Originally posted by Sondjata
<I>It is not about blasphemy. No Muslim who ever lived would say it is.
Blasphemy applies only to Allah. To claim blasphemy in relation to Muhammad would be blasphemous itself.</I>
Well then there are a whole mess of blasphemous Muslims out there since some have said just that.
I have heard none say it. I have heard the media say they say it but they say a lot of wrong things - like the ban on images which doesn't exist yet they keep repeating.
If you have a quote of a Muslim actually saying it then I'd be interested. It's not impossible. Muslims are human and some are as ill-informed/un-educated as anyone else.
Blasphemy is not the reason.
Yes, People are calling for a ban on Danish products etc.
Yes this is about free speech since critique of a religion or religious figures or even the very existance of God is free speech and the abridgement of speech about religion and religious figures is an abridgment of free speech.
The two are not the same. People boycotting
Danish products. And that is their right under 'free speech' surely.
If it is wrong then will you condemn the boycott of French goods in the US at the time of the Iraq build-up?
It is poor logic to say Mohammed didn't encourage violence. By definition, if one exhorts war then one encourages violence. You semantics do not preclude that.
Ok. Let's accept that for argument's sake.
Muhammad is therefore on the same level as Bush, Blair and every historical leader ever (unless you know of a pacifist one).
If you condemn him you condemn them equally. If you exonerate them you exonerate him.
Not semantics. It's called a level playing field. Some even call it objectivity.
I can condemn any religious figure who has waged war on behalf of thier race, ethnic group or religion. There is no conflict here. I say cartoon and critique each and every one of them!
You can condemn who you like. You don't even have to be rational - you have those rights and no-one can take them away.
Just don't start trying to persuade people you are correct or know 'the truth' or you will become what you despise.
What da hell does it matter.
Because if you are not then your argument is hypocritical and quite possibly biased.
Either Mohammed engaged in killing or he did not. If he did, then it is not insulting to draw a cartoon depicting such. THAT is the point, not my person position on violence. can we say irrelevant RED herring?
I can say it and I certainly will when it applies.
If to you all killing is equal then you need some lessons in elementary thought.
Your argument is, as far as it is understandable, that Muhammad killed people so the cartoon depicting him as a terrorist is true.
Therefore All killers are terrorists.
We could extrapolate to people who kill abusive husbands, people who kill while defending their property, people who kill in war, people who kill as part of a judicial process.
Let's make cartoons with all their faces superimposed and then you have a coherent argument. At the moment you do not because you would not apply it to those people although they also kill.
So your statement "either x killed or he did not' does not apply to them. In fact it only applies to Muhammad. I'm starting to see the big picture here.
Secondly 1 cartoon specified terrorism ( there are no more virgins) one. Indeed the people who do kill in the name of Islam do so with the promise of paradise with virgins. Mohammed himself and his immediate followers made the same promise. Therefore it is proper to make such a cartoon if it is to throw light on this issue.
Muhammad made no such promise. Quote or Qur'anic verse please.
Yes sir they are there to provoke...thought and discussion. Instead many ignorant people aren't thinking and discussing they are threatening and kidnapping!
Then they have failed - we are discussing but then that's what we do here regardless.
The people who are extremists are busy being extremists and they don't do discussion.
YOU think that he villified Islam. That's your opinion. The Women he involved in the project certainly did not think so. There are millions of Muslim Women who do not think so. What makes your opinion of the matter fact? That is EXACTLY why freedom of speech, even uncomfortable speech should be protected.
I know he did. I was familiar with his work for a long time before the incident. Btw - there is very much more to it than you have been told. It's not just Islam - he was messing about on a lot of things people didn't want messed with.
What makes my opinion fact? Because it is. Here's the reason. The women were right - they were abused. By an Islamic sect that is one of the foremost human-rights abusers in the world today if not the worst. it is very powerful and supported by the US but that's another story.
This sect has spread throughout the Islamic world but it is not Islam. it is a sect and it is contradictory to Islam. Granted, people think it IS
Islam and they are justified in this because that is the sect's propaganda.
However, when someone points this out then they are no longer justified. They should amend their view.
You see, I would agree with all you say - and all Van Gogh said - if you said 'Wahabis' instead of 'Islam'. But you don't. You claim - as this cartoon claimed - that ISlam
is the problem.
Now I - and millions of moderate Muslims - say (truthfully) that Wahabism
is the problem. So we will continue to fight (figuratively) the Wahabis. And we will continue to fight (figuratively) you and the Van Gogh's because what you say is not true.
Why you say I don't know. Perhaps you are just ill-informed. Van Gogh said what he did because he was a racist and an Islamophobe. Did you know he was working on an anti-semitic film about Jews when he died?
So the Wahabis and the Salafis are the problem. If you want to argue against this it is very simple: find an example of an Islamic terror attack not carried out by people of this sect.
Are you claiming that the Countries of Arabia, Libya and Egypt actually closed their embassies? They defended the Buddahs with thier militaries? Who the hell you think you are fooling?
No. What are you talking about?
No the speech is a result of ignorance and in some cases fully informed religious bigotry. I oppose the bigotry and support the speech. A part of the maturity involved with having free speech is that sometimes, you have to be mature enough to tolerate speech you don't like.
Nice idea. Glad you support my right to say I don't agree.
Let me be perfectly clear. I support the right of the KKK to publish newspapers with whatever bullshit they want to write about black people. Heck they can draw black people as monkeys for all I care.
And when those people start getting more support through their publications and they start killing people when they reach critical mass because they've worked each other up enough - I won't forget to thank you.
I am 100% opposed to campus speech codes.
Good for you. Don't know what they are or what you''re talking about but I'm sure you are a pretty decent guy so it's probably ok.
I support and oppose these things because they stiffles the ability to expose and logically confront the ideas. When we are able to do so, we can destroy those ideas just as we destroyed the idea that the world was flat.
Again good for you - look, this isn't about free speech
from a Muslim perspective. Now you can say it is from yours - fine. But at some point you have to understand your enemy or you will lose..
I'm not pushing any point or calling for any action - I'm just trying to tell you how it is on the other side of the fence from you. You keep saying how it is on your side and I know that. you may even be right. You don;t have to move over to the other side of the fence but you should at least know for sure what's there. You have some misconceptions, that's all I'm saying.
If course you are free to keep them. It's no problem.