On Insulting Muslims

[Xeric]

Though i agree that as the US didnt ban anti-Christian films like "The Zombie Jesus" or "Da Vinci Code", they probably will also not ban this film, so that is justifilabel to an extent.

However, the issue here is that Holocaust and Nazi Symbols have been banned because they remind them of an horrible era and they dont want a repetition of the same.

Mainly it is the way of these countries to tell the modern world that they donot condone those actions, espacially when a number of countires banning Holocaust denial i.e Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust.

So, if by your definition the West ban the above to 'prevent' a certain thing from reaccuring, dont you think it would be savvy to do the same in case of the 'evil' Muslims?

i mean, i dont know if you know this or not, but one of the reasons cited by the 9/11 Commissionors in their report for the 9/11 atacks was the US support to Israel (and its killings of Palestinians) and demonization of Muslim (countries). Though, this chapter was expunged from the 9/11 Commission Report later (google why, i could have posted a few videos but YT is banned you know, so you can look fors a YT Channel namely The Represantative Press, and before you say anything, the channel is noy being run by a Mullah, but a Yankee himself).

So, now if greivence among certain Muslims caused 9/11 apart from the other reasons, dont you think there is a need to look into the matter of this constant insults that are thrown upon the Muslims?

You know, if a drone/US soldeir kills an innocent in Pakistan/Afg, or an IA soldiers kills a Kashmiri youth or Fc kills a Balochi, it will most probably result into the creation of a Suicide Bomber, a Stone Pelter and a BLA follower respectively.

So the bottomline is, if they are afraid of Nazism comming back from the Dark Ages, man, they should also be very very afraid of something like 9/11 happening again if they dont put a bar on such stupidity.

Food for thought:

'Innocence Of Muslims' Protests: Al-Qaeda Threatens Attacks On U.S. Diplomats

 

[Vinod2070]

Equal rights for every human being (at least for their own citizens) is an absolute ideal.

Every secular democracy in the world takes this seriously and their constitution is unambiguous about it.

In practice it may not be 100% effective (after all we all have different circumstances) but at least that is an ideal and the state machinery tries its best to protect the ideal in most situations.

OTOH, you have a set of countries who OFFICIALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY discriminate against their minorities, where equal treatment of all citizens is not even an ideal, where there is no recourse to law when things hit South as they frequently do.

Where do we start if we have to make progress?

Where are the low hanging fruits that can make the biggest impact?

Where are the conditions worse and need the biggest improvement?

If a set of people believe in their own countries that secularism is useless and the people belonging to other religions are second class citizens and then make it plain to them in legal and practical terms, do the same set of people have the moral right to make demands on secular democracies about exactly the same issues, where the conditions are far better?

Do they really believe in human equality?

If yes, why don't they practice it at home?

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

May be its a no brainer.

One can probably just dismiss it as hypocrisy.

If one is sincere about progress on human equality, it is not enough to make demands on others who are probably 90% there, but to make sure of changes in their own societies which don't even think it is something to aspire for.

 

[The_Showstopper]

The fallacy of the phrase, 'the Muslim world'

Western media reinforces stereotypes by reducing a complex set of causes to the rage into an amorphous mass.
Last Modified: 16 Sep 2012 15:05

It is estimated that less than 0.001 per cent of the so-called 'Muslim world' is protesting the film [REUTERS]
On September 12, the day after the attacks on the US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya, the New York Times set out to explain what it called the "anguished relationship between the United States and the Muslim world". According to the Times, the "Muslim world" was prone to outbursts of violence, and the reaction to the 14-minute anti-Islam movie trailer The Innocence of Muslims was both baffling and predictable. "Once again, Muslims were furious," wrote reporter Robert F Worth, "and many in the West found themselves asking why Islam seems to routinely answer such desecrations with violence."

Other media outlets echoed the claim that "the Muslim world" was consumed by anger, and had long been so. The Associated Press offered a look back at "Five other incidents that inspired rage in the Muslim world", crediting over a billion people for the actions of a few thousand in their search for historical continuity. Others took a psychoanalytic approach. "Why is the Muslim world so easily offended?" asked Washington Post columnist Fouad Ajami. "Madness in the Muslim World: Help Me Understand," pleaded a blogger for the Houston Chronicle.

It is time to retire the phrase "the Muslim world" from the Western media. Using the phrase in the manner above disregards not only history and politics, but accurate reporting of contemporary events. The protests that took place around the world ranged in scale and intensity, in the participants' willingness to use violence, and in their rationales. The majority of the "Muslim world" did not participate in these protests, nor did all of the Muslims who protested the video advocate the bloodshed that took place in Libya.


By reducing a complex set of causes and conflicts to the rage of an amorphous mass, the Western media reinforce the very stereotype of a united, violent "Muslim world" that both the makers of the anti-Islam video and the Islamist instigators of the violence perpetuate.

Misleading generalisations

Essentialist views of Islam and Muslims are nothing new. In Western media, Islam is often presented as a contagion, with Muslims as the afflicted, helpless to their own hostile impulses. What is different about the current crisis is that it comes in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring" - another series of intricate events depicted as interconnected and inevitable. Democracy would "spread" from one Muslim country to another, analysts argued, regardless of the unique historical trajectories of individual states. Some analysts went so far as to suggest it would spread to Central Asia, a region of largely isolationist dictatorships uninfluenced by Middle Eastern politics. The current protests are being portrayed as an "Arab Winter" - a simplistic reversal of a simplistic perception of success, with Muslims, undifferentiated, receiving the blame.

There is, of course, cohesion among Muslims, in the sense that there is cohesion among followers of any faith. The notion of the ummah is an essential part of Islamic doctrine. But the way the idea of "the Muslim world" is expressed within Islamic communities is different from the way it is expressed outside them. It is rare to hear the phrase "the Christian world" used in the English-language media, because doing so would generalise about the motives of over 2 billion people. No such respect applies to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Googling the phrase "the Christian world" yields 5.8 million results, while the phrase "the Muslim world" gives over 87 million results, many of them wondering what is "wrong" with the queried target. When the phrase "the Muslim world" is invoked, it is usually to reduce, denigrate or impugn.

The Western media's broad-stroke regionalism means that conflicts within individual Muslim-majority states become marginalised. Syrians posting on Twitter wondered how the world could give so much attention to a conflict that killed seven people while dozens of Syrians are killed by state security forces every day - documenting, as one commenter noted, their own demise in videos that receive far less attention than the bigoted pseudo-cinema of one American. Similarly, the violence at the diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi was initially conflated, with "Muslim rage" being presented as a root cause for two distinct conflicts. The tendency to see "the Muslim world" as a problem in general means that specific problems within Muslim countries go unseen.



Dispelling stereotypes

Soon after the destruction of the US embassy in Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans, a protest was held against the men who murdered them. Libyan citizens held English-language signs declaring "Benghazi is against terrorism" and "Sorry Americans this is not the behavior of our Islam and Profit [sic]". Photos of the protest, distributed by Libya Alhurra Livestream, went viral on Facebook and Twitter.

The Libyans protesting were aware that not only Libyans, but Muslims in general, would be blamed for the violence that took place, because the small group of Muslims who stormed the embassy would be seen as representative of all. They gave the rare apology that Western commentators often encourage Muslims to make on behalf of others who commit violence in the name of Islam. But while the sentiment of the protestors is appreciated by many Americans - and the photos likely assuaged some prejudices - such explanations should not be necessary. Ordinary people should not be assumed to share the beliefs of violent criminals who share their faith.

The Innocence of Muslims was made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-American who hates Muslims. It was found on YouTube and put on Egyptian television by Sheikh Khaled Abdullah, a man trying to convince the world that Americans hate Muslims. This was a perfect storm of gross and deceitful parties depicting each other in the most vile terms, and then living up to each others' worst expectations.

The answer to such invective is not to reinforce it through media portrayals of "Muslims" as a collective. The media should instead pay more attention to individual states, conflicts and leaders, since dictatorship and factionalism have been as essential in shaping politics in Muslim-majority regions as has religion. The current crisis demonstrates how corrupt parties use religion as an incitement to violence and a means to political gain. The Western media should not play party to their prejudices.

Sarah Kendzior is an anthropologist who recently received her PhD from Washington University in St Louis.

 

[Vinod2070]

There was a comment about how "self criticism" and "mocking one's own sensibilities" are likely to be taken in a more "sporting spirit".

This guy will beg to differ a tad bit.

Also, when asking for "equal rights; no more, no less", it would help if a fraction of that begins to be implemented at home within Islamic countries.

It will increase the moral authority that others find so sorely lacking and that makes it sound so much like hypocrisy.

 

[Bhairava]

Reposting as the message seems to have been lost:

I find it utterly disgusting when the so called moderate Muslims dont open their mouth in real life against their co-comunity men and wean them away from their misguided path and instead pontificate to the non-Muslims on the internet on how they should view Muslims. There is no need to advise us how to view Muslim when these fundamentalists disappear, because automatically the view would be positive. But no, they would not do that. Perhaps they are afraid of getting killed or branded traitors or worse still, they silently agree with them.

Also, when asking for "equal rights; no more, no less", it would help if a fraction of that begins to be implemented at home within Islamic countries.

No..not correct. Since they are 'declared' Islamic countries, it is perfectly legal and absolutely fine when equal rights are not extended to the minorities. After all Islamic countries ought to follow 'Islamic' principles. Or that is what the justification is........

 

[Vinod2070]

No..not correct. Since they are 'declared' Islamic countries, it is perfectly legal and absolutely legal when equal rights are not extended to the minorities. After all Islamic countries ought to follow 'Islamic' principles.

Yes. I understand.

But if discriminating against religious minorities is the perfect way, why demand the opposite from non Muslims?

After all, they are only following their footsteps in a small way here. They are following the same principles.

 

[Xeric]

Was wondering if the indians (Hindus and non-Hindus alike) here would object if their Gods are insulted?

 

[Bhairava]

^^ Object, protest, do whatever you want to do in a calm,sane,peaceful,democratic way. No one is going to care about it. Infact many would sympathize with your cause.

 

[Developereo]

Was wondering if the indians (Hindus and non-Hindus alike) here would object if their Gods are insulted?

There is no point wasting time with the extremists here.

There are plenty of reasonable Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, atheists, etc. with whom one can conduct reasonable debate, but the fanatics are only interested in their specific agenda. Rather than address specifics, they always look for an excuse to unload their stock rants. Let them have a conversation amongst themselves, replying to each others' posts, since no civilized person would want to get in the mud with them,

 

[Xeric]

@Bhair

^^ Right, right.

Notwithstanding the above picture, i think your statment implies that you guys are 'concerned' over Muslims/Pakistanis breaking, loot and burning their own countries, right?

 

[Bhairava]

@Bhair

^^ Right, right.

I could not see anyone rioting, indulging in arson, burning cars, destroying public property in that picture.

Second, in case you had not noticed that's a toy gun. This is not some country where people can go about brandishing assault rifles in public.

So your picture fails to pass the muster.

Notwithstanding the above picture, i think your statment implies that you guys are 'concerned' over Muslims/Pakistanis breaking, loot and burning their own countries, right?

No..no one is absolutely concerned about you guys going about burning cars, pelting bus with stones and such acts. Your public property your money. The problem starts when people break into embassies, siege it, call for the death/beheading of others etc etc. Hope you get the gist. You guys are genius' who just turned a malcontent (the egyptian coptic) into a victim by the way you went about the protests.

 

[Vinod2070]

It must feel so nice to call others "extremists" for a change.

The stock responses, reducing everything to "Islamophobia", most of the time just highlighting the name of the writer and implying that he/she is an extremist and Islamophobe seems to do the job for some.

Of course, it is so easy to call other extremists when there is no reply to the obvious hypocrisy.

We have seen a pattern of trying to paper over the worst atrocities by Muslims by these people and trying to implicate the non Muslims all the time.

The labels don't matter.

The points raised still stand.

These "moderate extremists" are not fooling anyone.

 

[Bhairava]

^^ They complain that Jews try to shut down arguments with the stock anti-Semitic excuse...but these guys go one step ahead of the jews in dropping the "Oh you are Islamophobic" in any debate.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ They complain that Jews try to shut down arguments with the stock anti-Semitic excuse...but these guys go one step ahead of the jews in dropping the "Oh you are Islamophobic" in any debate.

Anyway, I found the "civilized person" comment quite hilarious for some reason.

Many people have the same comment about them when they go about their business like in Sydney and so many other places.

 

[Xeric]

I could not see anyone rioting, indulging in arson, burning cars, destroying public property in that picture.

Second, in case you had not noticed that's a toy Diwali gun. This is not some country where people can go about brandishing assault rifles in public.

So your picture fails to pass the muster.

FYKFI, the caption of the pic clearly showed that the gun was a toy, but just because it was a toy, it doesnt mean that it is not doing the samething which you are accusing Muslims for.

^^ i guess you missed the subtle message in the pic.

No..no one is absolutely concerned about you guys going about burning cars, pelting bus with stones and such acts. Your public property your money. The problem starts when people break into embassies, siege it, call for the death/beheading of others etc etc. Hope you get the gist. You guys are genius' who just turned a malcontent (the egyptian coptic) into a victim by the way you went about the protests.

Right, so you guys are going to stick with the double standards?

i mean, a Muslim life has no value, but a Non-Muslim's does, is this what you wanted to say?

BTW, i dont see any of you explicitly condemning the 'violence' by these Muslims, the only thing i saw from your likes was of generalizing the entire Muslim community (including those which belong to your country) and demonizing it without distinction.