Islam?

Remove all ads!

The ties between culture and religion are, I believe, much more closer in Islam than in Christianity. A perceived insult to Mohammad, then, would likely be an implicit insult to one's culture, race, heritage, etc. Even then, however, I don't think that images such as these are because of the nature of Islam; if Christians and Jews had had a similar history, especially with respect to a culture conflict, I'd be willing to bet we'd see about the same things.

That being said, demonstrations like these are reprehensible. The antidote to bad speech, however, is not censorship but good speech -- in this case, cultural and religious inclusivity.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but how can happen when an act that one group intends as completely innocent is taken by the other group as a deliberate, calculated insult? It's those kind of reactions that make me believe that some radical Islamic leaders will manufacture reasons for provocation out of any imagined slight they can find.

 

I admire their 'zeal', not their homocidal views. I admire that they actually give a damn about their beliefs, unlike the majority of Christians who laugh at Jesus and think he is a joke.

 

A good point. I would strongly like to believe that Islam can under the social changes Christianity experienced in the 19-20th century -- being able to accept (and embrace!) gender equality, racial equality, nonviolence, constitutional freedom of religion, etc.

I would like to believe that a newer generation of Muslims will be able to reconcile themselves with Western culture, Christianity, and modernity -- the thing that hugely unsettles me is that terrorists, like a number in the 9/11 attacks, were the children of immigrants, lived in the West, could (had?) obtained professional careers, but discovered Islamic fundamentalism later in life and became willing to kill thousands of Westerners in the name of Islam.

I somewhat wonder if the Christian right is in fact hypersensitive itself; a sigificant outcry (look for Dennis Prager on Wikipedia) erputed over when US Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, swore on a Koran for his induction into the House. People like Dennis Prager were able to respond by speaking on network TV, on radio, in opinion columns, etc. If there were a million people with the views of Dennis Prager regarding the topic, all disenfranchised and discriminated against by a different, dominant culture and religion, I have a feeling there would be conservative Christian protests like these.

Religiously fueled protest against the government or a general phenomenon (LGBT rights, the rising number of US Muslims, etc.) is, I think, dangerously difficult to untangle. When you believe you have God and His moral laws behind your back, it makes you dangerously averse discourse, negotiation, reflection, and empathy. I'm not sure how one would really approach a religiously hypersensitive group, but I hope it can be done over time by the people through challenging and question ingrained ideas about religion and morality (and sexuality, discrimination, etc.) The current believers might not respond to such a challenge, but I would hope their children might.

 

It wasn't Europeans or Americans that hijacked the planes on September 11, 2001. It was the extremists who did the bidding of their religious leader. If the Americans were responsible for 9/11, then the Muslims were responsible for the crusades by rudely occupying the Holy Land...

Riduculous? Yes. The only person to blame for those attrocities are the ones that did them or incited them.

 

The thing is that America is America, and not the holy land of Islam. I think that fundamentalist Islam is hugely a reaction to the modern West, and not at all the result of Muslims being bloodthirsty savages (compare Europe and the Middle East ~1,000 years ago). We should hold terrorists foremost to their actions, of course, but it'll be difficult to stop the flow of future terrorists unless the West (the US in particular) changes its foreign policy.

 

Yes to both of them, technically. It was Americans who 'hijacked' the planes, and they were most likely of European descent. People who believe that it was terrorists watch too much Fox News.

 

No, they really were terrorists, and most of them were Saudi. What Fox news and the president wanted everyone to believe was the Iraq was somehow involved.

 

No they really werent terrorists and they werent really mostly from Saudi. Do your research and forget all the propaganda and lies the American media says. The guy who recently said he masterminded the 'attack' said so while he was undergoing waterboarding. He also claimed responsibility for things such as the shoebombing incident, which has no links to Al Qaeda. Its all just a sham because Dubya is a lame duck.

One CIA official cautioned that "many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were 'white noise' designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day's interrogation session." For example according to Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and the top Republican on the terrorism panel of the House Intelligence Committee, he has admitted responsibility for the Bali nightculb bombing, but his involvement "could have been as small as arranging a safe house for travel. It could have been arranging finance.” Mohammed also made the admission that he was "responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation," which killed six and injured more than 1,000 when a bomb was detonated in an underground garage, Mohammed didn't plan the attack, but he may have supported it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_plots_4

 

Nat, you're badly misinformed.

A) The west has been the dominant force around the globe for the past few centuries. I don't think anyone is going to dispute this right?
B) It follows that if the west has been the most significant force in the world, then it is most responsible for the shape of the world, does it not? If not, why not?

 

@AMaster: There's a big difference between holding the West responsible for the shape of the world, and holding them responsible for how groups of individuals choose to react to that shape. Actions performed in the ordinary course of doing "western" business are being taken as deliberate attacks on Islam, and used as justification for terrorism. Perhaps Western business needs to modify itself a bit, but certainly not to the extent of coddling the extremists' point-of-view.

The responsibility for COMPROMISE is a shared.

 

What I am wondering is who actually wrote those signs, wouldnt surprise me if it was one small group who handed out English signs to non-English speaking people who happily carried around signs they had know idea what they were saying. The entire caricture issue stemmed more from a very small group whipping up a frenzy than any real issue. It even was to the extent that the pictures shown down in hte middle east wasnt even the pictures published in Denmark all to get it going. There are always agitators on all sides who use the ignorance and emotions of people for their own needs.

That said much of todays Islamic is a brilliant example of why religion is bad, bad bad bad. Trying to show off for example Christianity as an alternative is laughable and scary at th same time. It is the exact same mechanics and it would be as easy to turn Christians into suicide bombers with the right environment as it is to turn Muslims. It is basically the same freaking religion.

 

You are aware that you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever that our attackers weren't terrorists or that the majority of them were Saudi, right? Let me ask you this: if someone launches a terrorist attack is he (a) a terrorist or (b) an accountant?* Further, if a man's passport and all other relevant paperwork states that he is Saudi, the Saudi government acknowledges that he is Saudi, his family is from Saudi Arabia, and he grew up in Saudi Arabia is he more likely to be (a) Saudi or (b)a playboy centerfold?**

Seriously, if you are going to spout off crazy conspiracy theories with no factual basis, at least make them amusing.

* A terrorist, although that wouldn't necessarily preclude his also being an accountant.

** Saudi. He couldn't have been a centerfold because Playboy only shows pictures of naked girls. Then again, maybe he's post-op and did the photo before his surgery.......

 

I read the article, and the main point I came away with was that Mohammed was not directly responsible for many of these attacks. Could you cut and paste the paragraph out of the article where it specifically identifies the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers as not being mostly Saudi Arabian? I just went back and read the article again, but I must just keep missing it. Anyone see it?

 

Now, that's decent of you. To admire nothing but the "zeal" in "zealous murderers" who are, in your choice of words, quite justified in their hatred of Europe.

I would have you banned at once. Regrettably, that is not my decision to make.

 

If these people want to live under sharia law, let them go back to an Islamic country, there's nothing stopping them, except that they don't get houses and money for free in those countries. I don't know what the future holds for muslims in Britain... Racial tensions are growing, and not just between white British, but black British too, Lozells riot in 2005 for instance. The more they preach hate and protest, the worse life becomes for the general muslim population, they do their people no favours. People are losing their patience. I read recently that polls show the BNP are gaining a huge amount of favour, and that's not a positive thing, but this is what happens.

 

You know, it is possible to live under the standards of Sharia law voluntarily...and without breaking any western laws. In fact, most Muslims do and are perfectly happy doing so. I don't understand why westerners are so fearful of the idea of Muslims living their lives by more stringent precepts than everyone else. It's their lives. If they want to live their lives by some foolish religious standard without forcing it on the people around them (Muslims, for the most part, aren't interested in forcing everyone around them to engage in their way of life, as evidenced by the fact that there are only a very few Islamic theocracies in the world), more power to them.

 

Absolutely.

 

But the issue of the Mohammed caricatures is proof that there are Muslims inclined to force their beliefes and ways on others. Muslims who happen to be very visible, vocal and dangerous. That, I think, explains the anxiety among Westerners about the entire affair. Be it the Sharia or whatever might compound the mismatch of societies.