islam/Muslims/etc.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Btw. I read some article, where some wise guy was quoted as saying that there was in fact no clear ban on drawings of Mohammed in the Quran. You know if that's true?

I'm pretty sure there you won't find any Quranic reference explicitly forbidding drawing the prophet. The reason (way back in the day) was due to the fact that Arabia had just come out of a very paganistic idol worshiping society and the religious leaders of the time decided that it would be a bad idea to have imagery etc of the prophet as they were afraid people would start worshiping him rather than god (and a fear of Islam, from an Islamic perspective ofcourse, making the same mistake as Chritianity and calling one of God's Prophets' God/Son of God/whatever). That was the orginal reasoning behind prohibiting any imagery of the prophet. They didn't want people to start worshiping a man instead of God. Back then imagery/statues/idols were generally associated with worship.

That being said, there still is no Quranic refernce that I've ever come across that prohibits drawing the prophet. And I'm pretty damn sure that if there was, I would know about it by now.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I think that you're right here. At least the young muslims I know (although only from Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran, so it's a bad sample) are very much at ease.

Yeah, I think the Muslim world is going through a similar phase rightnow like Christian world did. Eventhough there's no church/hierarchical structure in Islam, the 'religious' leaders (extremests/fundamentalists/hypocrites) have significant influence in many spheres of social and political life. This is pretty ironic, especially considering the fact that in Islam there's no church that tells you how to interpret/follow religion or any intermediary between the individual and God. But the younger generation, especially in the West, are rebelling against this system of control and indoctrination, which is good news. If you choose to adopt a faith, it should be because YOU chose it as opposed to social pressure or your parents hammering ideas into your head you're not allowed to question. And if you don't agree with the religion, then you're free to leave it and do what you feel is right/what you want to do. It even basically states this in the Quran.

Al-Baqara verse 256:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion"

That's a literal translation from Arabic but what it means is that you can't impose religion on others/force them to convert etc.

And there's another verse which I can't exatly remember rightnow or it's reference, so I'm going to paraphrase here. As you're probably aware, free will is a very important concept in Islam. Now the verse goes something like:

(God's all like) : "if I wanted everyone to believe, I would have made it so"

...but the point is that he wants you to make a choice.

Moral of the story: The Quran pretty much explicitly forbids imposing religion on others. Belief in religion/God has to be a personal choice, otherwise it doesn't mean anything. (hmm.. I fear I've gotton a little off topic here and now forgot why I brought this up )

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Hmm. I'm not sure what is meant by "disrespect": It's not the case that the believers of Islam is being discriminated against, or that anyone has said that they should not be allowed to practice their faith to whatever extent they like. True, when publishing the drawings the paper knew that there would be conservative muslims who would feel offended, but is that a disrespect of the religion? Are gays disrespectful of Christianity when they hold hand in public, just because they know that it probably agitates fundamentalist Christians?

Well, I think I read someone on this very page say something about one of the cartoons displaying Muhammad with a bomb strapped to his head or something of that nature. If that's the case, it pretty easy to understand why they would be offened for multiple reason:

1) It re-inforces that negative stereo-type of Arabs and Muslims as people obsessed with blowing shit up (themselves in the process too).

2) There's a common perception amongst many people that Islam is inherently violent/hostile towards non-muslims and encourages such behaviour.

3) Now, from 1 and 2 it follows that Muhammad was a dude of such nature. So it doesn't only become an attack on Arabs or Muslims, but also the Prothet and the religion.

Plus, nowadays with all the terrosim/fear of terrosism, Islamophobia in the air, authorities breaching the privacy of Muslims/detention + torture without cause or charge, all this gives bad vibes to Muslims and non-Muslims (and vice-versa). So naturaly most Muslims are on the defensive and constantly feel like their life is potentially in danger (not necessarily because of an angry mob, but more like a CIA/FBI/MI-6 agent or some law enforcement figure/goverment agent). And I wouldn't be too surprised if you or many other weren't aware of this, as the media pays little to no attention to this (I mostly learned about alot of this stuff from human rights groups). Plus, many non-Muslims fear Muslims as a potential threat/ticking time bombs, and it's hard to blame them if that what the TV and newspapers are feeding them. So there's alot of needless tension based on lack of information/understanding and way too much dis-information/misunderstanding.

I guess that's the situation in a nutshell.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So they actually try to follow their faith? Fucking freaks.

Well, how many christians you know that don't eat pork? It is in the old testament. Guess none of them are following their faith.

There's basically a difference between being a fundie and being a normally religious person, and it's primarily shown in how much merit you give to unimportant parts of the religion.

In America, this would be a major scandal and the newspaper would apologize instantly. Religious and cultural sensitivities are very important here and everyone is pretty much 'in the same boat'.

But in Denmark, these Muslim immigrants aren't entitled to an uproar because they're not Danish citizens. Even if/when they do become technically naturalized, they still won't have exactly the same rights and privileges as Danes and will always be considered outsiders.

Denmark is not a 'country of immigrants' like the US, it has an established society and history like all of Europe. Muslims should understand that if they want to enjoy the benefits of a Western-European lifestyle and economy, they shouldn't suddenly think that this is America and they can claim the same rights as everyone else. Europe is different!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, how many christians you know that don't eat pork? It is in the old testament. Guess none of them are following their faith.

I'd rather not comment on that.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 There's basically a difference between being a fundie and being a normally religious person, and it's primarily shown in how much merit you give to unimportant parts of the religion.

It not like you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts you don't, unless you think you're better informed than God. And if you don't think it's from a divine source (and unadultrated, atleast some particular aspect uo're concerned with), why would you follow religion X in the first place?

So in your eyes, anyone who "lives by the book" is a fundie? Well, please define fundamentalist for me then so I know exactly what you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'd rather not comment on that. It not like you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts you don't, unless you think you're better informed than God. And if you don't think it's from a divine source (and unadultrated, atleast some particular aspect uo're concerned with), why would you follow religion X in the first place? So in your eyes, anyone who "lives by the book" is a fundie? Well, please define fundamentalist for me then so I know exactly what you're talking about.

Ok, let's take the story of Genesis for example. By your definiton, a person who does not accept that the story of Genesis is a legitimate historical fact written by god himself is a disbeliever. Wow, gee, Ratzinger should get himself a new job then!

Or let's see, a quick quote from the Kuran (which didn't take a long time to search since it's already in the 2nd chapter)

quote:

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. 2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:8 And of mankind are some who say: We believe in Allah and the Last Day, when they believe not. 2:9 They think to beguile Allah and those who believe, and they beguile none save themselves; but they perceive not. 2:10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.

Yup, don't bother to turn disbelievers into believers because Allah wants them to disbelieve and end up in painful doom.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, let's take the story of Genesis for example. By your definiton, a person who does not accept that the story of Genesis is a legitimate historical fact written by god himself is a disbeliever. Wow, gee, Ratzinger should get himself a new job then! Or let's see, a quick quote from the Kuran (which didn't take a long time to search since it's already in the 2nd chapter) Yup, don't bother to turn disbelievers into believers because Allah wants them to disbelieve and end up in painful doom.

That's not really a good argument as religious texts are subject to interpretation and can't always be interpreted literally, like you would a scientific journal for example. Plus, you have to read eveything in context. Various surahs (chapters) of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad in different circumstances and in order to understand what they mean, you have to keep in mind their context aswell. The standard ordering of the Surah's is not even the order in which each surah was revealed.

And you didn't answer my question (I was being serious), define a fundamentalist for me. And then a "normal religious person" too. And then a fanatic or extremest. I honestly want on know how you define these terms.

EDIT: I'm not trying to get a rise out of you or anything Drug_Tito, I just want to understand your positon and why you made the comment you did earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's not really a good argument as religious texts are subject to interpretation and can't always be interpreted literally, like you would a scientific journal for example. Plus, you have to read eveything in context. Various surahs (chapters) of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad in different circumstances and in order to understand what they mean, you have to keep in mind their context aswell. The standard ordering of the Surah's is not even the order in which each surah was revealed. [quote]And you didn't answer my question (I was being serious), define a fundamentalist for me. And then a "normal religious person" too. And then a fanatic or extremest. I honestly want on know how you define these terms.

Well, basically I guess you could say that a fundamentalist person is the one who clinges to the teachings written down in whatever book that person considers holy without considering the possibility that some of those teachings may be either archaic, incorrect, or simply outdated and no longer relevant. Admittedly, I have not studied Kuran and I can't really say much about it, but a similar parallel may be found in Levictus which is basically full of nonsense and savagery. A fanatic or extremist would then be a person who tries to force his fundamentalist views upon others.

The eating of the pork I mentioned earlier is an example of such a rediculous teaching. That command was inserted because pigs share many diseases with human beings, and are therefore prone to spread them around if they live in filthy conditions. Additionally at a time it was believed they could transmit leprosy. Nowadays sanitary conditions are pretty high and we know that pigs can't transmit leprosy, so therefore the commandment is both incorrect and obsolete. Therefore anyone who still clinges on to that command is not a rational person.

So now finally 3 months or so after Denmark, a Swedish newspaper published some of the pictures, and the debate is in its full swing here too

And I must say it pisses me off more and more for each day... Those who don't believe in free speech defently don't belong in our free societies...

shaolin_Z: I don't think I've ever seen you type so much. Ever.

that's not a bad thing...

Lets put this shit in perspective:

I dont know who Mohammad is specificly but lets say he is the Jesus to the Christians k...

If any Christian had seen an episode of Family Guy or anything that pokes fun of Jesus do you see them go crazy as some of these radical muslims do ex: dutch radio/movie/artist

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew So now finally 3 months or so after Denmark, a Swedish newspaper published some of the pictures, and the debate is in its full swing here too

A paper in Norway has done the same. In Denmark things have moved onto a hillarious level now: A local muslim group has travelled the middle east to drum up antipathy for Denmark in general, using lies and red herrings. Consequently, the leader of our far-right party, always looking for more racist voters, went out and labelled them traitors, and was then reported to the police by the head of muslim organization. Meanwhile, the UN has scolded Denmark, blatantly ignoring the fact that it thereby also criticises free speech - something it hold in high regard elsewhere - and Jyllandsposten has started printing Muhammed pictures whenever it feels like it. Furthermore, it has printed a (long) letter from a very devout Muslim in Cairo (who apparently has nothing better to do with his time than writing insane letters of threat to foreign newspapers), which is of course a deliberate attempt by Jyllandsposten to fan the fires, and thereby creating more debate around the issue of free speech in a climate of political correctness and free speech.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew And I must say it pisses me off more and more for each day... Those who don't believe in free speech defently don't belong in our free societies...

It's been quite funny to see how the humanistic radicals, who throughout the 30's to 80's where the driving force for a more free society, have had difficulties in reacting to the debate. At one hand they are far-wing leftists and traditionally oppose the right-of-center Jyllandsposten, but at the other hand they have always praised the provocation as a basic mover of boundaries within society. Right now they seem to have settled for something along the lines of "Jyllandsposten has the right to do whatever it wants, but it shouldn't have done what it did", which to me makes no sense unless they post-fix it with a disclaimer: "according to my personal moral beliefs".

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 Lets put this shit in perspective: I dont know who Mohammad is specificly but lets say he is the Jesus to the Christians k... If any Christian had seen an episode of Family Guy or anything that pokes fun of Jesus do you see them go crazy as some of these radical muslims do ex: dutch radio/movie/artist

A retired priest in Denmark made the same point. He pointed out that he had noticed pictures of Jesus with a boner, and that some of the late 60's art movies, had been highly blasphemous of the church, yet no-one had issued death threats back then. Furthermore, I saw some muslim youths on TV who said that the offense was so great that it transpired to them making fun of our royal family. To this the reply was "please do - we've been laughing at them for years".

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic A retired priest in Denmark made the same point. He pointed out that he had noticed pictures of Jesus with a boner, and that some of the late 60's art movies, had been highly blasphemous of the church, yet no-one had issued death threats back then. Furthermore, I saw some muslim youths on TV who said that the offense was so great that it transpired to them making fun of our royal family. To this the reply was "please do - we've been laughing at them for years".

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r shaolin_Z: I don't think I've ever seen you type so much. Ever. that's not a bad thing...

Haha. You're right, I just went back and took a look at my responses. I pulled a Mister_Opus in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic A retired priest in Denmark made the same point. He pointed out that he had noticed pictures of Jesus with a boner, and that some of the late 60's art movies, had been highly blasphemous of the church, yet no-one had issued death threats back then. Furthermore, I saw some muslim youths on TV who said that the offense was so great that it transpired to them making fun of our royal family. To this the reply was "please do - we've been laughing at them for years".

thats what Im saying here...most if not 99% of the Muslim religion is very outdated and old and hasnt progressed with modern times. That is the only problem I have with the religion. Nowadays in Europe(yes in europe which is becoming very overpopulated with Muslims) you cant say anything about their religion anything and in some places like in english schools where they insist on wearing their head dresses for girls they dont conform to their rules

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's not really a good argument as religious texts are subject to interpretation and can't always be interpreted literally, like you would a scientific journal for example. Plus, you have to read eveything in context. Various surahs (chapters) of the Quran were revealed to Muhammad in different circumstances and in order to understand what they mean, you have to keep in mind their context aswell. The standard ordering of the Surah's is not even the order in which each surah was revealed.

who can honestly say he knows the context to these ancient writings? (all of them, not just the quran)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T who can honestly say he knows the context to these ancient writings? (all of them, not just the quran)

That a good question. I can't answer that one for all the ancient writing but I can for the Quran. The Quran was transcribed while Prophet Muhammad was still alive. Muslims have been recording history since the beggining of Islam. Each Surah was revealed in some type of circumstance or the other. So the context of the Surah's remains preserved.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.