The Muslim World Erupts

[Guest fountainhall]

In the thread “Malaysians Warned on Gay Symptoms in Children” in the Malaysia forum, the subject of religious zealots and crazies is touched upon. That’s an apt topic as more parts of the world are increasingly awash with dangerous anti-American riots, including some parts of the Middle East where America and the west has actually assisted in overthrowing their former dictators.

 

The cause is a pathetic trailer for a movie which may or may not even exist but which was filmed with the actors duped as to its true purpose. The movie “The Innocence of Muslims” deliberately provokes Muslims by mocking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. CNN is now reporting that the actors thought they were making an adventure film set 2,000 years ago titled “Desert Warrior”. There was no reference to Islam or the Prophet in the scenes which were shot. Instead, backed by hard-core anti-Islam groups, the trailer was deliberately put up on You Tube. This showed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizer, buffoon, ruthless killer and child molester.

 

Islam specifically prohibits every depiction of Mohammed - in any form.

 

The filmmakers clearly knew what they were doing – provoking outrage in the Islamic world with, to use a legal term, malice aforethought. Now the main producer has been identified by CNN as Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, a man who was convicted in 2009 of bank fraud. It appears he is a Coptic Christian.

 

A script consultant for the movie, Steve Klein, is known in Southern California for his opposition to a mosque in Temecula. He heads up Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, a group which contends that Islam is a threat to American freedom. And there's more -

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, says Klein, a former Marine and Vietnam veteran, helped train militant Christian fundamentalists prepare for war.

 

And that rabid anti-Islamist, the so-called 'Reverend' (sic - sorry, SICK) Terry Jones - he whose miniature flock of brainwashed souls mostly deserted him after his Koran-burning threats last year, he with a brain the size of a microdot and an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore - has jumped into the furore with yet more nonsensical and totally untrue statements –

 

"The film is not intended to insult the Muslim community, but it is intended to reveal truths about Mohammed that are possibly not widely known," Jones said in a statement.

 

"It is very clear that God did not influence him (Mohammed) in the writings of the Quran," said Jones, who went on to blame Muslims' fear of criticism for the protests, rather than the film.

 

http://edition.cnn.c...aker/index.html

 

There can be very few people around who are not aware of Muslims’ sensitivity to the teachings in the Qur'an. I hope those Americans (and yes, I am sorry, it seems they were and are American) who made this affront to some 2 billion of the world’s population are now looking in shame and disgrace at the anger and slaughter their filthy minds have devised – including the killing of fellow Americans. But that's a faint hope. I doubt if any of them knows the meaning of the words 'shame' and 'disgrace'.

[Guest fountainhall]

As the drama surrounding the idiotic hate-filled movie continues to spread, now as far away as Sydney, it seems clear that some of the protests are being led by extremist Islamic groups, clearly delighted to have any excuse to inflame the mobs against western supposed anti-Islamic values and so-called decadence. And within the angry hoards there are equally clearly many disaffected and jobless young people whose actions may well be triggered by less than religious motives.

 

Yet, it would be foolhardy to think that there is not a huge brooding and deep-rooted anger, both at a perceived mocking of what vast numbers of these Muslims believe to be the core of their faith - and at past injustices to their countries and peoples. Some in the west have expressed surprise that something like a pathetic, amateurish jibe at one religion by extremists of another can arouse such passions. That merely shows the narrow-mindedness of those making such statements. We do not live in splendid isolation. We are citizens of the world. America for the time being is the leader of the so-called free world. Leadership – personal, national and international – brings with it responsibilities. Whilst within America there is a right to freedom of expression (with certain exceptions), that does not in my book permit any citizen the right to go out and take any action that will cause the death of Americans anywhere in the world. Those who made that film have done just that. Moreover, they knew not merely that mayhem would result, but also bloodshed, even though they may have expected it not to be American blood.

 

There have been endless examples of the reaction to western denigration of the Prophet Mohammed, the most memorable being the depiction in Danish cartoons in 2005. That led to more than 100 deaths, and to the bombing of Danish embassies in several countries. So for those in California to deny they were doing anything but revealing alleged truths about the Prophet (interesting, surely, that no scholar throughout history has found any basis whatsoever for such “truths”) shows them to be complete morons. They knew precisely what they were doing.

 

Such people routinely declare not only that they were merely exercising their right to freedom of speech. They openly point out that others criticise and offer unflattering descriptions of the leaders of other religions with impunity. The Danish Investigation into the cartoon scandal found that “the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation.” And that seems to me to be a fair balance when considering, for example, the major differences between Muslims’ views of the Prophet and the Qur’an as opposed to the Christian view of Jesus and the Bible, even though both faiths rather ironically call for tolerance and forgiveness.

 

Yet some in the US media are trying to shape American opinion by expressing “bafflement, and even anger” that Muslims are not more grateful to the US for bestowing on them “the gifts of freedom and democracy.” On Wednesday, USA Today asked this question –

 

“How can people the USA helped free from murderous dictators treat it in such a way?"

 

NBC News jumped on the same bandwagon the following evening from Cairo. Yet, today’s Observer makes the some far more pertinent comments –

 

That it was the US who freed Egyptians and "allowed them" the right to protest would undoubtedly come as a great surprise to many Egyptians. That is the case even beyond the decades of arming, funding and general support from the US for their hated dictator . . .

 

Beyond the long-term US support for Mubarak, Egyptians would likely find it difficult to reconcile (the reporter’s) claim that the US freed them with the "made in USA" logos on the tear gas canisters used against them by Mubarak's security forces; or with Hillary Clinton's touching 2009 declaration that "I really consider President and Mrs Mubarak to be friends of my family"; or with Obama's support for Mubarak up until the very last minute when his downfall became inevitable; or with the fact that the Obama administration plan was to engineer the ascension of the loathed, US-loyal torturer Omar Suleiman as Mubarak's replacement in the name of "stability".

 

Given the history of the US in Egypt, both long-term and very recent, it takes an extraordinary degree of self-delusion and propaganda to depict Egyptian anger toward the US as "ironic" on the ground that it was the US who freed them and "allowed" them the right to protest. But that is precisely the theme being propagated by most US media outlets . . .

 

. . . it's in the world of reality, not conspiracy, where the US really has continuously interfered in their countries' governance by propping up and supporting their dictators. Intense Muslim animosity toward the US, including in Egypt, long pre-dates this film, and the reasons aren't hard to discern. That's precisely why the US supported tyranny in these countries for so long: to ensure that the citizens' views, so contrary to US policy, would be suppressed and rendered irrelevant.

http://www.guardian....-nbc?intcmp=239

 

Of one thing, I’m sure. If I had gone up to those who made that film and called their mothers and daughters “whores” to their faces, I would have provoked some form of violence against my person. Such a statement would be mild compared to how Muslims consider the insult to their religion. No matter how much we may condemn violence, the instigators of that vlolence were the film-makers. They should be brought to account before the law for the murder of their own people.

[KhorTose]

they were doing anything but revealing alleged truths about the Prophet (interesting, surely, that no scholar throughout history has found any basis whatsoever for such “truths”) shows them to be complete morons.

 

 

Sorry the above is clearly another place where you and I hold opposite views. First off, scholars thoughout history has found basis for "such truths" in the Koran. You need to either read the Koran or google things on line before making that statement. Your memory is short or you would have remember that even the present Pope got in trouble for quoting one such scholar.

Secondly, while freedom of speech is not a total right, it does extend to criticizing another's religion. As an agnostic, I have spent my life doing so. Especially against such religions that I consider harm the community like Christian scientist, Scientologist , anti-gay/abortion Catholics, religious conservatives of all sects, and various fringe groups of religions like Zionist. As an American i will continue to do so, and I take great pride in doing so. I will agree that this film was made just to hurt, but it is fair game nevertheless. Someone who accepts things on faith, should be able to withstand a challenge to that faith, if he/she has any convictions at all.

[Guest fountainhall]

I think Khun KT has misinterpreted what I actually wrote. In my first post, I stated that the film showed the Prophet Mohammed as “a womanizer, buffoon, ruthless killer and child molester.” In the second post, I referred to these descriptions, adding the film-makers “were doing anything but revealing alleged truths about the Prophet.” I then brought in scholars and historians and their writings about Mohammed as an individual. In that respect, I did not refer to the Qur’an.

 

You say that “history has found “the basis of such 'truths' in the Qur’an." I challenge that statement. I have only read short extracts from the Qur’an, but nowhere have I found any sutras which so describe Mohammed. Now, you can argue, as some have, that the part about being a womanizer could be true. Yes, he had more than one wife. But that was common to every male living in that era. However, Mohammed was different to most. He did not practice polygamy until after he passed the age of 50. With one exception, all his wives were widows. But this is not mentioned in the Qur’an, as far as I am aware. His last wife was indeed below what today would be the age of consent. Again, though, it was practice at that time. To judge 7^th century morality in the Middle East by today’s western standards is, frankly, all but meaningless. Even at Jesus' birth, it is commonly regarded that Mary was in her early teens whereas Joseph is thought to have been around 70.

 

Freedom of speech may indeed extend to criticizing any religion. You and I differ in that I consider it a major violation of the responsibility that goes with all freedoms to criticize openly any religion in such a way when it is known that this causes deep-rooted offense, so deep-rooted that it extends back centuries and involves far more than mere religion, but also to politics and oppression – and, yes, has resulted in murder. I do not agree this film was "fair game". Its sole intent was to incite hate and violence and to satisfy the narrow-minded, hate-filled and pathetic agenda of a tiny group of morons.

 

If you happened to be a Protestant and if you had lived in Belfast in the 1980s, would you have openly gone up to a known Catholic and said to his face: “The Pope is a womanizer, buffoon, ruthless killer and child molester?” Had you done so, no doubt you would have been exercising your freedom of speech. There is further no doubt that you would very quickly have found yourself six feet underground.

 

You have not answered the related issue I raised at the end of my last post. If I stood in front of you and called your mother and other female relatives “whores” (which you know I would never do!), would you merely stand still and turn the other cheek? I doubt it. Your fists would be in action pretty quickly, if not one arm reaching for one of your guns. I would understand that.

 

Yet what those morons did was worse. You accept their “freedom” to criticize”. You would not (I assume) accept my right to call your relatives “whores” without resorting to some form of retribution. So, by extension, you accept the right of Muslims around the world to react as they have done. You cannot, with respect, brandish one freedom whilst denying the other (although, to be fair, you did not raise the issue of retribution in your post).

[KhorTose]

Did you bother the watch the trailer? Yes, the movie did hit upon Mohammad as a womanizer and a pedophile, but I am sure what the Muslims found the most offensive is the fact that he was not a prophet of God, and he just stole passages from the Torah and the New Testament. This has and still is a contention of many Christian scholars. supported by such things as the first holy city being Jerusalem, before he decided to make it Mecca. In truth every nasty thing in that movie has a germ of truth in it, as you yourself pointed out, However, what does that mean? Once again you pointed out the culture differences at the time, and had you known, you could have mentioned that the child bride marriage he had (right after his wife died he married 6 year old Sawda) may never have been consummated. You also could have mentioned, but did not, that marriages were a means of alliance in his day and also a means of taking care of widows when their husbands died. In truth Mohammad had 10 or 11 wives depending on who you read. By the way---as a total aside--Mohammad would not have dared marry another while his first wife was alive, as his first wife (chadia) was rich and his sole means of support.

 

Now as two your two examples, I am disappointed in you in that this is the best you can do. First off you failed to note that I did say that freedom of speech is not an absolute, but your two examples are inane. Yes, I would tell the Catholic that about the Pope if it was true and we were in a friendly conversation. If it was true, I would gladly write an article about it, but like your second example few people including me are not stupid. Yes, I would punch you if you called my wife or mother a whore. However, I could get arrested and charged and probably would be if a cop saw it. I could also get sued. However, in both cases I would have a right to a jury trail and doubt I would get convicted of assault, but more then likely you would prevail in a suit for hospital expenses. I hate to say this but this is the second time you have chosen a path that says security is more important to you to Freedoms, a path I will never choose. I refuse to accept any Muslim objection to what any Americans says about their religion. You can cater to ignorance all you want and kow tow to a culture that is so insecure in their faith that they have to kill and riot to affirm it, but I will not. I stand with my President in condemning this movie as the worst kind of bad taste, but in affirming America's values and all too important Freedoms.

[TotallyOz]

I refuse to accept any Muslim objection to what any Americans says about their religion.

 

It is not "Americans" it is some people who live in America. I have nothing against any religion. I equally think anyone who believes the words written in any of the books are about as intelligent as my friends who watch Grimm and think think that the stories written by those brothers were based on the truth.

 

Fairy tales are just that. Sad but too many people believe in them and fight for them and kill for them. I don't think any of these people have actually read AND UNDERSTAND the point of the texts. But, human kind tends to breed stupidity. How else can anyone believe anything that is not proven and totally based on fiction and "faith." I much prefer to believe in fact and science. Do you ever think there will come a time when science is so irrefutable that religious people will have to say, "Oh, this is how the world was created." I don't think so, because even in the greatest of factual evidence, "faith" wins with so many.

 

America has because as radical as the Arab world. Well, not quiet, but it has that potential.

[Guest fountainhall]

the movie did hit upon Mohammad as a womanizer and a pedophile, but I am sure what the Muslims found the most offensive is the fact that he was not a prophet of God, and he just stole passages from the Torah and the New Testament.

 

I cannot believe you really mean and believe this! The person and image of the Prophet are sacred to all Muslims.

 

Yes, I could indeed have highlighted more instances but that would have meant an inordinate length of post (longer than my already long ones!). I believe those I did highlight were more than enough to explain my position. You have added more, which does, I suggest, nothing to detract from my point. Yes, he married his first wife for money (she was essentially his employer and about 15 years older than he) although it seems it was a happy union. Thereafter there is doubt as to whether he first married Sawda, a 55-year old widow with several children, or Aisha who was said to be six or seven when they were betrothed (earlier, though, she had been betrothed to another Muslim). Aisha then stayed with her parents until around nine when she went to live with Mohammed. None of that, though, is in the Qur’an, as far as I am aware - and that is the point I was making in my 2nd post to which you responded "scholars thoughout history has found basis for "such truths" in the Koran."

 

You question my mentioning scholars. Karen Armstrong, a scholar, communicator and former nun, writes in her excellent 2006 biography A Prophet for our Time, “His life was a tireless campaign against greed, injustice and arrogance. He realized that Arabia was at a turning point and that the old way of thinking would no longer suffice.” She profiles Muhammad as both a mystic touched by God on a mountaintop and a canny political and social reformer. He preached loyalty to God rather than to one’s tribe and reconciliation rather than retaliation. He also advocated empowerment of women! She gives no credence, as I recall, to the aforesaid "such truths".

 

As to there being a grain of truth in the allegations made in the movie, that is surely typical of the worst libels and slanders? It is the grain of truth that makes them even more vile, for these grains can never be conclusively proved due to the absence of concrete evidence and the passage of centuries.

 

. . . your two examples are inane. Yes, I would tell the Catholic that about the Pope if it was true and we were in a friendly conversation

 

Fair enough, but the analogy I mentioned would, at that time and in that location, have hardly involved "a friendly conversation!" Indeed, you rather plug into my argument because it implies you would not do so if it were not a friendly conversation. (If I am wrong, then please do correct me). The perpetrators of that movie knew full well they were not going to be in any sort of friendly conversation with any Muslim. Indeed, they had to know it would not merely give offence, it would result in outrage and violence almost certainly leading to murder. Going back to the analogy, the Catholic would have ensured that you as the Protestant would have ended up in a wooden box, for it was no friendly conversation.

 

And I’m sorry I just don’t buy your comment about being arrested and having the violence argued before a court. How can you take violent mobs in many countries around the world to court when many of these countries are majority Islamic regimes and several are in-between dictatorship and . . . well, we frankly don't know what? In America you can. In these countries, you can’t – at least not if you expect what we assume to be western-style justice.

 

Yes, security is important, as indeed are freedoms. But as I have said in every relevant discussion on this Board, freedom brings responsibility. Those in the west set great store by individual rights and freedoms which have been won after centuries of evolution of thought. Yet, as I have also said many times, billions of people around the world live in societies where individual freedom of expression does not assume that same level of importance. You and I may not like it, but we cannot deny it is fact. So when one tiny group of individuals openly asserts its freedom in the sure and certain knowledge that in so doing they will incite mayhem and murder around the globe, that to me is freedom without responsibility. And nothing will dissuade me from that view!

 

Footnote: yes, I have seen the trailer. It's pathetic and disgusting! I agree with the commentator who wrote: "It's isn't a movie - it's a hate crime."

[Bob]

Islam specifically prohibits every depiction of Mohammed - in any form.

 

Governments everywhere are aware of that dictum and most intelligent people in the west and elsewhere are also aware of it. But, respectfully, so what? The implied notion that western governments somehow need to support the dictates of any religion is absolutely contrary to western history and culture.

 

I'm not going to defend the content of the stupid little youtube movie and I join in condemnation of the idiots who made it for their total lack of sensitivity and respect toward others' beliefs. But, that being said, I believe it's extremely important that western governments make it clear to governments and people everywhere just what to expect or not to expect from the west.

 

I've been disappointed for years, maybe decades, that western governments have not joined together to make it clear to others how we operate. Western leaders ought to stand shoulder to shoulder and periodically announce rather forcefully something like the following:

 

(1) Western governments encourage all citizens everywhere to respect and not denigrate any religion anywhere. We western governments don't support any particular brand of religion but we are obligated by somewhat rigid law to defend the rights of our citizens to say and think anything they like. While we occasionally condemn people who say, write, or produce stupid or hateful things, it's our obligation by law to defend their right to do it. For better or worse, a western citizen can say some rather nasty things about political figures, religious figures, or anybody else. And western governments cannot punish people for saying or thinking stupid things. And none of that is going to change.

 

(2) We western governments condemn any government or group anywhere that either advocates or exercises violence toward western citizens anywhere just because those western citizens think or say something offensive to their religious beliefs. If a group or government anywhere encourages any such type of violence or even doesn't condemn it when it happens, we western governments will react badly. If a government should actively encourage such violence, we western governments will do our best to isolate and punish that government. For example only, we will not tolerate government fiats or religious fatwas aimed at people in the west who write hateful things, draw hateful cartoons, or the like. And for anybody anywhere that exercises violence against any of our citizens, we will exercise our efforts to hunt you down and punish you under our justice system. And that too isn't going to change.

 

(3) With respect to the youtube movie creating the current furor, it's incumbent upon governments everywhere to explain to their citizens that the western governments do not approve or encourage such insensitive and hateful things and that violence against anybody or anything, including against western citizens or governmental embassies located anywhere, will not be tolerated.

[KhorTose]

I cannot believe you really mean and believe this! The person and image of the Prophet are sacred to all Muslims.

 

Oh course i do and you should to. It is called Shahadah and it is the statement of faith and the first and most important of the five pillars of Islam;

 

"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger."

This is the basic statement of the Islamic faith: anyone who cannot recite this wholeheartedly is not a Muslim.

When a Muslim recites this they proclaim:

• That Allah is the only God, and that Muhammad is his prophet(and by saying "his" and not "a" it also implies that he is the last prophet).
  
• That they personally accept this as true
  
• That they will obey all the commitments of Islam in their life
  

Believe me these guys who made the film are not the first and only people to come up with the womanizer and pedophilia charge, and the Muslims have dealt with this from the founding. It really isns't the most damaging charge. To deny or imply Mohammad is a false prophet is by far the worst crime you can commit.

 

As to freedom of speech having some responsibility, I completely agree, and would ban this movie was if it was filled with lies, but it is not. It is the truth told from a very biased and uneducated viewpoint, with poetic license.

There are literally thousands of wise man who have weighted in on the freedom of speech, and I won't get into a discussion with you as to its importance, but this movie, disgusting as it is, definitely falls into an area of protected speech. The fact that Google refuses to pull it off utube in the West, and the president supports the principles that allow it to be published confirms my belief in the power and strength of our American values that come down to us from the UK . Sorry, as I first stated you are completely wrong on this issue from my freedom loving standpoint, and I will continue to stand with the President and Google in backing protected speech.

[KhorTose]

Governments everywhere are aware of that dictum and most intelligent people in the west and elsewhere are also aware of it. But, respectfully, so what? The implied notion that western governments somehow need to support the dictates of any religion is absolutely contrary to western history and culture.

 

Speaking of Salman Rushdie, he concurs 100% with what you are saying.

 

"That is an understatement. We are meeting on Friday after the murder of the US ambassador to Libya and as many Muslims spend their holy day attacking western embassies across north Africa and beyond, in protest at a film, the Innocence of Muslims, that slurs Islam. "The film is clearly a malevolent piece of garbage," says Rushdie. "The civilised response would be to say of the director: 'Fuck him. Let's get on with our day.' What's not civilised is to hold America responsible for everything that happens in its borders. That's crap. Even if that were true, to respond with physical attacks and believe it's OK to attack people because you're upset at this thing, that's an improper reaction. The Muslim world needs to get out of that mindset."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/17/salman-rushdie-blackest-period-of-my-life

[Guest fountainhall]

Khun KT – let’s agree not to pursue further how Muslims react to criticism of either the Qur’an or the Prophet Mohammed since neither of us is of the Muslim faith and neither agrees with organized religion. Let’s just accept that slurs against both inflame passions and outrage.

 

I believe it's extremely important that western governments make it clear to governments and people everywhere just what to expect or not to expect from the west.

I am in total agreement. However, the fact is that no western government has done this to any meaningful effect. It is also fact that much of the Arab and the Islamic worlds despise American values and what they perceive to be its liberal views. Is this merely a case of failure to understand how America was founded and the principles on which it is based? I doubt it. I suspect it is far more a clash of civilisations – by which I mean of historical backgrounds and evolution over millennia, in which religion naturally plays a part.

 

Frankly, I think the US (and the west in general) can explain and educate all it wishes, but what is that going to do to solve what is a very real and dangerous problem? To suggest that spelling out the reason for each individual’s right to freedom of thought and expression and the legal protections that go with them, might change the deeply-entrenched mindset of peoples who have been brought up throughout their lives to believe in a totally different set of values, is, with due respect, simplistic in the extreme. It just ain’t going to happen!

 

There is an impasse – a huge cultural divide. As Khun Bob says, America is not going to change. And vast numbers in the Islamic world will say that their views will not change. I have also no doubt that many will add: why should we change? We have danced to the west’s tune for far too long. We have been oppressed by dictators propped up by the west for far too long. Now it is time for us to assert our rights – and our rights include the right to believe in our religion and to practice it the way we decide. We do not believe in individual freedoms where these impinge on the importance of our religion and our community. Nor do we do not accept the right of anyone in any other country to criticise us and tell us what we must do.

 

That hypothetical view is not unknown in Asia. Indeed, talk to a broad spectrum of people in Japan, in Korea, in China and some other countries. They will almost certainly (although clearly not all) agree, for that has been the historical model in those countries from the start of time. Whilst they generally do not resort to violence, the issues in dispute are rarely as sacred to them as the issue of Islam to Muslims.

 

No doubt I view the situation from a different perspective, having spent more than half my life living in a part of the world where many people do not have the luxury of such freedoms – and, let’s face it, where the vast majority even today are not all that interested in them. Making a living and crawling out of poverty has assumed a far greater importance.

 

If a group or government anywhere encourages any such type of violence or even doesn't condemn it when it happens, we western governments will react badly. If a government should actively encourage such violence, we western governments will do our best to isolate and punish that government

Again, an admirable doctrine. But can you put your hand on your heart and say it is realistic? The world’s major power punishing others who do not dance to its tune used to work – and work well, as with China in the 19th century. But today, the US and the west in general is in decline and others are on the rise. In today’s realpolitik, for that doctrine to be effective, the nature of the punishment must be known if it is to be effective. A tiny group of individuals asserting their so-called rights has inflamed tens – maybe hundreds - of millions in countries the world over resulting in murder, mayhem and death. Tell me: what realistic punishment can the US and the west meet out that will ensure such scenes do not happen on such a global scale in future when another bunch of crazies assert their freedom? That’s a serious question to a very serious issue. What can the west do? The answer? Precious little.

 

So, table-thumping about rights and freedoms and the need for tolerance for all religions, highly admirable goals, just will not work unless the west is prepared to adopt 18th and 19th century tactics by invading. But how many of the countries now attacking US interests do you set out to invade? All of them? But after Iraq, we all know invasion is all-but a no-no. Collective efforts? Our 21st century world is so intertwined with individual self-interests, the security council cannot even get sanctions against Iraq! Do you impose sanctions unilaterally? Unless other countries come on board, how will they be effective? So what is the point of a threat if it cannot be carried out? Pray tell!

 

The Muslim world needs to get out of that mindset."

Saying that is one thing; achieving it is quite another. The baggage of history, oppression, value systems and goodness knows what else means that it will never happen in our lifetimes. So to all intents and purposes, we are stuck on opposite sides of this cultural chasm. And when two sides are so entrenched, if one side is not prepared to use force, then diplomacy and negotiation are the only effective tools left to try for a solution. But this means some give and some take. As far as I can see, that also just ain’t going to happen.

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry - in the 2nd last para above, it should read "sanctions against Syria"!

[Bob]

I'm just a bit weary of western governments tiptoeing around middle eastern governments due to our "oil interests" or because somebody is afraid of provoking more of the idiocy that's occurred over the last 40-50 years. I acknowledge that the US and others have done a lot of stupid things to foster hatred of us over there but, since we can't undo the past, at least I'd support a very principled and explicit future.

 

If other western nations won't join the US in appropriate condemnations and sanctions for important issues, then, yes, I'd support the imposition of unilateral sanctions. The principle of the whole thing is more important to me than how somebody might measure the effectiveness of same (plus I happen to believe that they need us a lot more than we need them). On very important issues, some of the so-called "allies" need to be reminded that they too have a responsibility to stand up for principles they claim they support (and, if they repeatedly fail to step to the plate, maybe they need to be told that other governments no longer have any interest in doing business with them).

 

The tepid and un-unified response by the west to both the Danish cartoon thing and death threats against Rushdie was, in my eyes, unbelievable and only helped foster further problems. It's time for a change that's principled, explicit, and firm.

[Guest fountainhall]

The principle of the whole thing is more important to me than how somebody might measure the effectiveness of same (plus I happen to believe that they need us a lot more than we need them) . . . It's time for a change that's principled, explicit, and firm.

 

I fully agree there has to be change. But I have to go back to the questions: what threat and how to carry it out - effectively? What sanctions - and how to avoid other major powers taking their own sanctions against those who impose them? After all, we have seen how Russia and China have stymied what almost every other civilized country believes is sensible action on Syria.

 

When it comes to a religious issue rather than a political one, one of the huge problems is that Islam is so widespread. Even discounting Middle Eastern, African and Asian Islamic countries, and leaving aside the 2.6 million Muslims in the USA, there are 177 million in India (almost as many as in Pakistan), 16 million in Russia, 23 million in China, 4.7 million in France, 4.1 million in Germany, 4 million in Thailand and 2.9 million in the UK. I cannot see any campaign that is perceived to be against Islam getting most of that lot on side. It will not happen. So unilateral action it would almost certainly have to be, in my view. But . . .

 

Politics, as Bismark stressed, is the art of the possible – it is no longer the practice of what one or more countries want. The UK and France did not face up to the fact of their diminished world status when they invaded Suez. The US went into Vietnam as a result of a flawed policy and a lack of understanding of what the struggles in S. E Asia were really about. Of the folly in Iraq, no more needs be said. How sanctions can be put in place that effectively tame radical Islam without stirring up far greater global bloodshed and mayhem, and at the same time bring the vast majority of its adherents to understand and accept western concepts and values, I really have zero idea! I cannot see how it can be achieved.

[KhorTose]

 

The tepid and un-unified response by the west to both the Danish cartoon thing and death threats against Rushdie was, in my eyes, unbelievable and only helped foster further problems. It's time for a change that's principled, explicit, and firm.

 

I quite agree with Bob, and don't think it is unrealistic at all to stand by our values. I join with Obama's drive to produce alternate forms of energy, as I would rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard then see the USA tolerate this crap from the countries where most of the population dislikes us---not because of our actions---but because so many of our values are different then theirs. I am talking about how they rule, live, enforce the law, treat woman and tolerate diversity--sexual or religious. On this test most of the Muslim world fails miserably, and if we were independent of their oil we could and should tell them all to go to hell and keep our money home. Make no mistake about it, it is our money that powers their countries and our need for oil that keeps that money flowing. If you think this radicalism is new to the Arab world, you have not studied Middle Eastern history. The Umayyads, in Spain were overthrown by the more conservative Almorvids who justified their invasion because of the moral corruption of the Umayads who had the most advance culture in Europe and Africa at the time. In the East the Umayads were overthrown by the Abassids using the same moral pretext. As the Abassid went on to become more liberal they, in turn, where attacked by the more conservative shia elements weakening them to the point the Mongols were able to conquer them. One of the main problems of the religion of Islam is the fact that Mohammad is not just a prophet, but the last prophet of God. There can be nothing added to the religion, and because of that and every time something new like blood transfusions, telelvision, movies, or advances in human understanding that says Gay is normal comes along the Muslim world finds it almost impossible to adapt. It is not just our culture is so different that the Muslims find so threatening, but our very progress in unlocking the secrets of nature and the workings of humanity. They have the last and final word and they cannot adapt. To kow tow to them is to stay stuck in the 6th century, and it is not the West that needs to change or grow in understanding of their world view, but the Muslims who need to grow and understand ours. Can it be done. Yes, and it is being done wherever the state is secular like in Turkey. These states we should support and get the hell out of the rest who want everything to stay just like it was in the days of their prophet.

[bkkguy]

as always we can rely on The Onion:

 

No One Murdered Because Of This Image

 

then there is always John Stuart Mill to remind us why nobody - not even a prophet - should be above comment or criticism

 

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ...

We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

 

bkkguy

[Rogie]

Taken from the Mill quote above:

 

And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

 

Christianity has benefitted IMO from being intermittently, and more recently consistently, attacked throughout its 2000 year history. It has also suffered of course - dubious sects, TV evangelists, intolerance, excessively zealous missionaries, infighting, extreme views . . . it's all there, but Christianity has weathered many a storm and will continue to thrive. The more extrovert churches and their leaders will carry on upsetting non-Christians, that's the nature of the beast, but the vast majority of Christians (and I am proud to include myself in this category) unobtrusively get on with their daily lives. What is not acceptable however, is when dual standards are perceived to operate. For example here we have the head of the BBC:

 

The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus.

 

He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the 'emotional force' of 'grotesque child pornography'.

 

But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.

 

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera - a controversial musical that mocked Jesus - if its target had been Mohammed.

 

He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford.

 

Mr Thompson said: "The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography."

 

A BBC spokesman was unavailable for comment.

 

Last year former BBC news anchor Peter Sissons said Christians are 'fair game' for insults at the corporation, whilst Muslims must not be offended.

 

Mr Sissons, whose memoirs were serialised in the Daily Mail, said: "Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended."

 

http://www.christian...-says-bbc-boss/

 

And in general:

 

To be a serious Christian in modern Western culture is to be the favoured easy target of every progressive thinker and every half-witted comedian. It is to have your sensibilities and your deepest beliefs on perpetual call for taunts, mockery and desecration. At a time when all progressives preach full volume for inclusivity and sensitivity, for the utmost care in speech when speaking of others with differing views or hues, Christians, as Christians, are under a constant hail of abuse and disregard. There is nothing too low or too vulgar.

 

Something as inconsequential as a Christmas special, for example, will have - almost as an essential element, it being Christ's birthday after all - something determinedly offensive to Christians. Russell Peters, the Canadian joker, for his special this year has invited Pamela Anderson, pinup queen and soft porn actress, to play the Virgin Mary.

 

Pamela Anderson as Mary the Immaculate: I know - the wit, the daring, the originality - hell, the bravery of it all. No wonder Peters is at the very top of the yuk-heap. Can it be that it's only 30 years since Monty Python and The Life of Brian? Talk about 'cutting-edge'. The casting is so, so clever - getting a lewd exhibitionist to play Mary, to call in a pop-culture tart to play the very Mother of God.

 

But for believers to object, well that would be irksome and stuffy and high-handed and parochial - it being another of this ages curious predisposition that Christians are supposed, if not to like the jeers hurled at them, to at least be good enough to suffer the insults, blasphemies and mockeries in silence, if not secret approval. To actually object to Russell Peters going for a cheap, unintelligent and vulgar laugh would probably get categorized as 'intolerance' or 'censorship'. Go for it, Russell - Pam Anderson as the Virgin Mary will tickle the funnybone of every single digit IQ . . .

 

http://fullcomment.n...-must-tolerate/

 

Human nature amazes me sometimes. Why can't we just get on with our lives, enjoying the company of our family and friends, respecting the opinions and beliefs of those who differ from us in any way. If anyone threatens to harm us, well you could turn the other cheek I suppose, but most of us would act to defend our families, our own rights and freedoms and our liberty, or as the French say: Liberty, equality, fraternity. But why would anyone want to attack somebody else or a group of people simply because they are different? Just as the antics of a few stupid people can easily be miscontrued by others, other nationalities, other religions, does not make all the people of that country or that religion 'guilty'.

 

Before writing this post I checked out various internet sites under the heading 'Christianity mocked'. To say I have been really disappointed with some of the stuff I've come across would be an under-statement, it's almost unbelievabe some of the things people get up to. I'll leave it at that as I know some reading this have little time for Christianity. It's not my intention to upset anyone, I realise many atheists and humanists hold strong views so I would never attack anybody for that reason. Tolerance anybody? Tolerance comes easy to some but most of us have to work at it, Now, if only the world was just a bit more tolerant . . .

[Bob]

One would have hoped that mechanism of evolution would have assisted human beings to think a bit more logically over the ages but that doesn't seem to have happened all that much. Ignorance has bred strange beliefs from the beginning of time. Whether it's the god of thunder, Buddha, Mohammed, Christ, Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones, it's pretty much all the same to me and I don't see any benefit in either promoting or criticizing one brand of insanity over another. And, unfortunately, what we do know always seems to get trumped by what we don't know (but which we know for "sure", i.e., religious faith).

 

If there were alien societies out in the heavens (correction - other galaxies) that have studied the evolution of humans on earth, I'd pay a pretty penny to read their analyses. Probably pretty damn funny and pathetic at the same time.

[Guest fountainhall]

. . . because so many of our values are different then theirs. I am talking about how they rule, live, enforce the law, treat woman and tolerate diversity--sexual or religious. On this test most of the Muslim world fails miserably

 

I may agree with you. We can despise any nation that fails the tests you outline. But we cannot escape the fact that we live in a world where people happen to be different and happen to have different values for reasons already outlined above. And we agree that something has to be done to ensure this sort of reckless hatred and violence does not continue to occur. But i have yet to see any workable solution outlined in this thread (which I suppose is hardly surprising, given that the world's leaders haven't either!). Standing on principle is all very well, but major international problems are not solved when two parties stick rigidly to principles.

 

it is being done wherever the state is secular like in Turkey

 

Yes, Turkey is a progressive secular Islamic state where politics and religion are separated, thanks to the nation’s founder, Kamal Ataturk. However, Ataturk was essentially a dictator leading a one-party state which, for more than a quarter of a century, used repressive measures to keep all opposition at bay. When the opposition made gains, they were put down by a military coup in 1960. Here in Thailand, I doubt if those who opposed the 2006 coup would support the fact that the Turkish army regularly intervenes in Turkish politics. Not only has it removed four elected governments, it has executed a democratically elected prime minister and has taken over power several times. Yet, the US has lavishly bankrolled Turkey since the 1980 coup, no doubt in the hope that it will remain a secular state and a bulwark against Islamic militancy in the region. For Turkey is vital to US strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. Consequently, the US has frequently looked the other way both at a massive pattern of human rights violations and at the military’s anti-democratic actions.

 

Let’s not forget that Iran was the beneficiary of similar western largesse, and the Shah’s blatant repression was overlooked with a convenient blind eye. Same with Egypt. And look where all that ended up! I’m not saying that Turkey will follow Iran. Indeed, I think it highly unlikely. I suspect a large majority of Turks have seen the benefits of secularism and will not wish change.

 

But that illustrates another dilemma. If Islamic nations and their firebrand reactionaries are to be brought into the 21^st century and live in harmony with what we might term more advanced nations, then elections in which all people vote are surely unlikely to throw up the sort of enlightened leaders who will stop the mayhem we have seen in recent days. If Turkey is the example, then enlightened dictators like Kamal are what is required, individuals more attuned to western thinking who can put in place political, social, judicial, educational and economic reforms.

 

But - and here's the rub - if you stand firm on the principle of freedom of speech, do you bend on the principle of free and fair elections with one-man-one-vote?

[Guest fountainhall]

Christianity has benefitted IMO from being intermittently, and more recently consistently, attacked throughout its 2000 year history . . . but Christianity has weathered many a storm and will continue to thrive.

 

I'm not quite sure why Christianity should have somehow emerged virtually unscathed from storms of criticism and mockery. Is one reason, I wonder, because Christianity has four separate large groupings - Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Protestant - which have consistently been at war to the point where Christians are now basically plain tired with fighting?

 

Even so, there are still periodic demonstrations. Since we are on examples of movies, Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" was either banned by 39 local authorities in the UK or had an X-rated certificate with many mandatory cuts. Some countries banned it outright. Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" led to many violent protests, some led by fundamentalist Christian movements, and was banned or censored for quite a few years in a number of countries - including Turkey, surprisingly. That ban continues today in the Philippines and SIngapore.

[Rogie]

Cartoons in French weekly fuel Mohammad furore

 

A French magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by portraying him naked in cartoons, threatening to fuel the anger of Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a California-made video depicting him as a lecherous fool.

 

The drawings in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo risked exacerbating a crisis that has seen the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies, the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan.

 

Riot police were deployed to protect the paper's Paris offices after the issue hit news stands.

 

It featured several caricatures of the Prophet showing him naked in what the publishers said was an attempt to poke fun at the furore over the film. One, entitled "Mohammad: a star is born", depicted a bearded figure crouching over to display his buttocks and genitals.

 

Charlie Hebdo's editor, Stephane Charbonnier, rejected the criticism. "We have the impression that it's officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists," he said.

 

"It shows the climate. Everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want: to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave," he told Reuters.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/uk-protests-france-idUKBRE88I0BS20120919

 

France has taken a hard line against followers of Islam within its own country, for example banning the wearing of haeadscarves in public. It doesn't surprise me something like this has happened, I haven't seen this cartoon and I'm not saying what Charlie Hebdo did was right, but my feeling is that boundaries willl continue to be tested in several western countries, with the so-called satirical press in the vanguard.

 

Hot-headed reactions from around the Islamic world, in particular from the Iranians to reimpose the 'fatwa' on Salman Rushdie do not help.

 

However, it would be far better if the debate had a little more intellectual basis, coming from heavyweight politicians and religious leaders rather than a few editors of satirical rags resorting to cheap shots via a few pathetic cartoons.

 

The United States has condemned the content of the video while defending the right to free speech, and took a similar line on the French cartoons.

 

"We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we've spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of exp<b></b>ression that is enshrined in our constitution," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

 

I know Obama has spoken to some foreign leaders and those leaders need to cool things down before 'constructive dialogue' is to have a chance of making any progress. Followers of the Prophet are going to have to be a little more thick-skinned but at the same time all those feisty people with an anti-Islamic agenda need to acknowledge this:

 

In France, a joint statement by Catholic bishop Michel Dubost and Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Muslim Council, defended the right to freedom of exp<b></b>ression under the cherished French principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

 

"But freedom endangers itself if it forgets fraternity and respect for everyone's equal right to dignity," they added.