On Insulting Muslims

[humanfirst]

Muslims have never killed civilians and not raped women

Ans if shown evidence of muslims doing all this,you will simply say they are not true muslims.

 

[Bhairava]

In the words of 13th century arab historian Zakaria al qazwini

Sir you are wrong sir all are lies Mr Islam is the religion of peace sir and Mr you indians falsify history sir no one was killed sir except some infidels sir and Mr they were killed because they were on the path of the muslim armies Mr they refused to convert sir go read Quran and Sunnah sir.

 

[angeldust]

Sir you are wrong sir all are lies Mr Islam is the religion of peace sir and Mr you indians falsify history sir no one was killed sir except some infidels sir and Mr they were killed because they were on the path of the muslim armies Mr they refused to convert sir go read Quran and Sunnah sir.

Eerie.

I actually did a double take and check your ID.

 

[XTREME]

 

[Vinod2070]

Assuming and presuming that he actually believes that a clean up is needed.

There are a lot of assumptions and presumptions in that statement.

I know from my experience here that many of them don't stand the test of reality.

That's why it is the most charitable explanation that I could think of, disregarding all reality.

Of course, the more likely scenario is that he is another soldier in the Islamic Ummah army, one that tries to put the kaffirs on guilt trips while ignoring all that is going on within the Islamic countries including his own.

They have different weapons but the same goal.

Temporary truce till they are strong enough to no longer need it. This is the message they need to follow as it comes from the highest quarters.

 

[asad71]

The film made by a son of the Satan has just provided spark to the grievances stored in the Muslim heart and mind for centuries. Literates, intellectuals, etc may analyse as they like - or more likely, as they were educated / brought up, but the common man in Muslim society is up in arms against the WCC / Zionists.

 

[Sinnerman108]

Please provide historical reference or a link to prove what you have quoted.

Else, it is nothing more than a story conjured up by Mullahs 24 X 7.

 

[fallstuff]

Folks are ganging up on a nice guy. Nice will get you nothing here, its dog eat dog here.

 

[GoodBoy]

Muslims have never killed civilians and not raped women its your history and you still follow this culture in most part of India and according to Quran we can kill only those who Muslims not civilians and no where Islam encourages Rape in Islam punishment of Rape is death but you will always remain an ignorant Sir

Thants the JOKE of the centuries since 7th... it's such a peaceful religion afterall.

Brainwashing done at its best.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

No, you fail once again in English comprehension.

The authorities know their own laws very well, and normally assess the chances for a successful conviction before pursuing any case. Given that the charges didn't stick and were dismissed fairly quickly, all they ended up doing was harassing the Arabs. That sent a message to everyone else that they would have to suspend their job/school/business and spend time in courts to defend themselves against phony charges.

Mission accomplished by the authorities.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, the Western mechanism is to censure anyone who offends certain sensibilities. That censure alone deters future troublemakers, so there is less need for explicit censorship.

You failed to provide me with any tangible proof. I see only wild interpretations. The fact that the charge is dismissed quickly can be used to inference the other way around just as easily, I can use your faulty line of reasoning to discredit your own theory.

Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders was put on trial for hate speech against Muslims. The charges didn’t stick and were dismissed very quickly. Following your fallacy the persecutor now has sent a message to everyone not to criticize Islam but if they did that they would have to suspend their job/school/business and spend time in courts to defend themselves against phony charges.

There goes your conspiracy theory, I just disapproved it with the same line of interpolations you used.

Mission failed on your part!

But I am not longer entertained by these conspiracy theories. Let just assume I agree with your theory that millions of Western lawmakers, politicians, journalists, writers, comedians, cartoonists and satirists have banded together, and are commandeered by their Jewish/Zionist master in a grand scheme to malign Muslims and worse.... Now take this out of the picture and answer this question.

If there is no dark entity that is out to get Muslims and make their lives miserably in the West, would you on principle grounds allow the prophet and the Islamic religion to be criticised, even mocked or not?

There is a difference because you artificially make up a distinction. The anti-Islam rhetoric is part of an Islamophobic ideology which is comparable to Nazi ideology in that it stigmatizes and demonizes a particular group of people with intent to (forcibly) remove them from Europe.

This is not my fabrication, but an observation that has been made by Holocaust survivors themselves.

Here is a thought....

A thought that (radical) Islam shows striking similarities with the Nazi ideology, as it was applied in the years 1933-1945. A totalitarian regime with an ideology where the Islamists (übermensch) attribute themselves with almost divinely features and the projection about Islam being somehow a superior religion. Criticism against it results in death. The infidel enemies are blamed for all abusive situations in the Muslim world an the people are backing the Islamic leaders, some out of conviction and some out of fear. Unknowingly about the fact that the people were being fooled, while the more clever Muslims wisely didn't speak out.

It's just a thought. But who knows...

I already explained that the bigger debate is about double standards -- the US example is just one data point.

The crux of the problem lies with the irrationality, the uncompromising attitude, the obscurantism, wherein the Muslims (or at least a great deal of them) are caught. The convulsive manner in how Muslim intellectuals and leaders react upon a silly spoof is out of proportions, unending lamenting about 'hurt' ego's (while the same Muslims never take into account the feelings of others) demonstrates the immaturity and not being able to handle the realities of the 21st century by Muslims.

Can you show me an example where someone has vilified Moses

Here is an example where Moses is mocked in the movie Wholly Moses!

Wholly Moses! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

and then been celebrated as a champion of free speech in Europe?

This is a very dishonest request, since no Jews have gone demanding the laws to be changed, killing people around and destroying public property over it. So there is no need for a Westerner to defend that right every time a Jewish figure is criticized or mocked.

We know we can provide similar example for Mohammed.

You certainly do. After riots, killing, death threats and demands are executed by the Islamists, that is bound to happen, some one defending that right.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

No, that statement was only for you. Are you really that illiterate to understand whom I have used that word for?

Are you really that blind that you can’t see that what you’re suggesting, confining the boundaries of free speech not to include (perceived) insults could have implications and repercussions that go well beyond the expression of words?

I have given examples to clearly distinguish insults and opinions.

You did not. You gave me your interpretation. My interpretation could be very differently.

Human are usually are intelligent creatures and can judge what is an insult or what is said as an insult and what is an opinion and idea even if we don't like that idea or opinion.

Then you hold humans higher in this regard than I do. The violence that has erupted in the Muslim world and beyond is just an example that clearly contradicts your opinion. The killing and destruction that was 'provoked' by this stupid clip, uploaded by an even sillier person, are appealing to base human emotions of hate and destruction, fuelled by misguided tribalism and loyalty. Not exactly the height of human intellect to speak of.

With the cheating statistics, the divorce statistics, the early loss of virginity, high promiscuousness of German society, if I make a few specific statements speculating about German mothers then you would immediately realize which of those words are meant to be an insult and which aren't. Even the statistics making those likely to be true will not prevent them from being flat out insults. In this case that becomes a clear personal attack.

You’re are using a very poor analogy. How is criticizing a historical figure, which is long gone comparable to living people that can actually be 'insulted'? How can you insult someone who died in the 7th century? You would probably say, that your identity is derived from your prophet. I have even heard Muslims saying that their pophet is more dearer to them than their own father and mother.

This is where the problem lies. You have absoluted your prophet and the sentimental value you choose to attach with you have every right to do that, but it is just an idea, and therefore should be open to criticism or ridicule, like any other ideas or opinions. There’s nothing special about Muhammad for Non-Muslims and if some Muslims are offended by criticism of their particular opinion, the problem lies with them.

Now, how would I respond to your ‘insult’ about Germans?

First of all, what I wouldn’t do is go around killing random innocents Turks or set fire in the Turkish embassy in Germany. Nor would I demand from you that you confine your speech to exclude the insults.

What I can do is…..

I can simply ignore your comment…. You cannot give offense, you can only take it. If you decide to mock me or try to offend me, your success is totally dependent upon me. If I choose to ignore you or to not be offended, then you have failed immediately.

I can get in a debate with. Try to explain why your views are wrong. I could point out that your world view is not correct, and that morality is dependent on your frame of reference.

I could throw ‘insults’ as well. I could point out that Turks are one of the biggest customers in the Red light district in Amsterdam, and that in Germany the pimps and those that are in the business of white female slavery are mainly Turks, and I can go further to say the Turks are more hypocrite in this regard. I could say, that what you said reflects both German and Turkish communities.
I can also deflect it by stating that you’re kidding yourself, as many Turkish girls in Germany as well as Turkish girls back home are just as promiscuous as the perceived, average, German girl, and likewise can be called ******.

Or maybe the most difficult option: self-reflection. I can accept your statistical data accompanied by your criticms and take your arguments serious. Is it really the case? And if so, should I adjust my opinion?

As for your incoherent arguments:
The logical fallacy in examples is that judging an action solely by the reaction or reactions of others. Not by the action itself, the intention of the action and the result of the action. Nobody is advocating to ban everything that made someone feel offended, agitated, angry etc.

I eat cow meat so an Hindu gets offended. The action of eating cow has nothing to do with a Hindu. It is not an attack in any sense against an Hindu nor there is intention to attack. But If I mock or insult an Indian about this by saying staff like "How stupid are you guys to hold a cow a sacred?" "You know what I just did, I ate your god", etc then it becomes an attack.

This is the definition of "insult" in dictionary.com:
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
3. Archaic to attack; assault.

You’re giving me a textbook definition, this is not how it works in the real world. Your argument is built on the premise that the insult is deliberate and therefore distinct to an insult which is supposedly not intended as such, much more in line with constructive criticism. What you fail to grasp, that there is no black and white definition of insult. One thing can be seen as an insult to one, the same thing can’t be bothered by the other. Insults are per definition subjective.

Consider this real world example of Danish cartoonist Kirk Westergard.

My cartoon was construed as an attempt to hurt the feelings of every Muslim in the world. That was never my intention. My picture was an attempt to expose those fanatics who have justified a great number of bombings, murders and other atrocities with reference to the sayings of their prophet.

In light of what has later been claimed about Jyllands-Posten’s intentions to deliberately and gratuitously offend 1.2 billion Muslims, I should point out that the paper’s rationale was a far different one. In the months leading up to the publication of the cartoons, Islamists had launched one attack on Danish free speech after another. A well-known author had been unable to find an artist who would dare to illustrate a children’s book on Muhammad. A concert was stopped by radical Muslims who claimed that music is un-Islamic. The culmination came when a lecturer of Jewish descent at Copenhagen University was abducted in broad daylight by a gang of Arabs and severely beaten for having recited from the Koran as part of his course. Nothing similar had happened during the university’s more than 525 years of history. Imagine what would happen if such a thing occurred at Princeton.

Why I drew the cartoon: The 'Muhammad Affair' in retrospect - The Daily Princetonian

So by his own explanation the cartoonist draw these cartoons to start a (political) debate on Muslims.
But who is to say these Islamists, who perceived this cartoons as an insult and demanded him to be put on trial, are wrong about the cartoonist's intent? Can you proof the intent of the cartoonist on behalf of the Islamists? Can you prove that his real intent, that he wanted to express a message against self-censorship is not bogus, and he really intended to insult Muslims? No, you can’t, because you can't proof intent of expression. Who is to say the Islamists are wrong? Maybe the cartoonist was lying. So the notion of an insult isn’t as absolute and clear cut as you portray it to be.

Finally, the main point made was about the hypocrisy of west. Criminalizing rejection of Holocaust under law, which is merely statement of one's belief and opinion about what happened in history, but allowing much more severe offenses such as insults, mockery about people's religion, hate speech under free speech pretense is the blatant hypocrisy. Period.

How do you objectively determine which offence is more severe? You simply can’t. That's why you conveniently ignored my comment when I stated that a Holocaust survivor could as easily be offended if you denied the Holocuast in front of him.

The only hypocrisy that I'm seeing is on the part of our (radical) Muslims. Islamic clerics, even many moderate Muslims, blaspheme all other religions all the time. God knows there are thousands of Muslim clips mocking all other religions on You Tube, TV programming in Islamic countries is nothing but hate filled propaganda against Jews, Christians and Westerners. If they're not spewing hate about America, they're saying Jews love the taste of fresh Muslim babies. This is the ultimate hypocrisy.

And you know what Westerners do about it? Nothing.

We just tell ourselves that the Islamic world has his share of illiterate backward morons, and that they can't help it.

If they had not outlawed Holocaust rejection then at least they would have been consistent and not hypocritical.

The Americans are actually quite consistent. Whatever a person says in the USA, as long as it is not a direct incitement to violence or threatening someone's life, you can say it. No matter what.

In that case we could have another discussion about free speech. Should free speech have boundaries or not at all? But that was not the essence of the discussion here.

The citizens of a democratic country like the US are free to decide what laws they wish to have and how they should apply. So even if I personally agree that such a film is offensive and that there should be limits to free speech, I accept the general will of the Americans in their country and I certainly do not think that any non-citizen or any other state has the right to determine what those laws should be.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Islam is hte fastest growing religion in the worls COZ OF THE WAY MOST OF THE MUSLIMS BREED!!and is not coz suddenly people (non muslims) are finding Islam to be a super religion. come on mate.. check your figures.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year.

Source: Guinness World Records---2003, Page no. 142

 

[The_Showstopper]

Buddy, let them be. Forget about others and stop trying to help them. Live your life, and if you come across fundamentalism of any sort, just ignore it. There is absolutely no need to engage any one of them.

I used to be like you in my 20's, taxed my brain a lot worrying about people, later learned the hard way that most can't be helped. Said to myself, **** it.

But don't you think leaving them on their own would harm others. Whether they agree with you are not is a different matter but shouldn't we try to present facts to those misguided.

 

[Developereo]

You failed to provide me with any tangible proof.

Evidence has been provided in other threads of:
- Contractual requirements by a major European publisher (Springer Verlag) demanding a pro-Israel bias from their employees. This is mandated by the Christian Zionist owner of the company.
- Official laws in several European countries criminalizing speech deemed offensive about the Holocaust and alleged Armenian genocide.

The reason for pointing out these examples is to prove the point that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are exemptions to protect some sensibilities. Now you will wave your hands and hum and haw about how these sensibilities are different and merit special consideration, but that rationalization doesn't fool anybody.

would you on principle grounds allow the prophet and the Islamic religion to be criticised, even mocked or not?

Our aim is to ask for equal rights; no more, no less.

A thought that (radical) Islam shows striking similarities with the Nazi ideology, as it was applied in the years 1933-1945. A totalitarian regime with an ideology where the Islamists (übermensch) attribute themselves with almost divinely features and the projection about Islam being somehow a superior religion. Criticism against it results in death. The infidel enemies are blamed for all abusive situations in the Muslim world an the people are backing the Islamic leaders, some out of conviction and some out of fear. Unknowingly about the fact that the people were being fooled, while the more clever Muslims wisely didn't speak out.

Radical Islam is no different from other extremist ideologies, including Nazism, Zionism, and from various other religions. All of them deserve extreme censure and I am consistent in my condemnation of all such extremists: I don't accord special exemptions to some because it is politically fashionable to do so.

Do you have the intellectual integrity to reject all extremist ideologies, including the anti-Islam hatemongers without doing the usual apologists' dance of alternately denying that such hate is adulated in the West, or justifying it by pointing to the Islamist extremists' actions.

The crux of the problem lies with the irrationality, the uncompromising attitude, the obscurantism, wherein the Muslims (or at least a great deal of them) are caught. The convulsive manner in how Muslim intellectuals and leaders react upon a silly spoof is out of proportions, unending lamenting about 'hurt' ego's (while the same Muslims never take into account the feelings of others) demonstrates the immaturity and not being able to handle the realities of the 21st century by Muslims.

As many commentators have pointed out, these protests are not about the movie, in the same way that, when couples fight, the fight is rarely about the trigger event itself. Rather, it is a catharsis for latent anger about a host of issues.

I never denied that Muslim societies need to accept blame for much of their failures, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a double standard in the West regarding Muslim issues. That hypocrisy exacerbates the mistrust between societies, and gives extremists an excuse to divert attention from domestic issues.

Here is an example where Moses is mocked in the movie Wholly Moses!

You example fails on two counts:

- The director and producer are both Jewish and mocking one's own sensibilities is not the debate here.
- The movie does not mock Moses himself, but a commoner who believes himself to be
divinely inspired. Nowhere in the movie is there extreme demonization of Moses himself as we see about Mohammed or Christ.

Try again with an example that does not fail on the above two counts.

This is a very dishonest request, since no Jews have gone demanding the laws to be changed, killing people around and destroying public property over it.

Absolutely.

My first post itself commended the Jewish community for their way of handling the anti-Semitic bigots. Unlike the Muslim mobs, they handle the situation with brains rather than brawn.

Prevention is better than cure: public censure does the needful and that is a lesson worth emulating by everyone.

 

[Fekay]

Interesting perspective from salman rushdie: