Careful now with any pictures of the prophet. Are you trying to get us on a hit list?
You know, since it's come up anyway, I might as well post an article (written in response to that film last year) that I feel really addresses the issue of why photos stir so much shit up: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 65762.html
Like clockwork, the scene repeats itself every so often. The blissful ignorance that embodies the triumphalist march of Western liberalism to every corner of the world is rudely confronted by mobs of angry Muslims bent on destroying the very freedoms underlying a civilisational project more than two centuries in the making.
According to this narrative, the inevitable rise of societies in which freedom is valued above all else is frequently frustrated in the streets and public squares of Cairo, Kabul and Jakarta. The chronic overreaction by Muslim protesters against a novel, a cartoon, or a crudely shot film is perceived by many in the West as a sign of the hopelessly widening gulf of values between two civilisations.
By examining these protests within a vacuum and focusing exclusively on the domain of culture, a subjective category in which any party can affirm its own superiority, the United States and its European allies hope to absolve themselves of any culpability for the recurring hostility expressed by populations in the Middle East and beyond.
To deny historical experiences and current political realities allows one to miss the point entirely: that the offence caused by the steady flow of anti-Islamic cultural production is quite literally adding insult to injury. And it is much easier for all of those involved to focus on the insult rather than the injury.
Little new in the film
There is little new in the amateurish hate-filled film that emerged out of the bowels of an Islamophobia industry that has picked up considerable steam in the last decade. Aside from trading the physical soapbox for the digital one of YouTube, anti-Islamic screeds have not evolved much since the era of the Crusades, relying primarily on a thoroughly discredited historical narrative of Prophet Muhammad’s life and mission that acted as a kind of medieval war propaganda.
But the irony seems to be lost on those so eager to condemn the recent overzealous reactions by protesters. The narrative recycled by the Islamophobes of today was originally designed to justify religious violence and continues to act as the cultural lubricant for an imperial project that has exploited, dispossessed, colonised and occupied millions of people.
Anyone seeking to understand the recent upheavals need only contrast the latest response with historical ones. Internal Muslim condemnations against the protests have relied primarily on Muhammad’s example of ignoring insults against his person. But in fact, there is a long tradition of Muslim tolerance for insults against their faith and its founder.
The ninth-century Martyrs Movement in Islamic Spain was notable, not for the deliberate incitements made by Christians seeking to sacrifice themselves to spark a revolt among their co-religionists, but for the considerable lengths they had to go to in order to provoke a response from the Muslim rulers. Their anti-Islamic spectacles in Andalucia’s market places and public squares were largely ignored and state officials repeatedly overlooked the verbal assaults in the hopes of preserving social harmony.
Even by the late 19th century, when European colonialism was in its upward swing, scathing critiques of Islam were often met with thoughtful and measured responses. To French philosopher Ernest Renan’s argument that Islam was inherently opposed to rationality, science and philosophy, the religious reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani replied by offering a counter-narrative of early Islamic history, while also arguing that the latest failings of Muslims should be attributed to their own shortcomings and not to their faith.
Aside from demonstrating the historical consistency in the reactions to such insults, this anecdote provides another lesson of relevance to the contemporary era. Namely, that as many critics ponder how it is that a verbal attack on the religion can engender far more outrage than the physical assault on its adherents, it has been shown time and again by these protests that it is far easier to stand up for Islam than it is to stand up for Muslims.
Imbalance of power
This has been particularly true as the power dynamic underwent a marked shift throughout the 20th century, when borders were drawn and states were formed in the interests of colonial powers and not the people who lived within them. After the era of independence, when non-representative regimes were installed and propped up across the Middle East, the power imbalance remained the defining feature of the relationship. The frequent interventions and the curious interactions within them provide damning proof of how the insult takes precedence over the injury.
The sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison elicited universal outrage but the notion that an illegal occupying power could arrest and detain Iraqi citizens at will was not cause for concern or protest. When it emerged that American military personnel had urinated on the corpses of Afghan citizens, generating protests throughout the country, the US government was quick in its condemnations of this desecration, but few people if any wondered why there were so many dead Afghans in the first place.
The unspoken agreement, it appears, is that the seemingly insurmountable imbalance of power between the sponsors of empire and its victims remains outside the scope of popular discourse in favour of the emphasis on the cultural disparities. And lest it continue to be argued that the cycle of conflict and confrontation is one between the forces of Islamic extremism on the one hand, and the culture of freedom, tolerance and pluralism at the heart of Western values on the other, it is worth recalling the numerous instances of religious zeal expressed by a militant Christianity acting in the name of its own historic sensitivities.
It has been noted in recent years that contingents within the US military have taken to wearing pins bearing the symbol of the Templar Knights. Long before George W Bush invoked the Crusades in one of his first post-9/11 speeches, Henri Gouraud did the same as he led French forces into Syria after World War I.
One of his first destinations was the grave of Salah al-Din, the great Muslim hero who fought European Crusaders eight centuries earlier. Upon approaching the tomb, Gouraud was reported to have declared, “The Crusades have ended now! Awake Saladin, we have returned! My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent”.
The lesson from all of these expressions, past and present, is that what gives weight to the insult is the injury that precedes it. Until that becomes the focal point of our collective indignation, the cycle will only continue to repeat itself. Like clockwork.
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Is this out of context?
Actually, yes, it is. I've already stated this before, but I doubt you had the patience to read it. Many verses in the Quran were specifically addressing issues during the Prophet's time in the 7th century. This is very clear. You are taking one verse out of a chapter that begins talking specifically about the circumstances facing the Prophet during this time: this is the same chapter that only a few verses later says you have the right to fight those who have driven you from your homes on the basis of you saying "I believe in [my] God." This is in direct reference to the fact that the Prophet and other Muslims who were living in Mecca were forced to leave their homes when they were facing persecution and death. The Prophet even narrowly escaped many assassination attempts.
This verse sanctioned war against a very particular group of people. This is why it is not simple enough to study the Quran at face value. Verses were revealed for very specific circumstances, and you can't remove them from their historical context. That's what radicals do, and that's why they're foolish. Contrast this specific verse to the more general rule that "he who kills one person [unjustly] is as if they killed all of humanity." There are very clear legal rulings that prohibit killing and violence and persecution. Not just that, but in addition to the clear textual rulings one can point to to show that you can't just kill anyone, there is ample historical precedence set in an Islamic civilization that goes back centuries in which these acts simply were not going on. Religious pluralism was a very important facet of this civilization. It wasn't all fine and nice, of course, you always have cases where people are persecuted throughout history, but these are incidents that don't have religious precedence but rather are just the actions of greedy and unjust rulers.
EDIT: Also, contrast this verse with what actually ended up happening when the Prophet conquered Mecca without shedding blood, and as he strolled into Mecca he was shouting to his 30,000 troops not to harm anyone, especially elderly, women, children, etc. You can't just quote random verses without knowing any history of what actually happened.
If you listen to a lot of Islamic scholars, it's not enough to study it in English either. The nuances are totally lost in our language, so I am told.
That's correct. For instance, the quoted verse above translates the word from Arabic ("mushrik") as disbeliever, when a more accurate translation would be "polytheist" because it was in specific reference to the polytheists who were living in Mecca at that time.
All religion is brainwashing, doesn't matter ... believing in Heaven a magical place is just a comfort thing for those who can't face reality that upon death you just become worm food. Too me all religion is evil, but no doubt more recently Islam has separated itself as having more crazy people.
Unfortunately far to many people are falling for these scams ... to paraphrase a quote from George Carlin "the all time king of bullshit is religion".
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Is this out of context?
No it's not ... any book that claims to be a holy book should not promote violence ... especially fairy tales. Are they not teaching these books to impressionable children? Are they left up to the instructor to interpret? for the instructor to teach? Yeah what can go wrong with that.
Like I have stated I have no interest in reading fairy tales from any religion ... because religion is bullshit!
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Is this out of context?
No it's not ... any book that claims to be a holy book should not promote violence ... especially fairy tales. Are they not teaching these books to impressionable children? Are they left up to the instructor to interpret? for the instructor to teach? Yeah what can go wrong with that.
Like I have stated I have no interest in reading fairy tales from any religion ... because religion is bullshit!
"No it's not?" That's all you have to say? No need to take history into account, right? Judge lukin2006 has ruled.
If your kid asked you why countries go to war, what would you say? Would you say that war is never ok? I don't think you would--I think you'd talk about the horrors of war, I think you'd mention how it's an awful thing that sadly humans have resorted to since the beginning of time. But I think you'd also explain the many complexities. I think you'd say that sometimes people have to go to war for many different reasons: to prevent genocides, empires spreading, etc.
So if a religion sanctions war in very specific circumstances, is it just categorically wrong? Does that mean that one can explain to their child the various complexities of war, but a religion should just say "turn the other cheek ALWAYS?" Why do you get to make that call?
Why is it that things in Western culture are always analyzed through the lens of complexities, various circumstances and hypothetical scenarios, etc., but when it comes to Islam it's a monolithic approach: it says this, it can only mean this, and thus it is wrong and barbaric. Why don't we apply the various complexities that exist in ALL societies to Muslim ones as well?
I don't care if you think religion is bullshit, frankly. Believe whatever you want - I respect your right to do that. I respect the fact that you don't believe in God. I'm sure you've had an upbringing that shaped the way you think and why you think that way, and I don't think your disbelief in a god or religion hurts society or people. But I do think you speak with an extremely nasty and condescending tone, and you clearly do not respect people who do believe in religion: just look at the way you belittle them for believing in "fairy tales." If you think religion is untrue that's perfectly fine, but to belittle and condescend is not a way to have constructive dialogue about religion, it's just another way of saying my cock is bigger than yours.
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Is this out of context?
Actually, yes, it is. I've already stated this before, but I doubt you had the patience to read it. Many verses in the Quran were specifically addressing issues during the Prophet's time in the 7th century. This is very clear. You are taking one verse out of a chapter that begins talking specifically about the circumstances facing the Prophet during this time: this is the same chapter that only a few verses later says you have the right to fight those who have driven you from your homes on the basis of you saying "I believe in [my] God." This is in direct reference to the fact that the Prophet and other Muslims who were living in Mecca were forced to leave their homes when they were facing persecution and death. The Prophet even narrowly escaped many assassination attempts.
This verse sanctioned war against a very particular group of people. This is why it is not simple enough to study the Quran at face value. Verses were revealed for very specific circumstances, and you can't remove them from their historical context. That's what radicals do, and that's why they're foolish. Contrast this specific verse to the more general rule that "he who kills one person [unjustly] is as if they killed all of humanity." There are very clear legal rulings that prohibit killing and violence and persecution. Not just that, but in addition to the clear textual rulings one can point to to show that you can't just kill anyone, there is ample historical precedence set in an Islamic civilization that goes back centuries in which these acts simply were not going on. Religious pluralism was a very important facet of this civilization. It wasn't all fine and nice, of course, you always have cases where people are persecuted throughout history, but these are incidents that don't have religious precedence but rather are just the actions of greedy and unjust rulers.
EDIT: Also, contrast this verse with what actually ended up happening when the Prophet conquered Mecca without shedding blood, and as he strolled into Mecca he was shouting to his 30,000 troops not to harm anyone, especially elderly, women, children, etc. You can't just quote random verses without knowing any history of what actually happened.
I do not understand the reason to "conquer" by mohammid.
To use war to convert.
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
I do not understand the reason to "conquer" by mohammid.
To use war to convert.
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
War was not used to convert people. The Constitution of Medina that Muhammad signed with Jewish and polytheist tribes in Medina, ensuring freedom to believe and a certain degree of autonomy for different religious groups is just one example of this. Furthermore, for centuries Islamic rulers did not force anyone to convert, even during wars to conquer lands. In fact, for the first century or so, Islam was largely the minority religion in what was "Muslim" lands. Many non-Muslims began converting later on, many because they truly believed, others out of convenience, etc. But the obvious point here is that it was not forced.
You really need to stop quoting random verses without taking history into account. As I said before, this is what the few radicals do. But the fact is that war is sanctioned under very specific and well-defined circumstances in Islam--many scholars have written on this. You can continue to disregard this for your own purposes, as you clearly have let 1. radicals and 2. islamophobes, shape your view of the religion. But at least others reading this thread will perhaps be more willing to look through these few random and anachronistic points you are raising, and see the larger picture for what it is.
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
No it's not ... any book that claims to be a holy book should not promote violence ... especially fairy tales. Are they not teaching these books to impressionable children? Are they left up to the instructor to interpret? for the instructor to teach? Yeah what can go wrong with that.
Like I have stated I have no interest in reading fairy tales from any religion ... because religion is bullshit!
so you are openly admitting you are dismissing something you have no intention of learning about. if you are going to rain hatred down on something, at least know why.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
I'd hate if my kids were born with cancer due to white phosphorus. People die in different ways, due to different views.
What fuck is putting out there should be known already. ie: fuckheads who takeover religion, government, a work place to set the agenda for the way they want things done, and are ready to fight for it. Hell they had a good story on it on the CBC radio last night and that is available in Canada, eh.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
you all could learn a lot from fuck. he's taking the whole lot of you to school, but most of you just aren't listening.
If this was in any way directed at me I make no apologies for posting something directly related to the OP. Fuck has made some great points and I somewhat enjoyed my dialogue with him, but none of it changes the brutality of what happened in that mall.
Al-Shabab is warning Kenya could be hit by more bloodshed if its military isn't withdrawn from southern Somalia. Kenyan troops entered the country in 2011 to help the Somali government's fight against al-Shabab.
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
I'd hate if my kids were born with cancer due to white phosphorus. People die in different ways, due to different views.
What fuck is putting out there should be known already. ie: fuckheads who takeover religion, government, a work place to set the agenda for the way they want things done, and are ready to fight for it. Hell they had a good story on it on the CBC radio last night and that is available in Canada, eh.
I would too. Since we were discussing the fuckheads I thought it relevant to point out exactly what they did. It seemed to be getting lost in the lengthy debates on and defenses of Islam.
you all could learn a lot from fuck. he's taking the whole lot of you to school, but most of you just aren't listening.
he's not taking me to school anymore than a jehovah, or church of later days saints or any other bullshit religion that spouts off there garbage ... there all the same. They preach from some fucking book, I'd have more respect for religion or preachers if they just through away those fucking books and admitted they are garbage.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Is this out of context?
No it's not ... any book that claims to be a holy book should not promote violence ... especially fairy tales. Are they not teaching these books to impressionable children? Are they left up to the instructor to interpret? for the instructor to teach? Yeah what can go wrong with that.
Like I have stated I have no interest in reading fairy tales from any religion ... because religion is bullshit!
"No it's not?" That's all you have to say? No need to take history into account, right? Judge lukin2006 has ruled.
If your kid asked you why countries go to war, what would you say? Would you say that war is never ok? I don't think you would--I think you'd talk about the horrors of war, I think you'd mention how it's an awful thing that sadly humans have resorted to since the beginning of time. But I think you'd also explain the many complexities. I think you'd say that sometimes people have to go to war for many different reasons: to prevent genocides, empires spreading, etc.
So if a religion sanctions war in very specific circumstances, is it just categorically wrong? Does that mean that one can explain to their child the various complexities of war, but a religion should just say "turn the other cheek ALWAYS?" Why do you get to make that call?
Why is it that things in Western culture are always analyzed through the lens of complexities, various circumstances and hypothetical scenarios, etc., but when it comes to Islam it's a monolithic approach: it says this, it can only mean this, and thus it is wrong and barbaric. Why don't we apply the various complexities that exist in ALL societies to Muslim ones as well?
I don't care if you think religion is bullshit, frankly. Believe whatever you want - I respect your right to do that. I respect the fact that you don't believe in God. I'm sure you've had an upbringing that shaped the way you think and why you think that way, and I don't think your disbelief in a god or religion hurts society or people. But I do think you speak with an extremely nasty and condescending tone, and you clearly do not respect people who do believe in religion: just look at the way you belittle them for believing in "fairy tales." If you think religion is untrue that's perfectly fine, but to belittle and condescend is not a way to have constructive dialogue about religion, it's just another way of saying my cock is bigger than yours.
I wonder if it really matters. Not everyone is some kind of theological scholar. Isn't what really matters who things appear to the masses rather than how things appear to those who spend years and years studying and deciphering the meanings of what is stated in the Quran? It is exactly the same with the Bible. That's fine and dandy that some theologian can discuss how this line and that line is metaphorical or apply historical context to it, but the greater impact comes with the joe-schmoe who believes that the Bible condemns gays because of that verse about man lying with man being an abomination.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I wonder if it really matters. Not everyone is some kind of theological scholar. Isn't what really matters who things appear to the masses rather than how things appear to those who spend years and years studying and deciphering the meanings of what is stated in the Quran? It is exactly the same with the Bible. That's fine and dandy that some theologian can discuss how this line and that line is metaphorical or apply historical context to it, but the greater impact comes with the joe-schmoe who believes that the Bible condemns gays because of that verse about man lying with man being an abomination.
Can kill your brother and not be his keeper according to page 12 of the bible.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
Wow, that's straight up hell! Those weren't Muslims, those were the devil. That shits unreal and I'm so fucken pissed. Kids??? Wtf, some fucked up people have hijacked this religion and claim to be Muslim when that's just not what Islam is about.
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
Wow, that's straight up hell! Those weren't Muslims, those were the devil. That shits unreal and I'm so fucken pissed. Kids??? Wtf, some fucked up people have hijacked this religion and claim to be Muslim when that's just not what Islam is about.
Agreed man. No matter what race or religion or whatever these villains are claiming to represent they are just monsters. Only evil incarnate could commit acts like that.
I wonder if it really matters. Not everyone is some kind of theological scholar. Isn't what really matters who things appear to the masses rather than how things appear to those who spend years and years studying and deciphering the meanings of what is stated in the Quran? It is exactly the same with the Bible. That's fine and dandy that some theologian can discuss how this line and that line is metaphorical or apply historical context to it, but the greater impact comes with the joe-schmoe who believes that the Bible condemns gays because of that verse about man lying with man being an abomination.
Can kill your brother and not be his keeper according to page 12 of the bible.
Well right. There is all kinds of shit in the Bible like that. Which is why anyone who tries to claim "oh, but that's not what that really means" kind of seems suspect. It says what it says.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
One of the following quotes...does not need historical context, to hold current day merit.
"Stone women for adultery."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
there you go again ... taking a noter verse out of context
Actually, the Quran doesn't ever mention stoning. But it's not like you'd know.
Your right ... I certainly wouldn't know ... because as i've stated I will not read that piece of bullshit anymore than I'd read the christians piece of bullshit.
Post edited by lukin2006 on
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
Like clockwork, the scene repeats itself every so often. The blissful ignorance that embodies the triumphalist march of Western liberalism to every corner of the world is rudely confronted by mobs of angry Muslims bent on destroying the very freedoms underlying a civilisational project more than two centuries in the making.
According to this narrative, the inevitable rise of societies in which freedom is valued above all else is frequently frustrated in the streets and public squares of Cairo, Kabul and Jakarta. The chronic overreaction by Muslim protesters against a novel, a cartoon, or a crudely shot film is perceived by many in the West as a sign of the hopelessly widening gulf of values between two civilisations.
By examining these protests within a vacuum and focusing exclusively on the domain of culture, a subjective category in which any party can affirm its own superiority, the United States and its European allies hope to absolve themselves of any culpability for the recurring hostility expressed by populations in the Middle East and beyond.
To deny historical experiences and current political realities allows one to miss the point entirely: that the offence caused by the steady flow of anti-Islamic cultural production is quite literally adding insult to injury. And it is much easier for all of those involved to focus on the insult rather than the injury.
Little new in the film
There is little new in the amateurish hate-filled film that emerged out of the bowels of an Islamophobia industry that has picked up considerable steam in the last decade. Aside from trading the physical soapbox for the digital one of YouTube, anti-Islamic screeds have not evolved much since the era of the Crusades, relying primarily on a thoroughly discredited historical narrative of Prophet Muhammad’s life and mission that acted as a kind of medieval war propaganda.
But the irony seems to be lost on those so eager to condemn the recent overzealous reactions by protesters. The narrative recycled by the Islamophobes of today was originally designed to justify religious violence and continues to act as the cultural lubricant for an imperial project that has exploited, dispossessed, colonised and occupied millions of people.
Anyone seeking to understand the recent upheavals need only contrast the latest response with historical ones. Internal Muslim condemnations against the protests have relied primarily on Muhammad’s example of ignoring insults against his person. But in fact, there is a long tradition of Muslim tolerance for insults against their faith and its founder.
The ninth-century Martyrs Movement in Islamic Spain was notable, not for the deliberate incitements made by Christians seeking to sacrifice themselves to spark a revolt among their co-religionists, but for the considerable lengths they had to go to in order to provoke a response from the Muslim rulers. Their anti-Islamic spectacles in Andalucia’s market places and public squares were largely ignored and state officials repeatedly overlooked the verbal assaults in the hopes of preserving social harmony.
Even by the late 19th century, when European colonialism was in its upward swing, scathing critiques of Islam were often met with thoughtful and measured responses. To French philosopher Ernest Renan’s argument that Islam was inherently opposed to rationality, science and philosophy, the religious reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani replied by offering a counter-narrative of early Islamic history, while also arguing that the latest failings of Muslims should be attributed to their own shortcomings and not to their faith.
Aside from demonstrating the historical consistency in the reactions to such insults, this anecdote provides another lesson of relevance to the contemporary era. Namely, that as many critics ponder how it is that a verbal attack on the religion can engender far more outrage than the physical assault on its adherents, it has been shown time and again by these protests that it is far easier to stand up for Islam than it is to stand up for Muslims.
Imbalance of power
This has been particularly true as the power dynamic underwent a marked shift throughout the 20th century, when borders were drawn and states were formed in the interests of colonial powers and not the people who lived within them. After the era of independence, when non-representative regimes were installed and propped up across the Middle East, the power imbalance remained the defining feature of the relationship. The frequent interventions and the curious interactions within them provide damning proof of how the insult takes precedence over the injury.
The sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison elicited universal outrage but the notion that an illegal occupying power could arrest and detain Iraqi citizens at will was not cause for concern or protest. When it emerged that American military personnel had urinated on the corpses of Afghan citizens, generating protests throughout the country, the US government was quick in its condemnations of this desecration, but few people if any wondered why there were so many dead Afghans in the first place.
The unspoken agreement, it appears, is that the seemingly insurmountable imbalance of power between the sponsors of empire and its victims remains outside the scope of popular discourse in favour of the emphasis on the cultural disparities. And lest it continue to be argued that the cycle of conflict and confrontation is one between the forces of Islamic extremism on the one hand, and the culture of freedom, tolerance and pluralism at the heart of Western values on the other, it is worth recalling the numerous instances of religious zeal expressed by a militant Christianity acting in the name of its own historic sensitivities.
It has been noted in recent years that contingents within the US military have taken to wearing pins bearing the symbol of the Templar Knights. Long before George W Bush invoked the Crusades in one of his first post-9/11 speeches, Henri Gouraud did the same as he led French forces into Syria after World War I.
One of his first destinations was the grave of Salah al-Din, the great Muslim hero who fought European Crusaders eight centuries earlier. Upon approaching the tomb, Gouraud was reported to have declared, “The Crusades have ended now! Awake Saladin, we have returned! My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent”.
The lesson from all of these expressions, past and present, is that what gives weight to the insult is the injury that precedes it. Until that becomes the focal point of our collective indignation, the cycle will only continue to repeat itself. Like clockwork.
This verse sanctioned war against a very particular group of people. This is why it is not simple enough to study the Quran at face value. Verses were revealed for very specific circumstances, and you can't remove them from their historical context. That's what radicals do, and that's why they're foolish. Contrast this specific verse to the more general rule that "he who kills one person [unjustly] is as if they killed all of humanity." There are very clear legal rulings that prohibit killing and violence and persecution. Not just that, but in addition to the clear textual rulings one can point to to show that you can't just kill anyone, there is ample historical precedence set in an Islamic civilization that goes back centuries in which these acts simply were not going on. Religious pluralism was a very important facet of this civilization. It wasn't all fine and nice, of course, you always have cases where people are persecuted throughout history, but these are incidents that don't have religious precedence but rather are just the actions of greedy and unjust rulers.
EDIT: Also, contrast this verse with what actually ended up happening when the Prophet conquered Mecca without shedding blood, and as he strolled into Mecca he was shouting to his 30,000 troops not to harm anyone, especially elderly, women, children, etc. You can't just quote random verses without knowing any history of what actually happened.
Unfortunately far to many people are falling for these scams ... to paraphrase a quote from George Carlin "the all time king of bullshit is religion".
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
No it's not ... any book that claims to be a holy book should not promote violence ... especially fairy tales. Are they not teaching these books to impressionable children? Are they left up to the instructor to interpret? for the instructor to teach? Yeah what can go wrong with that.
Like I have stated I have no interest in reading fairy tales from any religion ... because religion is bullshit!
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If your kid asked you why countries go to war, what would you say? Would you say that war is never ok? I don't think you would--I think you'd talk about the horrors of war, I think you'd mention how it's an awful thing that sadly humans have resorted to since the beginning of time. But I think you'd also explain the many complexities. I think you'd say that sometimes people have to go to war for many different reasons: to prevent genocides, empires spreading, etc.
So if a religion sanctions war in very specific circumstances, is it just categorically wrong? Does that mean that one can explain to their child the various complexities of war, but a religion should just say "turn the other cheek ALWAYS?" Why do you get to make that call?
Why is it that things in Western culture are always analyzed through the lens of complexities, various circumstances and hypothetical scenarios, etc., but when it comes to Islam it's a monolithic approach: it says this, it can only mean this, and thus it is wrong and barbaric. Why don't we apply the various complexities that exist in ALL societies to Muslim ones as well?
I don't care if you think religion is bullshit, frankly. Believe whatever you want - I respect your right to do that. I respect the fact that you don't believe in God. I'm sure you've had an upbringing that shaped the way you think and why you think that way, and I don't think your disbelief in a god or religion hurts society or people. But I do think you speak with an extremely nasty and condescending tone, and you clearly do not respect people who do believe in religion: just look at the way you belittle them for believing in "fairy tales." If you think religion is untrue that's perfectly fine, but to belittle and condescend is not a way to have constructive dialogue about religion, it's just another way of saying my cock is bigger than yours.
I do not understand the reason to "conquer" by mohammid.
To use war to convert.
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
You really need to stop quoting random verses without taking history into account. As I said before, this is what the few radicals do. But the fact is that war is sanctioned under very specific and well-defined circumstances in Islam--many scholars have written on this. You can continue to disregard this for your own purposes, as you clearly have let 1. radicals and 2. islamophobes, shape your view of the religion. But at least others reading this thread will perhaps be more willing to look through these few random and anachronistic points you are raising, and see the larger picture for what it is.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013 ... s/2882299/
The al-Shabab terrorists who seized a Kenyan shopping mall for four days tortured, maimed and mutilated some of their 67 victims, leaving a tattered scene of ghoulish, gruesome remains that investigators likened to scenes from a horror movie.
Hostages were left hanging and had their eyes gouged, others were dismembered. Others had their throats slashed or were castrated and had fingers amputated, according to media reports quoting soldiers, medical personnel and investigators sorting through the rubble of the collapsed mall.
Kenya's The Star, quoting a forensics doctor, said all of the victims were mutilated. Britain's Daily Mail reported children stashed in refrigerators with knives in their bodies.
"You find people with hooks hanging from the roof. They removed eyes, ears, nose. Actually if you look at all the bodies, unless those ones that were escaping, fingers are cut by pliers, the noses are ripped by pliers," said the doctor. The Star said he declined to give his name.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
so you are openly admitting you are dismissing something you have no intention of learning about. if you are going to rain hatred down on something, at least know why.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'd hate if my kids were born with cancer due to white phosphorus. People die in different ways, due to different views.
What fuck is putting out there should be known already. ie: fuckheads who takeover religion, government, a work place to set the agenda for the way they want things done, and are ready to fight for it. Hell they had a good story on it on the CBC radio last night and that is available in Canada, eh.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
If this was in any way directed at me I make no apologies for posting something directly related to the OP. Fuck has made some great points and I somewhat enjoyed my dialogue with him, but none of it changes the brutality of what happened in that mall.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013 ... s/2882299/
maybe these shit heads should take on the kenyan forces and drive them out.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I would too. Since we were discussing the fuckheads I thought it relevant to point out exactly what they did. It seemed to be getting lost in the lengthy debates on and defenses of Islam.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Stone women for adultery."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
he's not taking me to school anymore than a jehovah, or church of later days saints or any other bullshit religion that spouts off there garbage ... there all the same. They preach from some fucking book, I'd have more respect for religion or preachers if they just through away those fucking books and admitted they are garbage.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
there you go again ... taking a noter verse out of context
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Sorry....my ADD gets me.
Can kill your brother and not be his keeper according to page 12 of the bible.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Wow, that's straight up hell! Those weren't Muslims, those were the devil. That shits unreal and I'm so fucken pissed. Kids??? Wtf, some fucked up people have hijacked this religion and claim to be Muslim when that's just not what Islam is about.
Agreed man. No matter what race or religion or whatever these villains are claiming to represent they are just monsters. Only evil incarnate could commit acts like that.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Your right ... I certainly wouldn't know ... because as i've stated I will not read that piece of bullshit anymore than I'd read the christians piece of bullshit.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon