Islam and the Teddy Bear

[Varaj]

:shock:

t probably seemed like the most innocent of ideas to the newly arrived teacher from England, still settling into life in the Sudanese capital Khartoum. She asked her class of six and seven-year-olds to dress up and name a teddy bear, and keep a diary of his outings. She hoped it would provide material for projects for the rest of the year. And it might have, except for the name the children chose for their bear: Muhammad.

Now Gillian Gibbons, 54, is spending her second night in a Sudanese prison, accused of insulting Islam's Prophet. She faces a public lashing or up to six months in prison if found guilty on charges of blasphemy. And Unity High School — one of a number of exclusive British-run schools in the Sudanese capital — has been closed as staff fear reprisals from Islamic extremists. Robert Boulos, the school's director, said the incident had been blown out of all proportion, but added that the school would remain closed until January to let ill feelings blow over.

"This was a completely innocent mistake," he said in an office decorated with sepia photographs dating back to the school's colonial heyday. "Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Police raided the school, where Gibbons also lives, on Sunday.

"We tried to reason with them but we felt they were coming under strong pressure from Islamic courts," said Boulus. "There were men with big beards asking where she was and saying they wanted to kill her."

A similar angry crowd had gathered by the time she arrived at the Khartoum police station where she is being held.

Unity, founded early in the last century, is one of several British schools run along Christian lines in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Its high brick walls shut out the dust of everyday Sudanese life, transporting the visitor into the shady courtyard of an Oxbridge college or English private school. Many of its pupils come from well-to-do Sudanese families keen for their children to get the best education that money can buy. But Sudan is ruled by religious conservatives. Sharia law was introduced in 1991; alcohol is banned and women must wear headscarves. Convicted criminals are routinely flogged or executed.

The bizarre turn of events that led to the teacher's arrest began in September, soon after she arrived in the country, according to colleagues who have rallied in her support. Her young class was due to study the behavior and habitat of bears, so she suggested that pupils bring in a teddy bear to serve as a case study. A seven-year-old girl brought in her favorite cuddly toy and the rest of the class was invited to name him. After considering the names Hassan and Abdullah, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Muhammad — the first name of the most popular boy in the class.

"No parents or teachers complained because they knew she had no bad intention," said Boulos. Until last week. Parents from another class raised concerns with the school. Then Sudan's feared police came calling at the weekend. Gibbons' colleagues said they feared a disgruntled member of staff may be using the issue to cause trouble.

Bishop Ezikiel Kondo, chairman of the school council, said: "The thing may be very simple, but they just may make it bigger. It's a kind of blackmail." Khartoum has exploded with anger at accusations of blasphemy in the past. Last year angry demonstrators denounced cartoons of the Prophet that appeared in Danish newspapers. And there have been protests at the actions of Zoe's Ark, a French charity accused of trying to smuggle children out of neighboring Chad.

Now everyone is waiting to see whether religious leaders or politicians will take their supporters onto the streets this time. Most parents arriving at the school gates were supportive of the British teacher. One mother, whose seven-year-old son was in Gibbons' class, said her family had not been offended by the name. "Our Prophet Muhammad tells us to be forgiving," she said. "So she should be released. She didn't mean any of this at all."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html

[Vermicious Knid]

Muslims really, really need to get their asshats under control. :what:

[Janos]

Muslims really, really need to get their asshats under control. :what:

Amen.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Muslims really, really need to get their asshats under control. :what:

That would require "moderate" Muslims to get active. I don't see a lot of that happening. And the people the media nominates as "moderates" often turn out to be pretty unsavoury - e.g. Tarriq Ramadan.

Of course there are exceptions, e.g. Asif Manji, but they tend to be restricted to liberal democracies and are even vilified and marginalised in Muslim communities there.

IMHO, some of the key causes of the problem are in fact many of the core ideas of Islam itself (e.g. death to apostates, no separation of church and state, inherent subjugation of women to men, rejection of scientific results like evolution, etc). Islam hasn't yet been hammered by science, rationalism and modernity into something relatively harmless the way Christianity has been over the last five hundred years.

[Darkfire]

Muslims really, really need to get their asshats under control. :what:

Okay, I'm going to bite. How exactly would you imagine this occuring?

Atticus: The moderate muslim community in Southampton just hosted a conference about Muslim identity and integration into the UK which was well attended (especially by the female community, was about a 60/40 female/male split). So just because you haven't heard about it in Aussie doesn't mean there aren't a substantial amount of muslims working towards a better islam ;)

Also on what well researched basis are calling Tariq Ramadan 'unsavory', 'cause I'm always amazed at the depth and understanding you show towards religous topics and I'm looking forward to being educated.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Okay, I'm going to bite. How exactly would you imagine this occuring?

Atticus: The moderate muslim community in Southampton just hosted a conference about Muslim identity and integration into the UK which was well attended (especially by the female community, was about a 60/40 female/male split). So just because you haven't heard about it in Aussie doesn't mean there aren't a substantial amount of muslims working towards a better islam ;)

Also on what well researched basis are calling Tariq Ramadan 'unsavory', 'cause I'm always amazed at the depth and understanding you show towards religous topics and I'm looking forward to being educated.

I'd start with his refusal to condemn the stoning of adulterous women - but instead propose a temporary "moratorium" while the texts are re-examined. I'd move from there to the US's refusal to let him into the country on the basis of his alleged connections with terrorists. Then I'd look at the New Republic's cover article on him earlier this year. Then, I'd chase up a few of the books that are discussed in that article.

But really, all I need to do is ask this: Should apostates who speak out against Islam be killed? The last time I saw him asked that, his squirming evasions were truly disgusting. The only acceptable answer to that question is a straight-forward "no". And that's an answer he won't give, as far as I can tell.

[Eliezer]

But really, all I need to do is ask this: Should apostates who speak out against Islam be killed? The last time I saw him asked that, his squirming evasions were truly disgusting. The only acceptable answer to that question is a straight-forward "no". And that's an answer he won't give, as far as I can tell.


Come on Atticus, you're being a not being generous enough here. Of course apostates who speak out against Islam should be killed :rolleyes:

The real question is should apostates who keep to themselves and don't speak out against Islam be killed?

It's still the death penalty (at least on the books) in several countries.

And even more fundamentally should people who speak irreverently against the prophet (SAW) be killed? Some Danish journalists come to mind.


Darkfire, in all honesty, I have to give credit to some Muslims, like Quaddafi of Libya. He's a beautiful speaker at pointing out the hypocrisy of the west in referring to Muslims. He talks of the "Christian" terrorists in Ireland and the "Christian" extremists in Italy (the red army) and goes on and on in that vein. To people who really aren't living Islam and who are nominally Muslim I have no problem not calling them Muslim. The problem I have are Muslim clerics, some of whom are "moderate" who speak out condoning the death penalty for apostasy and for heresy.

[Darkfire]

I'd start with his refusal to condemn the stoning of adulterous women - but instead propose a temporary "moratorium" while the texts are re-examined. I'd move from there to the US's refusal to let him into the country on the basis of his alleged connections with terrorists. Then I'd look at the New Republic's cover article on him earlier this year. Then, I'd chase up a few of the books that are discussed in that article.

But really, all I need to do is ask this: Should apostates who speak out against Islam be killed? The last time I saw him asked that, his squirming evasions were truly disgusting. The only acceptable answer to that question is a straight-forward "no". And that's an answer he won't give, as far as I can tell.

Because his personal beliefs aside (and the moratorium would effectively prevent any death sentances being handed out during it) he's trying to bring the fundies into dialogue with the moderates of Islam. To do that he can't outright say anything at this stage that would drive them from the discussion and such a statement would do so.

A rock and a hard place so to speak.

And a few side points. Nelson Mandela needs special permission to enter the USA based on his terrorist links, so I'd take using the visa grants as character guides with truckload of salt. Also how about you actually read some of his books, or prehaps I can write Dawkins off as am atheist fanatic based on some of the articles I've read in papers about him?

[Darkfire]

Darkfire, in all honesty, I have to give credit to some Muslims, like Quaddafi of Libya. He's a beautiful speaker at pointing out the hypocrisy of the west in referring to Muslims. He talks of the "Christian" terrorists in Ireland and the "Christian" extremists in Italy (the red army) and goes on and on in that vein. To people who really aren't living Islam and who are nominally Muslim I have no problem not calling them Muslim. The problem I have are Muslim clerics, some of whom are "moderate" who speak out condoning the death penalty for apostasy and for heresy.

This topic got hammered to death on Nutkinland a few months ago and to be honest I don't have the energy to handle it now, but in brief it's something the muslim in the west are grappling with and the outcome from that is something which will ripple throughout the islamic world. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see what happens, but in the meantime Tariq Ramadan's call for the suspension of corperal punishment is probably the next best thing.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Should have named the thing Jesus!

[Pigs in Space]

Should have named the thing Jesus!

You're just trying to start a war.

[Eliezer]

This topic got hammered to death on Nutkinland a few months ago and to be honest I don't have the energy to handle it now, but in brief it's something the muslim in the west are grappling with and the outcome from that is something which will ripple throughout the islamic world. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see what happens, but in the meantime Tariq Ramadan's call for the suspension of corperal punishment is probably the next best thing.

Damn, Darkfire, that's a damn reasonable response. I didn't expect this out of you. Well done...

:)

[TiQuinn]

Should have named the thing Jesus!

What's wrong with naming the teddy bear after a Mexican? :confused:

[Space Cadet B^3]

You stole my rebuttal! :D

[doc]

The moderates can talk all they want to but as long as the extremists are active and out to get thier 72 virgins nothing will change.

[Eliezer]

Because his personal beliefs aside (and the moratorium would effectively prevent any death sentances being handed out during it) he's trying to bring the fundies into dialogue with the moderates of Islam. To do that he can't outright say anything at this stage that would drive them from the discussion and such a statement would do so.



Okay, I've got a question about this and maybe my question won't make much sense coming from my hereditary Judeo-Christian background of privilege...

Is the application of the death penalty to an adulterous person something that has an answer based on moral absolutes or is it something that depends upon one's interpretation of Islam?

If it is acceptable to interpret Islam in such a fashion and still be considered Muslim then I have an issue with the entire Islamic faith irrespective of moderateness. The only reason I'm willing to say that is because if a Christian sect advertised the same views I would label them as freaks and unilaterally declare them non-Christian and not deal with them.

Given my immoderate approach to this question I'm left on the one hand with either a cleric who is a coward and compromises on essential moral principles (if the application of the death penalty is unequivocally wrong) or someone who represents a religion whose tenets I find have no place in the modern world.

Either way I have a problem with this cleric, and I hope I am wrong...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Because his personal beliefs aside (and the moratorium would effectively prevent any death sentances being handed out during it) he's trying to bring the fundies into dialogue with the moderates of Islam. To do that he can't outright say anything at this stage that would drive them from the discussion and such a statement would do so.

A rock and a hard place so to speak.

Yes, I've heard that excuse. <sigh>

Even if its true, it's contemptible. Is the situation for Muslims in Western Europe so bad that a "moderate" has to lie to about his true views on the immorality of stoning adulterous women in order to be taken seriously in the Muslim community? And if Ramdan is not lying, if he is genuinely uncertain as to whether stoning adulterous women is immoral, then that's even worse. Ramadan is either a coward or a creep or the situation in the Western European Muslim community is far worse than most people think.

But that all assumes that the excuse is a genuine explanation. There is much (admittedly circumstantial) evidence to indicate that Ramadan is a wolf in sheep's clothing - his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood (his grandfather was one of its founders, his father was a prominent member, he's never repudiated it and he trades on this connection when it helps him), his connections to Muslim "charities" recently revealed to be financiers for terrorism, translations of secret recording of speeches he's given to Muslim groups when he thought no non-Muslims were around, the US's lisitng of him as a non-desirable immigrant to the extent he had to turn down a post at a US university, etc.

And a few side points. Nelson Mandela needs special permission to enter the USA based on his terrorist links, so I'd take using the visa grants as character guides with truckload of salt.

Nelson Mandela did have terrorist connections - and he also has a bloody good excuse. Are you conceding that Ramadan has terrorist connections? If so, what's Ramadan's excuse?


Also how about you actually read some of his books, or perhaps I can write Dawkins off as am atheist fanatic based on some of the articles I've read in papers about him?

I've read quite a few of his articles and essays, but not his books - that's what I do, read an author's shorter pieces first to see if he or she is worth the investment of time in reading his or her longer work. Indeed it was reading Ramadan, far more than Sam Harris, that persuaded me that there were very few genuine Muslim moderates. Ramadan was recommended by a critic of Sam Harris as an example of a Muslim moderate. What I read made me want to vomit - if this is what passes for "moderation" in Western European Islam, I thought, then there is no such thing. Luckily, I've since found Asif Manji (though I'm yet to read more than a smattering of her work). She seems to be a genuine moderate - but, unlike Ramadan, she's also vilified and threatened my her co-religionists.

This topic got hammered to death on Nutkinland a few months ago and to be honest I don't have the energy to handle it now, but in brief it's something the muslim in the west are grappling with and the outcome from that is something which will ripple throughout the islamic world. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see what happens, but in the meantime Tariq Ramadan's call for the suspension of corperal punishment is probably the next best thing.

You're "grappling" with the issue of whether apostates from Islam turned critics of Islam should be killed? Grappling. It's a hard question????????????? You have got to be kidding me.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Okay, I've got a question about this and maybe my question won't make much sense coming from my hereditary Judeo-Christian background of privilege...

Is the application of the death penalty to an adulterous person something that has an answer based on moral absolutes or is it something that depends upon one's interpretation of Islam?

If it is acceptable to interpret Islam in such a fashion and still be considered Muslim then I have an issue with the entire Islamic faith irrespective of moderateness. The only reason I'm willing to say that is because if a Christian sect advertised the same views I would label them as freaks and unilaterally declare them non-Christian and not deal with them.

Given my immoderate approach to this question I'm left on the one hand with either a cleric who is a coward and compromises on essential moral principles (if the application of the death penalty is unequivocally wrong) or someone who represents a religion whose tenets I find have no place in the modern world.

Either way I have a problem with this cleric, and I hope I am wrong...

You do realise that the Bible also calls for adulterous women to be stoned, don't you (admittedly the Old Testament, and there's a direct Jesus myth ("throw the first stone") to nullify it)? The Old Testament is where that old paedophile Mohammed plagiarised the relevant Koran verse from, after all.

[nerfherder]

Not looking too good - she's been charged now. :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7117430.stm
Teacher 'charged over teddy row'

A British teacher has been charged in Sudan with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs, reports say.

Reuters news agency said Sudanese state media reported that the charges were laid against 54-year-old Gillian Gibbons, from Liverpool.

She was arrested in Khartoum after allowing her class of primary school pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

The Foreign Office said it was unable to confirm the reports.

State media said prosecutors had completed their investigation and decided to charge Mrs Gibbons under Article 125 of the Sudanese criminal code.

Mrs Gibbons taught at Unity High School in Khartoum and the school's director, Robert Boulos, said earlier: "This is a very sensitive issue. We are very worried about her safety.

"This was a completely innocent mistake."

[Varaj]

This is so very, very wrong. It is very damning against Islam that so many find this acceptable and so few cry against it.

[Darkfire]

You do realise that the Bible also calls for adulterous women to be stoned, don't you (admittedly the Old Testament, and there's a direct Jesus myth ("throw the first stone") to nullify it)? The Old Testament is where that old paedophile Mohammed plagiarised the relevant Koran verse from, after all.

I working on my answer to the previous post when I saw this and I've realised that at the end of the day the energy/time spent on discussing issues is actually better spent on prepping for my lessons tomorrow. Hope you enjoy your mental masturbation Atticus.

[Darkfire]

This is so very, very wrong. It is very damning against Islam that so many find this acceptable and so few cry against it.

the latest from the MCB


MCB Appalled At Sudanese Decision to Charge Gillian Gibbons

The Muslim Council of Britain is appalled at the decision of the Sudanese authorities to charge the British schoolteacher, Gillian Gibbons, for allegedly 'insulting religion'.

"This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith. The children in Ms Gibbons' class and their parents have all testified as to her innocence in this matter. We call upon the Sudanese President, Umar al-Bashir, to intervene in this case without delay to ensure that Ms Gibbons is freed from this quite shameful ordeal," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.



For further information please contact the MCB:
The Muslim Council of Britain,
PO Box 57330,
London,
E1 2WJ
Tel: 0845 26 26 786
Fax: 0207 247 7079

[Varaj]

I working on my answer to the previous post when I saw this and I've realised that at the end of the day the energy/time spent on discussing issues is actually better spent on prepping for my lessons tomorrow. Hope you enjoy your mental masturbation Atticus.

I'm curious, how old to you thing Aisha was Mohammad consummated the marriage?

[Varaj]

the latest from the MCB

All very nice but misses the point, but I don't care if she intentionally insulted Mohammad or not. Jailing people for that is wrong.

[Darkfire]

All very nice but misses the point, but I don't care if she intentionally insulted Mohammad or not. Jailing people for that is wrong.

And according the previous press releases by the MCB the muslims in the UK agree with you.


MCB calls for Release for Teacher in Sudan


The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene in the case of the arrested schoolteacher, Ms Gillian Gibbons, with a view to ensuring that she is released without delay.

"This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.



For further information please contact the MCB:
The Muslim Council of Britain,
PO Box 57330,
London,
E1 2WJ
Tel: 0845 26 26 786
Fax: 0207 247 7079

[Varaj]

And according the previous press releases by the MCB the muslims in the UK agree with you.

No they don't. They keep saying things like "no malice was intended". I don't care if malice was intended her arrest is 100% wrong.


Originally Posted by Muslim Council of Britain
MCB calls for Release for Teacher in Sudan


The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene in the case of the arrested schoolteacher, Ms Gillian Gibbons, with a view to ensuring that she is released without delay.

"This is amazingly stupid and Ms Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that the concept of 'insulting Islam' as a crime is evil," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.



For further information please contact the MCB:
The Muslim Council of Britain,
PO Box 57330,
London,
E1 2WJ
Tel: 0845 26 26 786
Fax: 0207 247 7079


Fixed for what would be right.
The MCB keeps saying, "criminalizing the insult of Islam is ok, but since she didn't mean to insult Islam she is innocent of the crime that we agree should exist."
Criminalizing the insult of Islam is evil, period. Anybody that backs the laws that criminalize the insult of Islam is backing an evil position and doing evil.

[Darkfire]

No they don't. They keep saying things like "no malice was intended". I don't care if malice was intended her arrest is 100% wrong.



Fixed for what would be right.
The MCB keeps saying, "criminalizing the insult of Islam is ok, but since she didn't mean to insult Islam she is innocent of the crime that we agree should exist."
Criminalizing the insult of Islam is evil, period. Anybody that backs the laws that criminalize the insult of Islam is backing an evil position and doing evil.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's evil, but it is a stupid law when applied to non-muslims.

[Varaj]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's evil, but it is a stupid law when applied to non-muslims.

Even applied to Muslims it is evil.
If it makes you feel any better I think Christians have several evil things in them as well. :D

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm curious, how old to you thing Aisha was Mohammad consummated the marriage?

Old enough to be considered an adult by the standards of her society

[Varaj]

Old enough to be considered an adult by the standards of her society

I don't think 9 really fits that bill. I might also add a prophet of God is held to higher standards and not fucking 9 year olds is one of those higher standards.

[Pigs in Space]

I don't think 9 really fits that bill. I might also add a prophet of God is held to higher standards and not fucking 9 year olds is one of those higher standards.

Obviously it was an acceptable standard at the time. Mohammed would hardly have become the big 'ol prophet if people thought that it was peadophillia back then.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I working on my answer to the previous post when I saw this and I've realised that at the end of the day the energy/time spent on discussing issues is actually better spent on prepping for my lessons tomorrow. Hope you enjoy your mental masturbation Atticus.

I was wondering if you'd fall back on the pathetic "I'm insulted" excuse. Typical.

The real reason you don't respond is that you know Tariq Ramadan is a scumbag.

Now, since we're talking paedophilia, if the prophet led an exemplary life as you must claim as a Muslim, why would it be bad for you to marry and fuck a twelve year old? This, at least, is a question I have actually heard some few Muslims give a non-disgusting answer to.

And one other thing. It is every muslim's inalienable human right to insult the prophet - by, say, calling him a paedophile. Until moderate Islam acknowledges that - along with every muslim's right to apostate and insult Islam - Islam will be incompatible with liberal democracy.

[Andreas]

Hmm, seems that where different times back then..

Margaret I of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark)

She was born in Vordingborg Castle, the daughter of Valdemar IV of Denmark and Helvig of Sønderjylland. She married, at the age of ten, King Haakon VI of Norway, who was the younger and only surviving son to Magnus VII of Norway, Magnus II of Sweden.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hmm, seems that where different times back then..

Margaret I of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark)

Indeed. But no one today is holding up King Haakon VI of Norway as a timeless moral exemplar. Old men aren't "marrying" twelve year olds in Denmark and citing the timeless example of King Haakon VI of Norway as "proof" that to do so is perfectly moral.

[Varaj]

Hmm, seems that where different times back then..

Margaret I of Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark)

When was the marriage consummated? Young marriages where normal, young consummations where not.

[Varaj]

Obviously it was an acceptable standard at the time. Mohammed would hardly have become the big 'ol prophet if people thought that it was peadophillia back then.

Actually he was already the big 'ol prophet and he had to pull the "God" card to pull of shagging the 9 year old.

[qstor]

This is BS. Some people are SO backwards.

Mike

[Andreas]

There is considerable debate among Muslim scholars over Aisha's age at marriage. The Indian Muslim leader Maulana Muhammad Ali makes a detailed historical argument that Aisha could not have been more than nine or ten at the time of betrothal, and fifteen at marriage.[18] Others fix her age at consummation as late as nineteen.[19] American scholar Muqtedar Khan also concurs with Shanavas, who argues that there are different reports within the Islamic sources about the age of Aisha at the time of marriage.[

The German wiki-site about Aisha has more informations about the controversy of her age, but it is really late and i go to bed now. Maybe someone else will...

Link (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aischa_bint_Abi_Bakr)

Die obige Überlieferung versuchen andere Muslime zu entkräften, indem sie hervorheben, dass alle Hisham Ibn Urwa in der Überlieferungskette haben. Nicht nur gingen damit alle entsprechenden Hadithen auf eine Quelle zurück, es komme hinzu, dass Hisham Ibn ‘Urwa von vielen Gelehrten außerhalb der Orthodoxie – einschließlich Ibn Abbas – als „unglaubwürdig“ eingestuft wird. Viele andere Hadithen dagegen erlauben die Schlussfolgerung, dass Aischa bei ihrer Heirat zwischen ca. 9 und 19 Jahre alt gewesen sein könnte. Im folgenden Argumente für das höheres Heiratsalter:

Laut Ibn Hischams Zusammenfassung von Ibn Ishaqs (d. 768) Biographie des Propheten Mohammed, der Sīrat Rasûl Allāh, welche die älteste erhaltenen Biographie Mohammeds ist, soll Aischa vor Umar ibn al-Khattab muslimisch geworden sein. Umbar konvertierte in der Zeit um 614 bis um 622, als sich Mohammed im Haus von al-Arqam ibn Abi 'l-Arqam in Mekka aufhielt; ein genaueres Datum ist aus den Quellen nicht zu erschließen. Aischa könnte danach im Jahre 622 n. Chr (das Jahr 1 der islamischen Zeitrechnung) – dem ungefähren Zeitpunkt ihrer Vermählung – sowohl älter als auch knapp unter zehn Jahre alt gewesen sein. Auch das Alter bei ihrer Entjunferung wäre dann entsprechend höher. Vorausgesetzt man hält sich in diesem Fall an Aischas Angaben, die zwischen Heirat und Ehevollzug drei Jahre angibt.

Tabari berichtet, dass Abu Bekr acht Jahre vor der Hidschra (um 622 n. Chr.), als er selbst nach Äthiopien auswandern wollte, zu Mut`im gegangen sein soll – mit dessen Sohn Aischa damals verlobt war – und ihm ein Heiratsangebot bezüglich dessen Sohn und Aischa überbrachte. Mut`im soll abgelehnt haben, da Abu Bakr in der Zwischenzeit zum Islam konvertiert war. Setzt man voraus, daß Aischa bei ihrer Eheschließung mit Mohammed neun Jahre alt gewesen ist, wäre sie nach Tabaris Überlieferungen zum Zeitpunkt der geplanten Auswanderung Abu Bakrs noch nicht einmal geboren gewesen.[1]

Laut Ibn Hadjar soll Fatima fünf Jahre älter als Aischa gewesen sein und wurde geboren, als Mohammed 35 Jahre alt war. Mohammed, dessen genaues Geburtsdatum unbekannt ist und meist mit „um 570“ angegeben wird, wanderte wahrscheinlich 622 nach Medina aus. Dies würde bedeuten, dass Aischa bei der Heirat zumindest über 12 Jahre alt gewesen wäre.[2]

Laut Abd al-Rahman ibn abi Zinad soll Aischa zehn Jahre jünger als ihre ältere Schwester Asma gewesen sein.[3] [4] Ibn Kathīr berichtet außerdem, dass Asma den Tod ihres Sohnes im Jahre 695 miterlebte haben soll und wenige Tage danach selber im Alter von 100 Jahren starb (die Hadithen nennen Zeiträume zwischen fünf und 100 Tagen). [5]. Das wird von Ibn Hadjar al-Asqalani bestätigt, der das gleiche Alter und das Jahr 695 oder 697 als Todesjahr nennt.[6]. Damit wäre Asma im Jahre 622 n. Chr. rund 26 Jahre alt gewesen und die zehn Jahre jüngere Aischa entsprechend ca. 16 Jahre alt. Als Mohammad und Aischa zusammenzogen, wäre sie nach dieser Rechnung 18 oder sogar 19 Jahre alt gewesen.

Aischa ist dafür bekannt geworden, dass sie sich tatkräftig an einigen von Mohammeds vielen Kriegen beteiligte. Sowohl in der Schlacht von Badr (624) als auch in der Schlacht von Uhud (625) war sie dabei. Viele Hadithen bestätigen dies. Al-Bukhari schreibt dazu, dass Mohammed der 14-Jährigen verbot, an militärischen Auseinandersetzungen teilzunehmen, aber an deren 15. Geburtstag ihr die Erlaubnis dazu gab.[7] Vorausgesetzt die Schlacht von Badr wäre ihre erste gewesen, müßte sie kurz vor oder im Jahr 624 n. Chr. 15 Jahre alt geworden sein, was auf eine Heiratsalter von rund 12 bis 13 Jahren schließen lassen würde.

In einer Hadith von Al-Bukhari sagt Aischa: „Ich war ein junges Mädchen (djāriya) als die Sure al-Qamar offenbart wurde“[8]. Da diese Sure acht Jahre vor der Hidschra verfasst worden sein soll, wäre Aischa nach dieser Berechnung, wenn sie mit neun Jahren geheiratet hätte, damals erst ein Baby (sabiyya) gewesen. Das Wort djāriya wird gewöhnlich für sechs bis 13 Jahre alte Mädchen verwendet, was auf ein Heiratsalter von rund 13/14 Jahren oder älter hindeuten würde.

Nach Ansicht einiger Autoren soll Aischa bei ihrer Heirat zumindest geschlechtsreif gewesen sein. Es wird agumentieret, daß diese Reife mit neun Jahren wahrscheinlich nicht vorhanden gewesen sein kann. Zudem wurde Aischa in den Überlieferungen bikr genannt, ein Wort, das für erwachsene Jungfrauen verwendet wird. Und dies bereits, als die Verlobung diskutiert wurde, also drei Jahre vor der Heirat.[9].

[Varaj]

The German wiki-site about Aisha has more informations about the controversy of her age, but it is really late and i go to bed now. Maybe someone else will...

Link (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aischa_bint_Abi_Bakr)

The vast majority agree 6 for marriage 9 for consummation.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The vast majority agree 6 for marriage 9 for consummation.

And a terrifying number of Muslim men today use that as a justification for "marrying" girls as young as 10.

[The Winslow]

When was the marriage consummated? Young marriages where normal, young consummations where not.

Yup. Royal weddings were a question of politics first and foremost. Many of them would never have been accepted for "normal" people; and in fact it was not uncommon for underage spouses to never see each others until they were deemed of age, spending their childhood separately in their own courts.

This isn't comparable in any way to the case of Muhammad and Aisha.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yup. Royal weddings were a question of politics first and foremost. Many of them would never have been accepted for "normal" people; and in fact it was not uncommon for underage spouses to never see each others until they were deemed of age, spending their childhood separately in their own courts.

This isn't comparable in any way to the case of Muhammad and Aisha.

Yes, I doubt our old camel-trader-turned-conman Mohammed waited until Aisha had grass on the field...

[Darkfire]

Seriously Atticus neg rep me all you want if it makes you feel better, but arguing with Milo when he was trolling was more pleasent and a better use of my time than replying to your posts.

So shine on little star and by all means continue to insist that it is your right to be a bigoted, insulting little man.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Seriously Atticus neg rep me all you want if it makes you feel better, but arguing with Milo when he was trolling was more pleasent and a better use of my time than replying to your posts.

So shine on little star and by all means continue to insist that it is your right to be a bigoted, insulting little man.

Insulting, I'll accept;* but bigoted? Where am I discriminating without a rational jsutification? What am I ignorant of? Please enlighten me?

Or should I read some more Tariq Ramadan? He did so much to improve my attitude last time he refused to condemn stoning women.

And while we're at it: you "wouldn't go so far as to say' that a law against insulting the prophet was "evil, but it is a stupid law when applied to non-muslims." So such a dictatorial law is ok for Muslims? Really???

*Theists in general, and Muslims in particular, need to get used to having their religion insulted the way the rest of us are used to having our non-religious beliefs insulted. I look forward to the day that a ex-Muslim artist can make a statuette of the Prophet Mohammed sodomising a twelve-year old Aisha, submerge it and a Koran in a vat of pigs urine and display it in an art gallery and get nothing more for his troubles than unkind words from some well behaved protectors.

[Darkfire]

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief, or opinion.


...our old camel-trader-turned-conman Mohammed waited until Aisha had grass on the field... And a terrifying number of Muslim men today use that as a justification for "marrying" girls as young as 10. ....old paedophile Mohammed plagiarised the relevant Koran verse from, after all...

So Atticus, get your head out of your ass, because every time we discuss Islam you use it as an chance to indulge in your hate of it and I really can't be bothered to discuss it with you if you can't hold a civil conversation.

P.S ooo zing, another neg rep....indulging your epeener today are we?

[Darkfire]

To everyone else that's been discussing the issue of Ayesha's age, I'm going away for the next few days, but after that I'll post a new thread dealing it and you all can tear me a new one there :D

And in parting, the Sudanese police and goverment are a bunch of fucktards using an islamic law as political tool to curry popularity amongst the ignorant of their country :mad:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief, or opinion.



So Atticus, get your head out of your ass, because every time we discuss Islam you use it as an chance to indulge in your hate of it and I really can't be bothered to discuss it with you if you can't hold a civil conversation.

P.S ooo zing, another neg rep....indulging your epeener today are we?

Not sure where you got that definition from. Wiktionary says "One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others". Nope, not me.

Oxford says: "noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others." Now "prejudice" means prejudge or judge without consideration. I've done a LOT of reading and thinking before I cam to the view I now hold on Islam. indeed, those with long memories will remember me defending Islam against Stannis and Scut in teh yearrs after 9/11.

As for "intolerant of the opinions of others", depends what you mean. I welcome the opinions of others, so long as they're backed up by argument. So, where are your arguments?

Finally, "civil discussion". Well, it's not uncommon when discussing Bill Clinton to refer to him as an adulterer and a liar. Some may even argue against the last point. No one thinks that's anything more than robust debate. So grow up. Religion doesn't get privileged treatment any more.

Now, if you want to argue that Mohamed was not an illiterate paedophile, or that the Koran is not laced with plagiarisms from the Bible, then be my guest. I'd very much like to hear your reasons. But I have to say I'm most interested in how you defend the odious Tariq Ramadan.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

To everyone else that's been discussing the issue of Ayesha's age, I'm going away for the next few days, but after that I'll post a new thread dealing it and you all can tear me a new one there :D

I look forward to reading it.

And in parting, the Sudanese police and goverment are a bunch of fucktards using an islamic law as political tool to curry popularity amongst the ignorant of their country :mad:

But that's not the point. The point is that the law itself is an abomination. It's a human right for anyone, including a Muslim (especially a Muslim) to insult the prophet.

[Darkfire]

Self justify all you want Atticus, but you go out your way to phrase things in the most insulting way possible and all these discussions generally end up with you mouthing off.
Learn to hold a civil discussion and realise for once its not about respecting the religion, it's about being polite to the people who post on this board.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Self justify all you want Atticus, but you go out your way to phrase things in the most insulting way possible and all these discussions generally end up with you mouthing off.
Learn to hold a civil discussion and realise for once its not about respecting the religion, it's about being polite to the people who post on this board.

Hmm, isn't that interesting. Not once have I insulted you in this thread or elsewhere. I've insulted a dead man, the Prophet Mohammed, I've expressed profound intellectual opposition to Islam and the belief that large chunks of the Koran are plagiarised, I've expressed grave doubts about the character of Tariq Ramadan and expressed grave concerns about the paucity of true Muslim "moderates".

Yet all this you took personally. And it's precisely *that* personalisation of the issue is part of the problem with Islam.

Indeed, one of the things that gets me so angry with Islam is that it could cause an otherwise sensible and civilised man like you to say something so immoral as that you think a law banning Muslims from insulting the prophet might be justified.

Left to to themselves, good people will say and do good things and evil people will say and do evil things; but for good people to say or do evil things, thattake dogma.* And the most pernicious form of dogma in the world, now that Communism is gone, is Islam (followed a fair way back by fundamentalist Christianity).

*Apologies to Steven Weinberg for ripping off his quote.

[nerfherder]

And in parting, the Sudanese police and goverment are a bunch of fucktards using an islamic law as political tool to curry popularity amongst the ignorant of their country :mad:

Did you see Newsnight last night where a member of the MCB laid into a member of the Sudanese embassy? Paxman started off by slating the Sudanese government, but then just let the MCB guy take over. It was most excellent!

[Freedom Canadian]

And the most pernicious form of dogma in the world, now that Communism is gone, is Islam (followed a fair way back by fundamentalist Christianity).


Nah, it's capitalism. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Nah, it's capitalism. :)

Capitalism may or not be pernicious, but it's not a dogma as far as I can see. Indeed, it seems to me to be one of the most openly criticised and challenged social systems in history.

[Varaj]

Nah, it's capitalism. :)

How dare you insult Capitalism die in fire infidel!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yes! There's no point debating with someone as rude as you. How can you expect to engage in civil discussion when you insult my capitalistic ideals like that! Shame on you!

[The Winslow]

Capitalism may or not be pernicious, but it's not a dogma as far as I can see. Indeed, it seems to me to be one of the most openly criticised and challenged social systems in history.

Capitalism may not be itself a dogma, because it's too broad and general a philosophy, but there are of dogmas in economics.

[Varaj]

Capitalism may not be itself a dogma, because it's too broad and general a philosophy, but there are of dogmas in economics.

There is but one truth but economics and Greenspan is its messanger. May the wealth and joys of Capitalism be upon him and his family.

[Eliezer]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's evil, but it is a stupid law when applied to non-muslims.

But it's okay to punish Muslims for expressing disdain or disrespect to the prophet (SAW) or Islam?

You just clinched it. You're a radical.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Capitalism may not be itself a dogma, because it's too broad and general a philosophy, but there are of dogmas in economics.

Well, there are beliefs that are held without good evidence, yes. Supply side economics, for example.

[Eliezer]

You do realise that the Bible also calls for adulterous women to be stoned, don't you (admittedly the Old Testament, and there's a direct Jesus myth ("throw the first stone") to nullify it)? The Old Testament is where that old paedophile Mohammed plagiarised the relevant Koran verse from, after all.

Atticus, did you just catch me in your general furor over general religion hating or some particular hate on me for any reason? I come from a Western culture and hence have a judeo-christian outlook on lots of things. I am biblically literate enough to be aware of the old testament laws on killing disobedient children, adulterers and others.

So my question of whether he's a moral coward or if he's a radical, although phrased differently than how you put it is identical to yours.

Which is why you casting aspersions on me for saying what you said is kind of curious...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, did you just catch me in your general furor over general religion hating or some particular hate on me for any reason? I come from a Western culture and hence have a judeo-christian outlook on lots of things. I am biblically literate enough to be aware of the old testament laws on killing disobedient children, adulterers and others.

So my question of whether he's a moral coward or if he's a radical, although phrased differently than how you put it is identical to yours.

Which is why you casting aspersions on me for saying what you said is kind of curious...

Huh?? No aspersions against you were intended.

[Eliezer]

Huh?? No aspersions against you were intended.

Ah, very well. Then my answer is, "Yes, I am aware of the old testament directives with regard to death penalties".

[Varaj]

But it's okay to punish Muslims for expressing disdain or disrespect to the prophet (SAW) or Islam?

You just clinched it. You're a radical.


That makes him a moderate (maybe even liberal) Muslim.

[Eliezer]

That makes him a moderate (maybe even liberal) Muslim.

Right. Let me modify:

Darkfire you're a radical westerner and apparently a moderate Muslim.

So moderate Muslim = radical pretending to be non-radical.

[Pigs in Space]

Hmm, isn't that interesting. Not once have I insulted you in this thread or elsewhere. I've insulted a dead man, the Prophet Mohammed, I've expressed profound intellectual opposition to Islam and the belief that large chunks of the Koran are plagiarised, I've expressed grave doubts about the character of Tariq Ramadan and expressed grave concerns about the paucity of true Muslim "moderates".[/SIZE]

C'mon atticus, that's like when I say "All Americans are Fat Assholes, who elected a warmongering simpleton, whose policies encourage a culture of violence and fear, which is damaging to humanity as a whole."

And then the Americans on the board get grumpy about it.

But it's fine, cos I tell them that "I didn't mean YOU, I meant Americans, and George W".

You just clinched it. You're a radical.
Don't you think you're overstating that a bit there?

I wouldn't be surprised if most non-fundamentalist muslims agree with DF's views.

So that makes them all radicals? So now there are no moderates?

[Varaj]

I wouldn't be surprised if most non-fundamentalist muslims agree with DF's views.

So that makes them all radicals? So now there are no moderates?

Most westerners would consider jail time or lashing for insulting a concept as pretty radical. Most westerners consider killing somebody for writing a book pretty radical. Many "moderate" Muslims consider those concepts ok. The average "moderate" Muslim is actually pretty radical by western standards.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

C'mon atticus, that's like when I say "All Americans are Fat Assholes, who elected a warmongering simpleton, whose policies encourage a culture of violence and fear, which is damaging to humanity as a whole."

And then the Americans on the board get grumpy about it.

But it's fine, cos I tell them that "I didn't mean YOU, I meant Americans, and George W".

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say Muslims were stupid. I said key ideas in Islam were evil. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali says, you have to distinguish Islam the ideology and Muslims the people. Many Muslims are profoundly good people and believers in liberal democracy, but more often than not that's despite their belief in the ideas of Islam.

Communists aren't evil. Communist ideas are. Mutatis mutandis.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Most westerners would consider jail time or lashing for insulting a concept as pretty radical. Most westerners consider killing somebody for writing a book pretty radical. Many "moderate" Muslims consider those concepts ok. The average "moderate" Muslim is actually pretty radical by western standards.

Precisely.

By the standards of the liberal democratic world, most of the so-called Islamic moderates would count as fundamentalist nit bags. That is the terrifying extent of our problem.

[Pigs in Space]

Most westerners would consider jail time or lashing for insulting a concept as pretty radical. Most westerners consider killing somebody for writing a book pretty radical. Many "moderate" Muslims consider those concepts ok. The average "moderate" Muslim is actually pretty radical by western standards.

Ah, so it's semantics?
Muslim moderates are not moderate in the western sense of a moderate, they are moderate in the sense of what would be moderate for the much more fundy leaning muslim society, which makes a muslim moderate far closer to what we would call a fundamentalist?

And therefore, cos DF is closer to what I, living in the west would consider a moderate, he is actually a radical?

And your last sentence - do you mean "The average "moderate" Muslim is actually pretty fundamentalist by western standards."

I'm thinky fundy=more car bombs and stannis ejaculate,
radical= more flowers and love and not starting wars in the name of Allah and stuff.

No, that's not what I said. I didn't say Muslims were stupid. I said key ideas in Islam were evil. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali says, you have to distinguish Islam the ideology and Muslims the people. Many Muslims are profoundly good people and believers in liberal democracy, but more often than not that's despite their belief in the ideas of Islam.

Communists aren't evil. Communist ideas are. Mutatis mutandis.

Shouldn't you be in bed?

Anyway, you're kidding right? You think that you can say to people "You're idea's are stupid" (in a very insulting manner) and then expect them to not get pissed off about it, because you're insulting their ideas, but not them?

[Varaj]

Ah, so it's semantics?
Muslim moderates are not moderate in the western sense of a moderate, they are moderate in the sense of what would be moderate for the much more fundy leaning muslim society, which makes a muslim moderate far closer to what we would call a fundamentalist?

And therefore, cos DF is closer to what I, living in the west would consider a moderate, he is actually a radical?

And your last sentence - do you mean "The average "moderate" Muslim is actually pretty fundamentalist by western standards."

I'm thinky fundy=more car bombs and stannis ejaculate,
radical= more flowers and love and not starting wars in the name of Allah and stuff.

I mean that many of the things that "moderate" Muslims except as good and proper most western folks would consider very very bad.
Ex. DF is ok with jailing and lashing a Muslim for naming a teddy bear Mohammad. Most westerners say that is bad and not a "moderate" position.

[Pigs in Space]

I mean that many of the things that "moderate" Muslims except as good and proper most western folks would consider very very bad.
Ex. DF is ok with jailing and lashing a Muslim for naming a teddy bear Mohammad. Most westerners say that is bad and not a "moderate" position.

Righto, I was assuming "moderate" meant someone who would of course disagree with these things.

[Varaj]

Righto, I was assuming "moderate" meant someone who would of course disagree with these things.

Do you consider DF moderate because he agrees with them? Do you consider the MCB moderate because they agree with them?

[Pigs in Space]

Do you consider DF moderate because he agrees with them?
I would say that allowing people to be beaten for making statements against religous figures is a fundamentalist policy. So in this case I would say DF is behaving like a fundy if he agrees with it.

Do you consider the MCB moderate because they agree with them?
On this one you seem to be deciding for yourself what the MCB actually agrees with, I haven't seen any evidence as to whether or not they are for/against the law, just that they are saying this woman should not be punished.

[Varaj]

I would say that allowing people to be beaten for making statements against religous figures is a fundamentalist policy. So in this case I would say DF is behaving like a fundy if he agrees with it.

I'll just quote darkfire.
Coopers you may consider it a fundamentalist policy but most of the Muslim word would consider DF position very moderate if not out right liberal.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's evil, but it is a stupid law when applied to non-muslims.



On this one you seem to be deciding for yourself what the MCB actually agrees with, I haven't seen any evidence as to whether or not they are for/against the law, just that they are saying this woman should not be punished.


MCB Appalled At Sudanese Decision to Charge Gillian Gibbons

The Muslim Council of Britain is appalled at the decision of the Sudanese authorities to charge the British schoolteacher, Gillian Gibbons, for allegedly 'insulting religion'.

"This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith. The children in Ms Gibbons' class and their parents have all testified as to her innocence in this matter. We call upon the Sudanese President, Umar al-Bashir, to intervene in this case without delay to ensure that Ms Gibbons is freed from this quite shameful ordeal," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.



For further information please contact the MCB:
The Muslim Council of Britain,
PO Box 57330,
London,
E1 2WJ
Tel: 0845 26 26 786
Fax: 0207 247 7079



MCB calls for Release for Teacher in Sudan


The Muslim Council of Britain calls upon the Sudanese government to intervene in the case of the arrested schoolteacher, Ms Gillian Gibbons, with a view to ensuring that she is released without delay.

"This is a very unfortunate incident and Ms Gibbons should never have been arrested in the first place. It is obvious that no malice was intended," said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.



For further information please contact the MCB:
The Muslim Council of Britain,
PO Box 57330,
London,
E1 2WJ
Tel: 0845 26 26 786
Fax: 0207 247 7079


Oh my mistake they are ok with punishing non-Muslims if they actually intended insult. You are correct their position is less moderate than I stated.

[Pigs in Space]

I'll just quote darkfire.
Coopers you may consider it a fundamentalist policy but most of the Muslim word would consider DF position very moderate if not out right liberal.
Right, that's why I was saying we were arguing semantics.

So does that make him a muslim fundamentalist, or a muslim radical?


Oh my mistake they are ok with punishing non-Muslims if they actually intended insult. You are correct their position is less moderate than I stated.
It does not follow that if they are anti non-muslim being punished that they are ok with a muslim being punished.

(even though they probably are... but it is not something you can be assured of from what they have said).

[Varaj]

So does that make him a muslim fundamentalist, or a muslim radical?


I'm not trying to argue semantics I'm trying to explain what I mean.


So does that make him a muslim fundamentalist, or a muslim radical?


Depends on how you are using the terms. It is a position that most western folks would consider bad.


It does not follow that if they are anti non-muslim being punished that they are ok with a muslim being punished.

(even though they probably are... but it is not something you can be assured of from what they have said).

I feel confident saying it with a very high degree of probability of it being correct. :cool:

[nerfherder]

They've jailed the teacher for 15 days (just in case anyone is still interested in what's happening to her).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm

UK teacher jailed over teddy row

A British teacher has been found guilty in Sudan of insulting religion after she allowed her primary school class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison after a day-long court hearing.

Mrs Gibbons had been accused on three counts of insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

She will be deported after serving her sentence in Sudan's capital Khartoum.

[Eliezer]

Don't you think you're overstating that a bit there?

I wouldn't be surprised if most non-fundamentalist muslims agree with DF's views.

So that makes them all radicals? So now there are no moderates?

Ah, so it's semantics?
Muslim moderates are not moderate in the western sense of a moderate, they are moderate in the sense of what would be moderate for the much more fundy leaning muslim society, which makes a muslim moderate far closer to what we would call a fundamentalist?

And therefore, cos DF is closer to what I, living in the west would consider a moderate, he is actually a radical?


Cooper, moderate and radical are all relative terms. So you do have to provide a baseline of what moderation is and what radical is. I think it's pretty clear that the positions of the Sudanese government are radical by Western standards. And Darkfire pretty much falls under the same "radical" label by the same standard. There are undoubtedly standards under which it is not radical. In Sudan (where civil war, mass murders, executing adulterers and apostates is much more accepted) the teacher's sentence of 15 days and deportation is very "liberal". It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm curious as to why you should be bothered by such a broad appellation? Do you feel uncomfortable by applying that standard to declare someone radical or does the truth of it make you uncomfortable and widen the gap between you and people like Darkfire. I may like Darkfire and think he's a fine individual, but his beliefs pretty much cast him as a radical. That doesn't mean I won't hang out with him at parties, but according to the standard I've chosen to use the term "radical" fits.

But then again, I am radical in the Muslim world. I'm okay with that too.

[Pigs in Space]

I'm not trying to argue semantics I'm trying to explain what I mean.
I'm fairly clear on what you mean.... now.

I'd like to have common terminology. ;)



you could make it a board rule.

[Pigs in Space]

I'm curious as to why you should be bothered by such a broad appellation? Do you feel uncomfortable by applying that standard to declare someone radical or does the truth of it make you uncomfortable and widen the gap between you and people like Darkfire. I may like Darkfire and think he's a fine individual, but his beliefs pretty much cast him as a radical. That doesn't mean I won't hang out with him at parties, but according to the standard I've chosen to you the term "radical" fits.

I'm not particularly bothered by any of it - I just disagree with the terminology, being used interchangeably.

If DF does really believe that it's acceptable for the government to beat people for insulting Mohammed, then he's needs to get with the programme before the Zeitgeist gets him. Especially considering he's a Fundamentalist, Radical, Moderate, Muslim.

[Andreas]

Most westerners would consider jail time or lashing for insulting a concept as pretty radical. Most westerners consider killing somebody for writing a book pretty radical.

What is the sentence for pissing on the flag again?

[Varaj]

What is the sentence for pissing on the flag again?

According the US Supreme Court absolutely nothing. It is protected speech 100%. And you must not have read my diatribes on how bad and idea it is that people want to limit speech in that manner.

[nerfherder]

What is the sentence for pissing on the flag again?

There are no punishments for breaking the flag code. When the subject has come up, the US Supreme Court has ruled that any punishment would violate the First Amendment.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Anyway, you're kidding right? You think that you can say to people "You're idea's are stupid" (in a very insulting manner) and then expect them to not get pissed off about it, because you're insulting their ideas, but not them?

We insult people's ideas all the time in discussions about ideas in politics or art or macs vs pcs or economics. You should see the way elite scientists brutally insult each other's ideas. When people take this sort of thing personally in these contexts they're ridiculed as over-sensitive losers. Why do we treat religious ideas any differently?

[Trainz]

If a muslim dude who's been spending years on these particular boards doesn't see the problem with jailing a muslim for insulting his own religion, then I am very scared of muslims in general. I am basing that feeling on the presumption that he is one of the most open-minded ones, having sharing posts with westerners for so long.

I have yet to meet an online muslim that says "my religion in its current state is bad, it's laws are bad, and I'm looking forward to the day when it will be modified in a way that respects basic human decency".

Holding my breath... :shock:

[The Winslow]

I have yet to meet an online muslim that says "my religion in its current state is bad, it's laws are bad, and I'm looking forward to the day when it will be modified in a way that respects basic human decency".

But in a way, it frightens me less than the non-Muslims who claim that we should abide the Islamists' demands because "who are we to judge their culture?"...

[Hatter]

With protesters calling for the execution of the teacher over this I really wonder if our cultures aren't just too different to coexist.

[Eliezer]

With protesters calling for the execution of the teacher over this I really wonder if our cultures aren't just too different to coexist.

Co-existence will never be possible as long as two conditions exist.

The first is Western dependence upon oil.

The second is the Islamic world's insistence that their problems are caused by the West.


The second is undoubtedly the greater barrier. The first is the one over which Westerners have the greatest opportunity to change.

[Trainz]

But in a way, it frightens me less than the non-Muslims who claim that we should abide the Islamists' demands because "who are we to judge their culture?"...

They frighten me less; their potential impact is far less.

But I understand what you mean.

Still holding my breath... :shock:

[AZRogue]

I try to insult Islam at least once a day. On principle. Each time, I can attest that malice was indee intended.

It's one of the few things that I do for mankind in general, out of the goodness of my heart. The rest of my day is spent being selfish.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I think perhaps I confused Muslim with Islam, but I got better.

[Varaj]

I think perhaps I confused Muslim with Islam, but I got better.

Muslim is to Islam as Christian is to Christianity :D

[Eliezer]

I think perhaps I confused Muslim with Islam, but I got better.

Yes it's important not to confuse the two. Modern Islam isn't dangerous any more than any other idea is dangerous.

Muslims are dangerous only insofar as they actually believe the ideas taught be Islam. i.e. that people should be punished for speaking ill of the prophet (SAW).


Just like anti-evolutionary fundamentalism Christian isn't dangerous. People who believe that anti-science crap are dangerous.

[Darkfire]

Just a quick post and run:

Re: muslims and the insulting the prophet (pbuh) issue

When you convert to Islam you are in effect signing a contract with God and with that contract goes a whole set of rules, rewards and punishments which apply to you as a muslim. So I would say its not punishable (though it is offensive) for non-muslims to insult the prophet. For a muslim who has agreed not to do such thing though, who has effecively his/her promise when converting to Islam it is an issue.

Now the complications come in with what actually consitutes these rules, rewards and punishments (collectively referred to sharia, or basically guidance). It's a whole topic in of itself, but it's supposed to be more than a blind following of the letter of the law (which is what's happened with the teddybear thing) and more of an informed consensus that benefits the muslim community

Re: my stance on this

Varaj, you've pushed for a statement on behalf about whether this is right or wrong.

I would never physically punish someone for insulting the prophet or Islam, though I might verbally reprimand them. I can not however say whether this stance is right or wrong, I'm simply just not qualified to make a call on it and the same will be true for many muslims. Which basically means that while many of us out right make what effectively is a legal ruling as if we call it wrong it's a pretty bad mark against us in the hear after.

Re: the mob calling for blood

Firstly the footage that I saw consisted all of about 30 people and if I was allowed to gamble I'd say they actually didn't know the real details about the case, but instead had been told that the teacher had 'insulted the prophet'.

[Varaj]

Just a quick post and run:

Re: muslims and the insulting the prophet (pbuh) issue

When you convert to Islam you are in effect signing a contract with God and with that contract goes a whole set of rules, rewards and punishments which apply to you as a muslim. So I would say its not punishable (though it is offensive) for non-muslims to insult the prophet. For a muslim who has agreed not to do such thing though, who has effecively his/her promise when converting to Islam it is an issue.

Now the complications come in with what actually consitutes these rules, rewards and punishments (collectively referred to sharia, or basically guidance). It's a whole topic in of itself, but it's supposed to be more than a blind following of the letter of the law (which is what's happened with the teddybear thing) and more of an informed consensus that benefits the muslim community

Re: my stance on this

Varaj, you've pushed for a statement on behalf about whether this is right or wrong.

I would never physically punish someone for insulting the prophet or Islam, though I might verbally reprimand them. I can not however say whether this stance is right or wrong, I'm simply just not qualified to make a call on it and the same will be true for many muslims. Which basically means that while many of us out right make what effectively is a legal ruling as if we call it wrong it's a pretty bad mark against us in the hear after.

Re: the mob calling for blood

Firstly the footage that I saw consisted all of about 30 people and if I was allowed to gamble I'd say they actually didn't know the real details about the case, but instead had been told that the teacher had 'insulted the prophet'.

Anybody that supports the idea of punishing somebody criminally for insulting the Prophet is doing evil. Is Allah not able to handle it in the hear after?
I will tell you why it exists. Islam is a primarily a social control program first and a religion second. It is about brain washing and such harsh penalties for thought are classic brain washing techniques. On top of that death if you try to leave.
So a recap.
Islam forces children to sign this contract at birth (being born into Islam) and then will kill them if they try to leave the contract they were born into and punish them if they question the contract.
What sort of religion needs a death penalty to keep people from leaving and will punish people that try to actively think about the religion?

[The Winslow]

I'd say they actually didn't know the real details about the case, but instead had been told that the teacher had 'insulted the prophet'.

That's one of the worrying things about this whole "insult outrage" thing. Because it's the modus operandi of Islamists to make mountains out of the slightest molehills. It's just like in the case of the Jyllands-Postens cartoons, where the two Danish Imams who engineered the scandal fabricated a lot of false documents... They've been themselves far more blasphemous than the cartoonists (adding things like a photograph of a guy disguised as a pig, adding the caption "the true face of Mohammed" and pretending it was sent by mail by the newspaper).

Chances are, whenever someone is out there telling Muslims that so-or-so "insulted the Prophet", he's lying through his teeth, exaggerating so ludicrously that anybody with one ounce of common sense should see the falsehoods for what they are, and is pushing a noxious and destructive agenda.

[Varaj]

Firstly the footage that I saw consisted all of about 30 people and if I was allowed to gamble I'd say they actually didn't know the real details about the case, but instead had been told that the teacher had 'insulted the prophet'.

You say 30 but Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EA186548-418F-4658-948A-0DD72D255360.htm) says hundreds.

[Darkfire]

Islam forces children to sign this contract at birth (being born into Islam) and then will kill them if they try to leave the contract they were born into and punish them if they question the contract.
What sort of religion needs a death penalty to keep people from leaving and will punish people that try to actively think about the religion?

Aiysh boet. We've been over this ground in a previous thread (think it was on NKL).

To recap though:

You're not considered to be part of that contract until approximately 16 and as an aside as far as muslims are concerned everyone is born into Islam (submission to God).
I personally think the death sentance is a misinterpretation from the days of the first Caliphs (who realised how Islam could be influenced to make it a (even more so) a tool of social control) as it makes no sense to kill someone who actually might return to their faith. Bear in mind though that the apostasy charge is also tangled up with the idea of sabotaging the state/pretending to be a muslim with the sole purpose of being able damage Islam.

[Darkfire]

That's one of the worrying things about this whole "insult outrage" thing. Because it's the modus operandi of Islamists to make mountains out of the slightest molehills. It's just like in the case of the Jyllands-Postens cartoons, where the two Danish Imams who engineered the scandal fabricated a lot of false documents... They've been themselves far more blasphemous than the cartoonists (adding things like a photograph of a guy disguised as a pig, adding the caption "the true face of Mohammed" and pretending it was sent by mail by the newspaper).

Chances are, whenever someone is out there telling Muslims that so-or-so "insulted the Prophet", he's lying through his teeth, exaggerating so ludicrously that anybody with one ounce of common sense should see the falsehoods for what they are, and is pushing a noxious and destructive agenda.

Bear in mind that the PTB in the region have a vested interest in keeping the populance ignorant (that doesn't of course excuse my brethen who live in more information rich regions of the world).

[Varaj]

Aiysh boet. We've been over this ground in a previous thread (think it was on NKL).

To recap though:

You're not considered to be part of that contract until approximately 16 and as an aside as far as muslims are concerned everyone is born into Islam (submission to God).
I personally think the death sentance is a misinterpretation from the days of the first Caliphs (who realised how Islam could be influenced to make it a (even more so) a tool of social control) as it makes no sense to kill someone who actually might return to their faith. Bear in mind though that the apostasy charge is also tangled up with the idea of sabotaging the state/pretending to be a muslim with the sole purpose of being able damage Islam.

And what is the ritual to actually/actively sign the contract at 16? Are you allowed to teach counter theories before then? If at 40 you realize at 16 you made a wrong choice you're just fucked right?

[Darkfire]

And what is the ritual to actually sign the contract at 16?

There isn't one, it's basically the period where could be considered that you're no longer a child and continue to practice Islam without parental pressure. (and yes I know that basically no one publically says no due to social pressues, including I know death by stoning, not pretending the situation isn't fucked up, just pointing out what should actually be happening)

[Darkfire]

You say 30 but Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EA186548-418F-4658-948A-0DD72D255360.htm) says hundreds.

Far be it for me to suggest that Aljazeera has a motive to slant their articles, but the clip I saw was basically 30 people performing for the camera (was on BBC+Sky who normally lean to slightly inflating the drama of a situation).

[Varaj]

There isn't one, it's basically the period where could be considered that you're no longer a child and continue to practice Islam without parental pressure. (and yes I know that basically no one publically says no due to social pressues, including I know death by stoning, not pretending the situation isn't fucked up, just pointing out what should actually be happening)

So we are back to my original statement. Islam forces a child into a contract that actively punishes decent and attempts to leave. I guess the actual religion can't support itself so it needs those other means to keep people.
I would think a true religion would actively encourage people to seek out other ideas because they know that the truth will be a stronger draw.
That is what the Amish do at 18 they send the new adults out to learn about the world for 2 years before they are allowed to actually join the faith. Before that they are not full followers, just children.

[Harry]

Far be it for me to suggest that Aljazeera has a motive to slant their articles, but the clip I saw was basically 30 people performing for the camera (was on BBC+Sky who normally lean to slightly inflating the drama of a situation).

MSNBC has been saying this for a day or so....

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, protested Friday outside the presidential palace in Khartoum, demanding the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

And no, I haven't seen any actual footage.

[Varaj]

Far be it for me to suggest that Aljazeera has a motive to slant their articles, but the clip I saw was basically 30 people performing for the camera (was on BBC+Sky who normally lean to slightly inflating the drama of a situation).

Well the Washington post says thousands. I figured that Aljazeera would be less likely to be questioned. Hmmm WP says 1000s, Aljazeera says 100s, DF says 30. I see a pattern. :D

[Darkfire]

So we are back to my original statement. Islam forces a child into a contract that actively punishes decent and attempts to leave. I guess the actual religion can't support itself so it needs those other means to keep people.
I would think a true religion would actively encourage people to seek out other ideas because they know that the truth will be a stronger draw.
That is what the Amish do at 18 they send the new adults out to learn about the world for 2 years before they are allowed to actually join the faith. Before that they are not full followers, just children.

I would say that it's the muslim society which has moved away from Islam in forcing their children to continue following Islam. To paraphrase what it says in the Qur'an, there can be no compulsion in faith. So how they resolve that with their belief that they are following Islam is beyond me.

[Darkfire]

Well the Washington post says thousands. I figured that Aljazeera would be less likely to be questioned. Hmmm WP says 1000s, Aljazeera says 100s, DF says 30. I see a pattern. :D

I can only say what I saw, their could well have been demostrations in other cities, but I doubt they were in any way different from the one I saw.

[Varaj]

I would say that it's the muslim society which has moved away from Islam in forcing their children to continue following Islam. To paraphrase what it says in the Qur'an, there can be no compulsion in faith. So how they resolve that with their belief that they are following Islam is beyond me.

So what would be your opinion of a somebody actively teaching Muslim children that Islam is false and that Christianity is true, or that animism is true or that atheism is true?
Now what is that person is a former Muslim?

[Freedom Canadian]

Varaj, you've pushed for a statement on behalf about whether this is right or wrong.

I would never physically punish someone for insulting the prophet or Islam, though I might verbally reprimand them. I can not however say whether this stance is right or wrong, I'm simply just not qualified to make a call on it and the same will be true for many muslims. Which basically means that while many of us out right make what effectively is a legal ruling as if we call it wrong it's a pretty bad mark against us in the hear after.

So basically, you're not quite sure if executing that woman is what Allah wants you to do or not and you're unwilling to take a stance ?

[Goblin Girl]

If a muslim dude who's been spending years on these particular boards doesn't see the problem with jailing a muslim for insulting his own religion, then I am very scared of muslims in general. I am basing that feeling on the presumption that he is one of the most open-minded ones, having sharing posts with westerners for so long.

I have yet to meet an online muslim that says "my religion in its current state is bad, it's laws are bad, and I'm looking forward to the day when it will be modified in a way that respects basic human decency".

Holding my breath... :shock:

I agree 100%, and holding your breath about this issue will result in your unconsciousness or death, because they're not going to change anytime soon.

But in a way, it frightens me less than the non-Muslims who claim that we should abide the Islamists' demands because "who are we to judge their culture?"...
No kidding. It's moral relativism taken to the insane end of the continuum.

[Goblin Girl]

You're not considered to be part of that contract until approximately 16 and as an aside as far as muslims are concerned everyone is born into Islam (submission to God).Is that where the idea of killing infidels comes from?

I have no problem with the idea that it's offensive for a Muslim to insult the prophet. Blasphemy in any religion is considered offensive.

Seems to me, though, that if your god is as powerful as you say, that he could be trusted to take care of blasphemers in his own way, in his own time.

[Darkfire]

Is that where the idea of killing infidels comes from?


The concept of going around and killing infidels is based on a misreading (by both westerners and muslims) of the so called 'sword verse', which to paraphrase the passage goes something along the lines of 'kill them(the polytheists/infidels' where ever you may find them'. The missreading comes from not reading the preceding and proceding verses relating that passage very specifically to the polytheistic Meccans who had just broken their treaty with the muslim community in Medina.

[Darkfire]

So what would be your opinion of a somebody actively teaching Muslim children that Islam is false and that Christianity is true, or that animism is true or that atheism is true?
Now what is that person is a former Muslim?

I'd make sure none of my children went near said person and I'd warn the rest of the community to avoid him/her.

If that person was pretending to be a muslim and preaching something different when teaching my children I'd be a lot angrier and I'd work with the community to metaphorically drop kick him/her out of the community, but that would be it.

[Darkfire]

So basically, you're not quite sure if executing that woman is what Allah wants you to do or not and you're unwilling to take a stance ?

Oh for fuck sake.


I would never physically punish someone for insulting the prophet or Islam, though I might verbally reprimand them. I can not however say whether this stance is right or wrong, I'm simply just not qualified to make a call on it....

Lets break this apart. I've stated that I would take a stance, yes? I just can't say whether its right or not.

So it would be logical to presume that I would take a stance of the teddy bear issue as well, neh? Maybe I've even taken that stance already?


And in parting, the Sudanese police and goverment are a bunch of fucktards using an islamic law as political tool to curry popularity amongst the ignorant of their country :mad:

Well lookie there, on page 5, who would've thought it?

[Darkfire]

Around Mrs Gillian Gibbons' sad story in Sudan.
Come back to Islam, come back to Justice, please!
Thursday 29 November 2007, by Tariq Ramadan

It would be possible, of course, to say that the media are always covering damaging stories about the Muslims and the Islamic majority countries. It would be possible, of course, to blame this ongoing campaign against Islam, its Book, its Prophet and its values and practices… Of course…and not everything is illegitimate in the feeling that there is a kind of campaign in the hands of some populist politicians and sensational medias…Of course!

But there comes a time where one should look at the state of affairs of the legal system in the Islamic majority countries and draw some imperative (and constructive) conclusions. It is simply a shame! In the name of Islam, innocent, poor people and women are accused, jailed sometimes beaten and sometimes executed with no evidence and, moreover, no way to properly defend themselves. The honest and embarrassing judges are fired in Pakistan; a woman, victim of a rape, becomes the accused in Saudi Arabia and is asked to prove her innocence while a British teacher is jailed because her students decided to name a teddy bear "Muhammad"! Where are we heading?

While the judiciary and the legal system must remain neutral and protect justice and people's rights it is used in the Islamic majority countries for political reasons or so called religious concerns. The problem is much serious and deep than the series of stories we have been getting in the media. It needs a profound reform, an imperative reassessment. Yet, a rape is a rape and while evidences have not been shown – in one way or in another - it remains unacceptable to start by blaming the woman. To use and instrumentalise the story of an innocent British teacher to show how much "we care about Islam" is pure nonsense and should be utterly rejected!

It is as if the teacher is becoming a vehicle through whom a government is showing its dedication towards Islam and some Muslims convey their anger towards the West. First, anger is not good in itself; second to send it through a wrong and unjust means must be condemned. Did not the Prophet Muhammad say: "What is built on wrong foundation is wrong." One must ask these Islamic majority societies to be more consistent with their own values and to stick to justice by refusing to abuse Islam. It means to protect the independence of the judicial system, to protect equally the innocent people, poor or rich, Muslims and non Muslims, men and women. We cannot remain silent when we read about such a ridiculous and "sad tale" in Sudan: Mrs Gillian Gibbons must be freed and this all story has nothing with Islam. It has to do with a political domestic-international nasty game aiming to mobilize people's emotions at the sacrificed cost of a woman's dignity and integrity.


Disclaimer for Atticus' sake he is obviously fibbing and only saying this to pander to the west of course.

[Goblin Girl]

Lets break this apart. I've stated that I would take a stance, yes? I just can't say whether its right or not.

But you see, the fact that you can't say whether failing to injure or kill a nonbeliever who insults Islam is right or not is the very thing that disturbs people. Because if it *is* the wrong stance, then that means your religion really *is* as barbaric as everyone but you is claiming.

[Darkfire]

But you see, the fact that you can't say whether failing to injure or kill a nonbeliever who insults Islam is right or not is the very thing that disturbs people. Because if it *is* the wrong stance, then that means your religion really *is* as barbaric as everyone but you is claiming.

Think on this on a legal angle, to make a call on this I would need to be able to back it up with appropriate rulings or texts (like in a court case) and thats something I can't do. So rather than blabbing about what I would want to be the case and pretending I'm qualified to say if its wrong or right I've merely been honest that I can't.

There's nothing stopping you peeps from actually finding and quizing a qualified mufti on this issue.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Are you basically saying: "I know I'm right, but can't prove it, and really not willing too because of your tone. So go out and prove it for me if you really want to?"

[Goblin Girl]

Think on this on a legal angle, to make a call on this I would need to be able to back it up with appropriate rulings or texts (like in a court case) and thats something I can't do. So rather than blabbing about what I would want to be the case and pretending I'm qualified to say if its wrong or right I've merely been honest that I can't.

There's nothing stopping you peeps from actually finding and quizing a qualified mufti on this issue.

Yes, that's scary alright.

[Freedom Canadian]

Well lookie there, on page 5, who would've thought it?

You're right, my bad. That passage of yours I quoted was talking about the practice of punishing those who insult islam and not this particular case.

So let me rephrase my post then, since I don't care about this case as much as I do about the "muslim frame of mind" (assuming anything of the sort exists).



"So basically, you're not quite sure if physically punishing those who insult islam is what Allah wants you to do or not and you're unwilling to take a stance as to its morality ?"

Is that better ?

I mean, not judging others is all well and good when nobody's getting hurt, but when people are getting killed, you better be damn sure it's proper before you allow it.

[Darkfire]

Are you basically saying: "I know I'm right, but can't prove it, and really not willing too because of your tone. So go out and prove it for me if you really want to?"

Am I sounding that grumpy? My apologies if so, but its more along the lines of even if I brought evidence to the table the whole 'you're just a liberal muslim and don't represent the majority' card gets played. So at this stage its probably more productive for those wanting clarification about this to go and speak to other muslims, or even better muslim scholars about this.

[Darkfire]

"So basically, you're not quite sure if physically punishing those who insult islam is what Allah wants you to do or not and you're unwilling to take a stance as to its morality ?"

Is that better ?

I mean, not judging others is all well and good when nobody's getting hurt, but when people are getting killed, you better be damn sure it's proper before you allow it.

a) I think it's morally wrong, but thats a product of my upbringing/experiences/learning/what I ate for breakfast

b) Is it morally wrong for muslims? I don't know. Is it legally justified? I don't know? Hell, I don't even know what consitutes said insulting within the proper Islamic framework.

I mean seriously people its not like I'm qualified mufti, at best I'm a layperson who reads a lot and there are going to be times when I just don't know what is the right call about a situation.

[Freedom Canadian]

Are you basically saying: "I know I'm right, but can't prove it, and really not willing too because of your tone. So go out and prove it for me if you really want to?"

As far as I can tell, the argument here is between Darkfire and his fellow jedi muslims vs sith muslims. He's just trying to explain to us why the jedi muslims are so hesitant to condemn sith muslims.

That's the vibe I'm getting, at least.

[Darkfire]

As far as I can tell, the argument here is between Darkfire and his fellow jedi muslims vs sith muslims. He's just trying to explain to us why the jedi muslims are so hesitant to condemn sith muslims.

That's the vibe I'm getting, at least.

Thank you, yes :D

[Freedom Canadian]

I mean seriously people its not like I'm qualified mufti, at best I'm a layperson who reads a lot and there are going to be times when I just don't know what is the right call about a situation.

We're still interested in your relatively informed opinion, man.

Besides, isn't it one of those things where you'll find actual experts that say one thing and other experts that say the opposite ?

[Varaj]

a) I think it's morally wrong, but thats a product of my upbringing/experiences/learning/what I ate for breakfast

b) Is it morally wrong for muslims? I don't know. Is it legally justified? I don't know? Hell, I don't even know what consitutes said insulting within the proper Islamic framework.

I mean seriously people its not like I'm qualified mufti, at best I'm a layperson who reads a lot and there are going to be times when I just don't know what is the right call about a situation.

So you are saying "well I think it is morally wrong but I'm not sure it is bad when they do it"?

As far as I can tell, the argument here is between Darkfire and his fellow jedi muslims vs sith muslims. He's just trying to explain to us why the jedi muslims are so hesitant to condemn sith muslims.

That's the vibe I'm getting, at least.

Except the jedi Muslims failure to condemn the sith Muslims is evil.
"All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

[Freedom Canadian]

Except the jedi Muslims failure to condemn the sith Muslims is evil.
"All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

I had that quote in mind all through this thread.

I agree. :)

Not wanting to judge others is fine when we're talking about, say, drug use or prostitution. It is not okay if we're talking about killing people or drunk driving.

Still, I'm grateful to Darkfire for shining a little light onto the reasons why moderate muslims don't speak out often enough against atrocities committed in their name. Not to mention that it can't be easy, being in this very uncomfortable spotlight like this.

[Darkfire]

So you are saying "well I think it is morally wrong but I'm not sure it is bad when they do it"?

This phrase makes no sense to me, if I think it's morally wrong, surely I believe its bad as well? What I can't do is back it up with a air tight legal argument.



Except the jedi Muslims failure to condemn the sith Muslims is evil.
"All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

True, hence some of the major frustration of normal muslims with the bodies which are supposed to represent them.

[Varaj]

This phrase makes no sense to me, if I think it's morally wrong, surely I believe its bad as well? What I can't do is back it up with a air tight legal argument.


Is it morally wrong for muslims? I don't know.

Is very different then "I can't prove it is wrong using the Koran or the Hadiths"



True, hence some of the major frustration of normal muslims with the bodies which are supposed to represent them.

Right but it appears you are on the silent side.
I'll give you a chance.
Is it wrong to criminally punish anybody for insulting Islam?

[Darkfire]

Is very different then "I can't prove it is wrong using the Koran or the Hadiths"

You're missing the personal context, I personally believe its wrong, where as I don't know if its wrong for muslims as a whole.


Right but it appears you are on the silent side.
I'll give you a chance.
Is it wrong to criminally punish anybody for insulting Islam?

As it stand in terms of the law, yes. What constitutes insulting and punishment is what I don't know.

[Varaj]

You're missing the personal context, I personally believe its wrong, where as I don't know if its wrong for muslims as a whole.


Why isn't it wrong for Muslims as a whole?



As it stand in terms of the law, yes. What constitutes insulting and punishment is what I don't know.

You are going to have to explain what you mean because it certainly doesn't jive with what you said above.

Would you agree with this sentences?
Criminalizing insulting Islam is wrong. There should be no legal ramifications for insulting Islam.

[Darkfire]

Why isn't it wrong for Muslims as a whole?

Sorry man, I can't make a statement like that encompassing the whole of Islam, just don't have enough background.




You are going to have to explain what you mean because it certainly doesn't jive with what you said above.

Would you agree with this sentences?
Criminalizing insulting Islam is wrong. There should be no legal ramifications for insulting Islam.

My personal feelings on that are irrelavent. I can't choose to declare a law wrong just because I disagree with it.

[Varaj]

Sorry man, I can't make a statement like that encompassing the whole of Islam, just don't have enough background.





My personal feelings on that are irrelavent. I can't choose to declare a law wrong just because I disagree with it.


You don't feel you make make a moral call?
It sounds like we are back to "All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

[Darkfire]

You don't feel you make make a moral call?
It sounds like we are back to "All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Of course I can (and probably will), but that doesn't make my call right. If I choose to ignore this law and continue to do so I effectively place myself on the same level as any other person who ignores the rules when it suits or seems right to them. The law serves to hold back both extremes, so if I want to be able to say to those who regurally flout the rules on treating wives properly I can not be seen to picking and choosing the rules I follow.

[Space Cadet B^3]

My personal feelings on that are irrelavent. I can't choose to declare a law wrong just because I disagree with it.You can't? Why? Are you a paladin? fuck dude... your DM sucks.

[Darkfire]

You can't? Why? Are you a paladin? fuck dude... your DM sucks.

See above ;)

[Varaj]

Of course I can (and probably will), but that doesn't make my call right. If I choose to ignore this law and continue to do so I effectively place myself on the same level as any other person who ignores the rules when it suits or seems right to them. The law serves to hold back both extremes, so if I want to be able to say to those who regurally flout the rules on treating wives properly I can not be seen to picking and choosing the rules I follow.

A moral person must be prepared to stand up and be counted against evil even with it is law. To do otherwise is to support what is evil. We aren't asking if you believe that the speeding limit is right, we are asking about a very fundamental issue.

Do you think that criminalizing insulting Islam is wrong/evil?

[Darkfire]

A moral person must be prepared to stand up and be counted against evil even with it is law. To do otherwise is to support what is evil. We aren't asking if you believe that the speeding limit is right, we are asking about a very fundamental issue.

Do you think that criminalizing insulting Islam is wrong/evil?

Answer me this first. Who's morality are we talking about?

[Varaj]

Answer me this first. Who's morality are we talking about?

I'm judging by a common moral value system shared by most of the Western world. I'm asking you to judge by what ever moral system you use. If your moral system says the laws are ok just say so.

[Darkfire]

I'm judging by a common moral value system shared by most of the Western world. I'm asking you to judge by what ever moral system you use. If your moral system says the laws are ok just say so.

See thats the problem, one one hand I've been taught that a person has the right to express themselves. On the other I believe that it does a person harm to their soul to blaspheme against God. So no you're not going to get a blanket statement out of me ;), but I will treat each case that I come across on its merits rather than just blindly following either moral system.

[Varaj]

See thats the problem, one one hand I've been taught that a person has the right to express themselves. On the other I believe that it does a person harm to their soul to blaspheme against God. So no you're not going to get a blanket statement out of me ;), but I will treat each case that I come across on its merits rather than just blindly following either moral system.

So you aren't willing to say that criminalizing Islam is wrong. All you willing to say is that specific case was rightly or wrongly prosecuted. Sounds like to me you agree with the law and just think in some instances it is misapplied.

[Darkfire]

So you aren't willing to say that criminalizing Islam is wrong. Oh no, I'm quite happy indeed to state that criminalizing Islam is wrong :D


All you willing to say is that specific case was rightly or wrongly prosecuted. Sounds like to me you agree with the law and just think in some instances it is misapplied.

I presume above was a mistype on your part though and that you're still referring to the insulting angle though. re that though, my first port of call is to follow the law, irrespective of what law it is. Only after I've gone through that step will I bring my personal morality + dedutions into play.

[Varaj]

Oh no, I'm quite happy indeed to state that criminalizing Islam is wrong :D



I presume above was a mistype on your part though and that you're still referring to the insulting angle though. re that though, my first port of call is to follow the law, irrespective of what law it is. Only after I've gone through that step will I bring my personal morality + dedutions into play.


Yup my bad. :)

So if a country actually outlaws Islam you would follow the law? Wow :shock:

[Goblin Girl]

You're missing the personal context, I personally believe its wrong, where as I don't know if its wrong for muslims as a whole.
I guess I'm enough of a moral absolutist to find that troubling. No, that's tpp mild. I find it repulsive. Note that I'm not saying that *you* are repulsive, simply that if Islam is so vague about that sort of thing that a reasonably well educated, reasonably enlightened member of the faith isn't comfortable decrying it, then Islam itself is all the bad things that people say it is.

[Trainz]

Just give it the fuck up Darkfire.

You've had plenty of opportunities to plead your case over the years (yes, it's been that long), and let me put it in simple terms for you:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

The fact that after so many wrongdoings, after so many atrocities, after so many horrors, you are still flip-flopping, just demonstrates to me that you are irremediably an utterly a total asshole and evil being.

I would kill you without a second thought sir, as your brothers would to those who dare speak up against Islam.

Good luck with that.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So Darkfire - an apparently decent, intelligent, rational, educated, civilised man - is incapable of saying that it is morally wrong for any nation to criminalise insulting (or even depicting) a certain historical figure. In other words, he refuses to affirm a principle, free speech, that sits at the heart of the liberal Enlightenment tradition and at the heart of the post-war human rights jurisprudence.

Moreover, in other contexts, this same apparently decent, intelligent, rational, educated, civilised man refuses to condemn a doctrine that says that those who believe a particular beliefs system and then change their minds and speak out against that belief system should be killed.

What's more, Darkfire goes on to defend a man, a much-lauded Islamic "moderate", who is incapable of unequivocally condemning the practice of stoning adulterous women.

And people think Sam Harris is engaging in hyperbole when he says that theistic dogma has the tendency to utterly derange people's innate moral sense. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg: left to themselves, good people will do and say good things, evil people will do and say evil things, but for good people to do evil things, that takes belief in a dogma like Islam or fundamentalist Christianity or Communism.

Ideas can kill and they can maim. And the ideas of Islam are particularly deadly and dangerous. Look what those ideas have done to poor Darkfire? They have literally maimed his conscience.

The way Darkfire has attempted to wall himself off from his own cognitive dissonance is to say that he finds killing those who insult Islam personally wrong but, "Who am I to make a pronouncement on the morality of Islamic law?" Or was he saying that he finds it personally wrong but "Who am I to say what Islamic law actually is?" If the latter, that could be worse - because it means he's saying that Islamic law is by definition moral and that if his personal morality conflicts with the correct interpretation of Islamic law, then Islamic law is right and he's wrong. This is man whose moral sense has literally been disabled, handicapped by his religion.

It's the way dogmas make good people betray themselves, like Islam has made Darkfire betray himself in this thread, that convinces me that the "New Atheists" have gotten to the dark philosophical heart of what's really going on in this war we're currently in with the ideology commonly called Islamism or Islamofascism.

There are moral absolutes - people have an absolute right to leave their religion and insult and work against it; people have an absolute right to insult religious symbols and historical figures; women have an absolute right to not be stoned to death for sleeping with someone other than their husbands - and Islam works against those absolutes. Therefore Islam, at least in its current form, is immoral.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

By the way, the Tarriq Ramadan article Darkfire posted deserve a thorough Fisking, but I just don't have the energy. If anybody wants to know what I think of it, please ask and I'll rouse myself from my sadness at the whole sick situation to give my detailed opinion. For now I'll just note that Darkfire is yet to even try to respond to my detailed concerns about Ramadan laid out in a previous response to his outrage that I'd impeach Ramadan's "integrity".

[Space Cadet B^3]

Hey, Atticus? Your sig? F.Y.I. it's H. L. Mencken.

Carry on. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hey, Atticus? Your sig? F.Y.I. it's H. L. Mencken.

Carry on. :)

Oops. My bad. Fixing it. Any comments on the posts?

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm just enjoying my popcorn. :)

[Darkfire]

Yup my bad. :)

So if a country actually outlaws Islam you would follow the law? Wow :shock:

Basically yes, but I'd of course move as soon as I could. ;)

For a muslim the order should be something along the lines of:
1) the law of the country they are in
2) the guidance of sharia
3) their own personl convictions

The reason local law has priority over sharia is due to the fact when you enter a country you promise to obey that countries laws and that promise pretty much has precedence over everything else besides the 5 pillars of Islam. This is illustrated by a hadith in which the prophet (pbuh) states that even if muslims in neighbouring country were crying out for help if the muslim state had a treaty promising to not interfere in that country there is nothing that muslim country could do about the situation.

(ooo look atticus, Tariq Ramadan, urging muslims to be loyal, obidient members of their countries, what a nasty little terrorist sponsering individual he is)

On a side note this is why I would never live in many the so called muslim countries in the middle east or africa as their legal systems are in many cases tools for supporting the regime.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

(ooo look atticus, Tariq Ramadan, urging muslims to be loyal, obidient members of their countries, what a nasty little terrorist sponsering individual he is).

You're an intelligent man so you know exactly with this is an asinine comment. I'll give you a hint, the main accusation against Ramadan, backed up by recordings of his speeches when he thought no westerners were present and by his financial links with unsavoury characters, is that he's duplicitous.

If you want to rationally discuss the criticisms of Ramadan I posted earlier, or my allegations that many of your statements in this thread are shockingly immoral, I'd be more than happy to discuss them. I'd be happy to do that fisking of Ramadan's platitudes if you like, too.

But, oh, that's right, I'm the insulting one. :rolleyes:

[Darkfire]

But, oh, that's right, I'm the insulting one. :rolleyes:

Well since you've given me no reason to think you'll stop with your one liners I see no reason to actually be pleasent with you anymore :D

edit: and please bear in mind Atticus I'm insulting your opinions, not you. Fair play and all that ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Well since you've given me no reason to think you'll stop with your one liners I see no reason to actually be pleasent with you anymore :D

edit: and please bear in mind Atticus I'm insulting your opinions, not you. Fair play and all that ;)

Ah yes, but I back my insults up with arguments. Where are yours?

Why am I wrong? I'm happy to be persuaded out of my views. It's happened on these boards more than once, after all. Years ago I was one of the main defenders of Muslims on these boards (EDIT: Well, their predecessors). I was persuaded out of that view by reason and evidence. Feel free to try to do it again.

Why shouldn't I take your refusal to condemn patently immoral laws (such as laws against insulting religious symbols and figures and against apostasy and in favour of stoning adulterous women) as anything other than the derangement of your moral sense by your religion?

[Darkfire]

Ah yes, but I back my insults up with arguments. Where are yours?

Why am I wrong? I'm happy to be persuaded out of my views. It's happened on these boards more than once, after all. Years ago I was one of the main defenders of Muslims on these boards (EDIT: Well, their predecessors). I was persuaded out of that view by reason and evidence. Feel free to try to do it again.

Why shouldn't I take your refusal to condemn patently immoral laws (such as laws against insulting religious symbols and figures and against apostasy and in favour of stoning adulterous women) as anything other than the derangement of your moral sense by your religion?

See thats the main problem Atticus, we've gone over this ground before, especially the stoning of adulterous woman bit (that was covered on NKL and I spent a sizable portion of my time pointing out a) the punishment is 20 strikes and is not meant to be a death sentance b) the it applied to both parties) and the fact that you can't be bothered to actually remember the thread doesn't exactly inspire me me with confidence that this time it'll be any different.

But hows this for a deal, you start a thread in which you lay out in nice fool proof logic why your morality is superior to everyone else's and then I'll come back to this topic, because this is actually what this is all about.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

See thats the main problem Atticus, we've gone over this ground before, especially the stoning of adulterous woman bit (that was covered on NKL and I spent a sizable portion of my time pointing out a) the punishment is 20 strikes and is not meant to be a death sentance b) the it applied to both parties) and the fact that you can't be bothered to actually remember the thread doesn't exactly inspire me me with confidence that this time it'll be any different.

But hows this for a deal, you start a thread in which you lay out in nice fool proof logic why your morality is superior to everyone else's and then I'll come back to this topic, because this is actually what this is all about.

I would never want to suggest that my morality is superior to everyone elses. Witye the contrary.

But I'll happily assert that my morality, and that of almost the average sane secular westerner, is supurior to that of Islam and of the average Muslim.

How do I know this? Lots of ways, but one of them just came out of your mouth. You think it's somehow a defence of Islamic law that (on your rather strained interpretation) the injunction to stone adulterers is meant to be only 20 blows and is meant to be for both parties. Oh, that's alright then, is it??

You've GOT to be kidding me?!?

[Goblin Girl]

I would never want to suggest that my morality is superior to everyone elses. Witye the contrary.

But I'll happily assert that my morality, and that of almost the average sane secular westerner, is supurior to that of Islam and of the average Muslim.

How do I know this? Lots of ways, but one of them just came out of your mouth. You think it's somehow a defence of Islamic law that (on your rather strained interpretation) the injunction to stone adulterers is meant to be only 20 blows and is meant to be for both parties. Oh, that's alright then, is it??

You've GOT to be kidding me?!?

Rolls a d100: 36! Although I would rather be flayed by rabid cats than admit it, I must agree with Atticus.

[Darkfire]

I would never want to suggest that my morality is superior to everyone elses. Witye the contrary.

You keep saying things like 'evil', 'bad' and 'wrong' so I must say it does seem like you're making a moral call on these issues and saying that your moral stance is better.


But I'll happily assert that my morality, and that of almost the average sane secular westerner, is supurior to that of Islam and of the average Muslim.

How do I know this? Lots of ways, but one of them just came out of your mouth. You think it's somehow a defence of Islamic law that (on your rather strained interpretation) the injunction to stone adulterers is meant to be only 20 blows and is meant to be for both parties. Oh, that's alright then, is it??

You've GOT to be kidding me?!?

Lol, my 'rather strained interpretation'? Anyway, so the fact that I'm pointing out that Islam has a different moral code from yours means that its wrong?

Answer me this Atticus dear, since you seem to so knowledgable about the motives of muslims, why do you think there is punishment perscribed for adulterers?

[Varaj]

Basically yes, but I'd of course move as soon as I could. ;)

For a muslim the order should be something along the lines of:
1) the law of the country they are in
2) the guidance of sharia
3) their own personl convictions

The reason local law has priority over sharia is due to the fact when you enter a country you promise to obey that countries laws and that promise pretty much has precedence over everything else besides the 5 pillars of Islam. This is illustrated by a hadith in which the prophet (pbuh) states that even if muslims in neighbouring country were crying out for help if the muslim state had a treaty promising to not interfere in that country there is nothing that muslim country could do about the situation.

(ooo look atticus, Tariq Ramadan, urging muslims to be loyal, obidient members of their countries, what a nasty little terrorist sponsering individual he is)

On a side note this is why I would never live in many the so called muslim countries in the middle east or africa as their legal systems are in many cases tools for supporting the regime.

You say you wouldn't obey the law because you should obey the law except when it comes to the five pillars but this law outlaws the five pillars. I'm a bit confused on how you can be so contradictory in one post?

How about a law that requires all Muslims be put to death and report for death, would you report?

[Darkfire]

You say you wouldn't obey the law because you should obey the law except when it comes to the five pillars but this law outlaws the five pillars. I'm a bit confused on how you can be so contradictory in one post?

How about a law that requires all Muslims be put to death and report for death, would you report?

Sorry, let me clarify. In all situations except those pertaining to the 5 pillars I would obey the law while seeking to leave the country.

As for the 5 pillars they have precendence over all other laws. So I erred in not slotting in the 5 pillars at number one, apologies for not being clear about that.

On a personal note, I'm lawful not stupid ;). On a more legal note I'd say such law would make void the initial agreement the country made with me when I entered and as such I would no longer be bound by the agreement.

[Varaj]

Sorry, let me clarify. In all situations except those pertaining to the 5 pillars I would obey the law while seeking to leave the country.

As for the 5 pillars they have precendence over all other laws. So I erred in not slotting in the 5 pillars at number one, apologies for not being clear about that.

On a personal note, I'm lawful not stupid ;). On a more legal note I'd say such law would make void the initial agreement the country made with me when I entered and as such I would no longer be bound by the agreement.

So you are willing to judge a law as immoral and not worth following.
Ok so you won't give up Islam or walk into death.
How about Jews, if a law was signed requiring to send Jews to death and turn them over for death would you turn in Jews you knew? It doesn't violate the 5 pillars.

[Darkfire]

So you are willing to judge a law as immoral and not worth following.
Ok so you won't give up Islam or walk into death.
How about Jews, if a law was signed requiring to send Jews to death and turn them over for death would you turn in Jews you knew? It doesn't violate the 5 pillars.

Dude, thats the final step and only reached after considering the first 3 steps, the laws should be above the relative moral imperative of the masses :)

Second line confuses my a little, are you asking if I would give up Islam rather and die? 'Cause if thats the case Islam specifically states that under duress of death no vows made or renounced are valid.

The death thing has nothing to do with the 5 pillars Varaj, and I never claimed that, what it is linked with is the promise that the country in question will take care of its citizens (muslim, jewish or norse).

So no I wouldn't send someone to death just because of their faith

[Varaj]

Dude, thats the final step and only reached after considering the first 3 steps, the laws should be above the relative moral imperative of the masses :)

Second line confuses my a little, are you asking if I would give up Islam rather and die? 'Cause if thats the case Islam specifically states that under duress of death no vows made or renounced are valid.

The death thing has nothing to do with the 5 pillars Varaj, and I never claimed that, what it is linked with is the promise that the country in question will take care of its citizens (muslim, jewish or norse).

So no I wouldn't send someone to death just because of their faith

So we have firmly established you aren't willing to blindly follow the law and actually do judge it morally first (despite earlier statements to the contrary).
Now we know you do judge laws before obeying them why do you feel that laws that criminalize insulting Islam should not fall under moral judgment and should be obey?

[Darkfire]

So we have firmly established you aren't willing to blindly follow the law and actually do judge it morally first (despite earlier statements to the contrary).

Now we know you do judge laws before obeying them why do you feel that laws that criminalize insulting Islam should not fall under moral judgment and should be obey?[/QUOTE]


Are you being obtuse today? I judge, and I've stated this repeatedly, on the moral angle last and I never stated that I would follow the law blindly. And of course I judge all the laws before I follow them, I'm only human after all ;)

How about I lay out an example?

The UK passes a law which forbids the growing of facial hair as unhygenic. Lets go through the check list.

1) 5 pillar check. Pass as nothing in that infringes on them
2) Local law. Pass since the UK has laws governing appearance/health and this is arguably an extension of that
3) Sharia. Moderate fail as muslim men are encouraged to grow a beard, but nothing thats going to cost me my soul
4) Personal morals. Pass, my wife likes me clean shaven, so I get to score more points with the wife for being shaven

Overall Pass

Or lets try a trickier one. The UK passes a law stipulating that everyone in the country has to spend 5 minutes swearing profusely about how Islam sucks

1) 5 pillar check. Pass as it doesn't infringe on them
2) Local law. Fail since when I entered the country their was a promise respecting all the faiths.
3) Sharia. Most certainly a fail
4) Moral check. Fail on the sole premise that I wouldn't want somebody else's faith being treated in the same way

Overall Fail and its time to get out of Dodge.

You getting the feel?

[Varaj]

Now we know you do judge laws before obeying them why do you feel that laws that criminalize insulting Islam should not fall under moral judgment and should be obey?


Are you being obtuse today? I judge, and I've stated this repeatedly, on the moral angle last and I never stated that I would follow the law blindly. And of course I judge all the laws before I follow them, I'm only human after all ;)

How about I lay out an example?

The UK passes a law which forbids the growing of facial hair as unhygenic. Lets go through the check list.

1) 5 pillar check. Pass as nothing in that infringes on them
2) Local law. Pass since the UK has laws governing appearance/health and this is arguably an extension of that
3) Sharia. Moderate fail as muslim men are encouraged to grow a beard, but nothing thats going to cost me my soul
4) Personal morals. Pass, my wife likes me clean shaven, so I get to score more points with the wife for being shaven

Overall Pass

Or lets try a trickier one. The UK passes a law stipulating that everyone in the country has to spend 5 minutes swearing profusely about how Islam sucks

1) 5 pillar check. Pass as it doesn't infringe on them
2) Local law. Fail since when I entered the country their was a promise respecting all the faiths.
3) Sharia. Most certainly a fail
4) Moral check. Fail on the sole premise that I wouldn't want somebody else's faith being treated in the same way

Overall Fail and its time to get out of Dodge.

You getting the feel?[/QUOTE]

Please apply the same checklist for criminalizing insulting Islam for us.

[Darkfire]

Sure, but can you give me a context? Are we talking about a country where its already illegal or one where it's classed as freedom of speech?

[Varaj]

Sure, but can you give me a context? Are we talking about a country where its already illegal or one where it's classed as freedom of speech?

In the Sudan

[Darkfire]

1) Does it stop you practicing the basics of your faith? I would presume not as I can't think of any faith/belief structure the requires the insulting of Islam ;)
2) Local Law. When you enter a country on a visa you promise to follow its laws (all of them) and in this case the law doesn't require you to do something (as opposed to just not doing something)
3) More generalised faith/belief structure guidance. Guess this is where it starts to fail if your belief structure requires you state your mind about about Islam in public
4) Moral. I'm guessing this definately fails as I doubt there are many westerners who don't regard it as their right to say what they wish.

[Varaj]

1) Does it stop you practicing the basics of your faith? I would presume not as I can't think of any faith/belief structure the requires the insulting of Islam ;)
2) Local Law. When you enter a country on a visa you promise to follow its laws (all of them) and in this case the law doesn't require you to do something (as opposed to just not doing something)
3) More generalised faith/belief structure guidance. Guess this is where it starts to fail if your belief structure requires you state your mind about about Islam in public
4) Moral. I'm guessing this definately fails as I doubt there are many westerners who don't regard it as their right to say what they wish.

So is the law bad/wrong?

[Darkfire]

So is the law bad/wrong?

Neither, it just is. The same as a law forbidding woman going around topless I guess in the UK

[Varaj]

Neither, it just is. The same as a law forbidding woman going around topless I guess in the UK

Eh I consider those bad laws as well. :D

[Darkfire]

Eh I consider those bad laws as well. :D

:D Alas tha freedom of 'dressing however I damn want' still needs to be realised in the west ;)

[Varaj]

:D Alas tha freedom of 'dressing however I damn want' still needs to be realised in the west ;)

Sad but true.

[Darkfire]

Sad but true.

On the plus side at least we don't have to go around seeing wobbly buttocks and asscrack hair on all guys all the time :D

[Varaj]

On the plus side at least we don't have to go around seeing wobbly buttocks and asscrack hair on all guys all the time :D

Says you. :) I miss the man ass :(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Rolls a d100: 36! Although I would rather be flayed by rabid cats than admit it, I must agree with Atticus.

If you take the time to think about it, GG, you'll find we agree about 80% of the time. it's just your unhealthy emotional attachment to the other 20% of the issues that causes you problems with me. You know you secretly love me. ;)

You keep saying things like 'evil', 'bad' and 'wrong' so I must say it does seem like you're making a moral call on these issues and saying that your moral stance is better.

You need to read more closely. I am saying my moral stand is superior to yours and to Islam's. I'm just not saying its superior to "everybody else's". Indeed, I daresay most would consider my moral code to be inferior to that of the average secular westerner - but, my code is clearly superior to yours and to that of ISlam, as thus thread amply demonstrates.

Anyway, so the fact that I'm pointing out that Islam has a different moral code from yours means that its wrong?

Of course. Stoning people for adultery, whether it be to death, or "just" 20 blows, is wrong. Period.

Answer me this Atticus dear, since you seem to so knowledgable about the motives of muslims, why do you think there is punishment perscribed for adulterers?

I don't know. Please enlighten me. I take it you're going to explain why its moral and makes sense to stone adulterers are you? This should be fascinating.

So is the law [criminalising the insulting of Islam in the Sudan] bad/wrong?

Neither, it just is. The same as a law forbidding woman going around topless I guess in the UK

Please, lurkers and other posters, tell me, doesn't this stark, disgusting answer from Darkfire prove my point?

[Darkfire]

I don't know. Please enlighten me. I take it you're going to explain why its moral and makes sense to stone adulterers are you? This should be fascinating.

Ahh Atticus sweetie I love the way you just keep on chanting the same line even after I've told in a previous thread that the stoning punishment is an unislamic addition. I'm sure you've got more than enough ammo with the general punishment of adultery without having to keep spewing a fabrication ;)

Anyway, come on take a guess at least. I'm genuinelly interested to hear what you think is the reason behind Islamic law.


Please, lurkers and other posters, tell me, doesn't this stark, disgusting answer from Darkfire prove my point?

'Please Sir we've found a witch can we burn her?
How do you know she's a witch?
Well she's got this funny nose.'

(my apologies to Monty Python for paraphrasing their work)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Ahh Atticus sweetie I love the way you just keep on chanting the same line even after I've told in a previous thread that the stoning punishment is an unislamic addition. I'm sure you've got more than enough ammo with the general punishment of adultery without having to keep spewing a fabrication ;)

Where did you tell me this? I thought you told me that it was only meant to be 20 non-lethal blows. And I said that was still immoral and the fact you saw that was a defence was evidence of your moral derangement. If I've missed something you've said, please tell me.

Anyway, come on take a guess at least. I'm genuinelly interested to hear what you think is the reason behind Islamic law.

I genuinely have no idea. It's a complete mystery to me why anyone would want to criminalise adultery.

'Please Sir we've found a witch can we burn her?
How do you know she's a witch?
Well she's got this funny nose.'

(my apologies to Monty Python for paraphrasing their work)

The man who refuses to condemn killing uppity apostates and punish adulterers and those who insult Islam is accusing me of a witch-hunt. Oh the irony!

I think you'll find that most people agree with me on this one, Darkfire. Islam has really fucked you up.

[nerfherder]

Finally, some good news - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7124447.stm

Teacher Gillian Gibbons is to be released from prison in Sudan after she was jailed for allowing children in her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Mrs Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was jailed for 15 days by a court in Sudan.

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir pardoned her after a meeting with two British Muslim peers, Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was "delighted and relieved" at the news and that "common sense had prevailed".

The BBC's Adam Mynott said Mrs Gibbons is expected to be released later on Monday.

The jailing of Mrs Gibbons has led to an international outcry and has embarrassed the government.

"The president has told us he has already signed the papers for her pardon," Lord Ahmed told the AP news agency.

Efforts applauded

Mr Brown said Mrs Gibbons would be released into the care of the British embassy in Khartoum.

"Through the course of Ms Gibbons' detention I was glad to see Muslim groups across the UK express strong support for her case.

"I applaud the particular efforts of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi in securing her freedom. I am also grateful to our officials for all their work behind the scenes."

President Omar al-Bashir has been under pressure from Sudanese hardliners to ensure Mrs Gibbons served her full sentence.

There had even been calls for a retrial and for the sentence to be increased.

Mrs Gibbons had been held in a secret location due to fears for her safety.

She was arrested after a member of staff at Unity High School complained to the Ministry of Education.

Crowds of protesters had marched in the capital Khartoum demanding a tougher sentence for her alleged crime of blasphemy. Some called for her to be executed by firing squad.

The British politicians had meetings with Sudanese government officials, including the foreign minister, over the weekend.

They had been due to return home on Monday, but announced they would stay for a third day, after indications that the weekend's "difficult" meetings had led to progress in the case.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Finally, some good news - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7124447.stm

Good. But not good enough. That law is still on the books and the human rights of those people are reduced by that. The Sudanese people have a right to insult the so-called prophet Muhammad without fear of punishment or reprisal.

[nerfherder]

Good. But not good enough. That law is still on the books and the human rights of those people are reduced by that. The Sudanese people have a right to insult the so-called prophet Muhammad without fear of punishment or reprisal.
Yup.

UN Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Article 19

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

[Freedom Canadian]

Islam has really fucked you up.

I don't know, he might have had that attitude beforehand.

Tell me, Darkfire, this "live and let kill" attitude, was it something you grew up with or did you adopt it after converting to islam ? I'm genuinely curious.

[Eliezer]

As it stand in terms of the law, yes. What constitutes insulting and punishment is what I don't know.

Dude, let's compare Islam and oh say crazy, fundie, cultist christians, like mormons. On the topics of the rights of religion to punish folks mormon scripture is pretty clear.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.


linkie (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=excommunication&do=Search)

This is why Islam is pretty radical by Western standards. The belief that religion can have such control over the lives and property of individuals and that the crazy, power hungry clerics get to whip the populace into a furor to enforce their will is just plain wrong and evil by Western standards. That makes the current incarnation of Islam evil and the ideas and ideals it propagates evil. You are part of the evil. This religion of "peace" doesn't have anything to do with peace any more. It probably did 6 centuries ago. It doesn't anymore. It is morally bankrupt and corrupt and you, Darkfire, are part of the problem by being "moderate" in your own mind.

I mean this quite literally, aSalam alaykom, Darkfire. Peace be upon you and yours, but that peace will not ever be achieved until Islam is a relic of brutal barbaric past or Islam changes to become what is professes it should be.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Not all Mormons are crazy fundies either.

[Varaj]

Not all Mormons are crazy fundies either.

Says you. ;)

[Eliezer]

Not all Mormons are crazy fundies either.

Well, okay. Many consider Mormon pretty fundie, pretty conservative, a cult, non-mainstream and fairly radical.

That said, many consider the opposite to be true. In terms of mainstream protestant Christianity mormonism is ideologically radically different even if in external practices they very similar to mainstream.

[Andreas]

Yup.

UN Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Article 19

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Let me quote another one:

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

"Rules? We need no stinkin rules! Might makes right!"

[Darkfire]

Atticus: re Islamic law, the purpose of Islamic law is protect the health of its members, the soundness of its society and souls of the believers. Islam holds adultery as one the worst things you can do for your soul and for society hence the harsh punishment.

Eliezer: Wa'alaykum asalam. You're mixing the need of the few to control the many in your argument. Power hungry people have always stirred up the masses to get what they want (witness the fear mongering in both the UK and the US to pass many of the anti-privacy bills).

As for Islam's moral bankruptcy. Millions of muslims lead perfectly normal lives in which they don't run around killing foreigners or stoning people. How does that figure into your conclusion?

Atticus, Freedom Canadian and misc: I'm sorry. I've failed you and that is something which will haunt me.

[Darkfire]

Let me quote another one:

"Rules? We need no stinkin rules! Might makes right!"

I didn't realised we had switched to chatting about America, China and Russia

[Freedom Canadian]

Atticus, Freedom Canadian and misc: I'm sorry. I've failed you and that is something which will haunt me.

It better ! :shakefist:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm just trying to visualise trying to beat someone while holding a Qu'ran under your arm

If he drops it, does he have to start again? [1]

Hell, if he drops it, does he] get beaten for being disrespectful to Qu'ran?

[1] "Crackerjack" (kids quizshow reference) - probably doesn't translate, though apparently it was a US import

[Eliezer]

As for Islam's moral bankruptcy. Millions of muslims lead perfectly normal lives in which they don't run around killing foreigners or stoning people. How does that figure into your conclusion?


If these millions of muslims not running around killing foreigners or stoning people but believe that folks should be jailed, fined, stoned or otherwise punished for people insulting Islam then they merely lack the opportunity to run around killing foreigners and stoning people.

Even if they don't when the opportunity arises they are just as bad as the Sudanese folks on at least one level. They are willing to condone their countrymen running around killing foreigners and stoning people even if they are too lazy to go do it themselves.

The problem is specifically the belief.

[Darkfire]

If these millions of muslims not running around killing foreigners or stoning people but believe that folks should be jailed, fined, stoned or otherwise punished for people insulting Islam then they merely lack the opportunity to run around killing foreigners and stoning people.

Even if they don't when the opportunity arises they are just as bad as the Sudanese folks on at least one level. They are willing to condone their countrymen running around killing foreigners and stoning people even if they are too lazy to go do it themselves.

The problem is specifically the belief.

The problem is humanity. All people want to do is stay in their comfort zone and extremely few people actually believe they can change anything, and even of those fewer are actually willing to take the steps needed to start that change.

[Darkfire]

I'm just trying to visualise trying to beat someone while holding a Qu'ran under your arm

If he drops it, does he have to start again? [1]

Hell, if he drops it, does he] get beaten for being disrespectful to Qu'ran?

[1] "Crackerjack" (kids quizshow reference) - probably doesn't translate, though apparently it was a US import

:D Thanks Richard had this vision of a chain reaction of imans each beating up the prior iman as he dropped the Qur'an

(Disclaimer: You don't actually get beaten up for dropping the Qur'an)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

:D Thanks Richard had this vision of a chain reaction of imans each beating up the prior iman as he dropped the Qur'an

You know I've actually tried this with Henry the Giant Bible and a singlestick and you really can't get any force behind your swing at all. I doubt you'd even be able to raise a bruise

(Disclaimer: You don't actually get beaten up for dropping the Qur'an)

So they have an exemption. As I understand it, normally allowing a Qur'an to drop on the floor is a serious no-no, isn't it?

[Darkfire]

You know I've actually tried this with Henry the Giant Bible and a singlestick and you really can't get any force behind your swing at all. I doubt you'd even be able to raise a bruise



So they have an exemption. As I understand it, normally allowing a Qur'an to drop on the floor is a serious no-no, isn't it?

It's not the floor so much as getting it dirty as the Qur'an is supposed to be kept clean and once its dirty its kinda perform religous cleansing (which involves water) on a collection of paper sheets.

[Eliezer]

The problem is humanity. All people want to do is stay in their comfort zone and extremely few people actually believe they can change anything, and even of those fewer are actually willing to take the steps needed to start that change.

The problem isn't humanity, Darkfire. The problem is the dogma. Humanity has it's shares of pitfalls and fallibilities. What we don't need is a dogma that justifies more inhumanity. Other evils in the world don't cover, eliminate or justify the evil that is Islam.

People abusing the sensibilities of the masses to achieve their political aims isn't the problem we're addressing. We're addressing the people believing that it's okay to lynch folks who accidentally insult their beloved prophet (SAW). That's the specific problem. If we eliminate that then we eliminate that problem. Won't stop other abuses, but the existence of other evils does not eliminate of justify the evil that is the current incarnation of Islam.

[Darkfire]

The problem isn't humanity, Darkfire. The problem is the dogma. Humanity has it's shares of pitfalls and fallibilities. What we don't need is a dogma that justifies more inhumanity. Other evils in the world don't cover, eliminate or justify the evil that is Islam.

People abusing the sensibilities of the masses to achieve their political aims isn't the problem we're addressing. We're addressing the people believing that it's okay to lynch folks who accidentally insult their beloved prophet (SAW). That's the specific problem. If we eliminate that then we eliminate that problem. Won't stop other abuses, but the existence of other evils does not eliminate of justify the evil that is the current incarnation of Islam.

The people who called for lynching are ignorant and uneducated individuals led by a few who are using the oppurtunity for political gain. Hell you can see the same sort of thing throughout africa (the mobs Mugabe summons to blame the west for everything, the mobs who demonstrate and support Zuma in South Africa who say the whites are still trying conquer africa). It's not the specific problem (because even you eliminate that one another will just be used instead). The issue is ignorance and misguided anger which lead to people being easy to control.

[Varaj]

The people who called for lynching are ignorant and uneducated individuals led by a few who are using the oppurtunity for political gain. Hell you can see the same sort of thing throughout africa (the mobs Mugabe summons to blame the west for everything, the mobs who demonstrate and support Zuma in South Africa who say the whites are still trying conquer africa). It's not the specific problem (because even you eliminate that one another will just be used instead). The issue is ignorance and misguided anger which lead to people being easy to control.

...and a system of beliefs that make it morally acceptable.

[Eliezer]

The people who called for lynching are ignorant and uneducated individuals led by a few who are using the oppurtunity for political gain. Hell you can see the same sort of thing throughout africa (the mobs Mugabe summons to blame the west for everything, the mobs who demonstrate and support Zuma in South Africa who say the whites are still trying conquer africa). It's not the specific problem (because even you eliminate that one another will just be used instead). The issue is ignorance and misguided anger which lead to people being easy to control.

We can agree to disagree on this one. And to be honest the same arguments I'm making against Islam have been very fairly leveled against Christianity at various points and can still be leveled against Christianity on a few points. Not the same points as Islam and I honestly believe that Islam is a bankrupt religion as a moral standard because of how it views human rights, but Islam does have its good points.

We can all agree that Islam is better than a religion that justifies letting the suffering poor suffer and believes that alleviating the suffering of the poor, hungry, sick or otherwise afflicted is a moral wrong.

Yep, I'm talking about Hinduism. Karma system holds that alleviating the suffering of another person prevents them from burning off bad karma so that their next reincarnation will be all the worse for your interference. It also teaches that the suffering of individuals is justice for past (previous life) or present bad karma.

[Darkfire]

...and a system of beliefs that make it morally acceptable.

Care to clarify because no where do I know of in Islam does focus on keeping people ignorant or angry.

[Varaj]

Care to clarify because no where do I know of in Islam does focus on keeping people ignorant or angry.

But it does make it morally acceptable to punish people for teaching alternate versions of Islam or to question that the Prophet was all that or to live a live style counter to what is acceptable.

[Eliezer]

Care to clarify because no where do I know of in Islam does focus on keeping people ignorant or angry.

Let's clarify.

It is a problem that Islam makes it morally acceptable to kill an adulterer.
It is a problem that Islam makes apostasy a capital crime.
It is a problem that Islam makes insulting Islam or the Prophet (SAW) a crime.
It is a problem that Islam morally justifies punishing those who commit the above three.

I can go on:
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the morality police of Saudi Arabia.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the rape of a women for not covering herself adequately.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify sex segregation laws.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify divorce being so one sided.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the huge inequality of the sexes in many Muslim countries.

You can argue the specifics but in each instance I have listed there is not one isolated case, but a pattern of behavior and thinking where Islam is the justification for things that I find morally wrong. And on the gender equality issue, I've been to the middle east. I've talked with Islamic women from the middle east. I've listened to them describe how they are equal under Islam. It's all bullshit. The middle east in particular is a cesspool of misogynistic crap. I can't speak for the far east, but the middle east is just sick and rife with the pollution of their misogyny. And it's all "justified" not only through culture, but Islam. (South Africa may be different.)


You can keep trying to divert the conversation so let's deal with the specifics....

[Darkfire]

But it does make it morally acceptable to punish people for teaching alternate versions of Islam

No, see the Shia and Sufi angles


or to question that the Prophet was all that

He was all that :D


or to live a live style counter to what is acceptable.

What you find acceptable. The people you're questioning think its immoral because they regard it as unacceptable.

[Darkfire]

Let's clarify.

It is a problem that Islam makes it morally acceptable to kill an adulterer.
It is a problem that Islam makes apostasy a capital crime.
It is a problem that Islam makes insulting Islam or the Prophet (SAW) a crime.
It is a problem that Islam morally justifies punishing those who commit the above three.

I can go on:
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the morality police of Saudi Arabia.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the rape of a women for not covering herself adequately.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify sex segregation laws.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify divorce being so one sided.
It is a problem that Islam is used to justify the huge inequality of the sexes in many Muslim countries.

You can argue the specifics but in each instance I have listed there is not one isolated case, but a pattern of behavior and thinking where Islam is the justification for things that I find morally wrong. And on the gender equality issue, I've been to the middle east. I've talked with Islamic women from the middle east. I've listened to them describe how they are equal under Islam. It's all bullshit. The middle east in particular is a cesspool of misogynistic crap. I can't speak for the far east, but the middle east is just sick and rife with the pollution of their misogyny. And it's all "justified" not only through culture, but Islam. (South Africa may be different.)


You can keep trying to divert the conversation so let's deal with the specifics....

Actually I wasn't diverting the conversation, I was asking for clarification on the question posed by Varaj, if you want me to ignore him next time though...?

And not to be argumentative but many muslims regard the middle east as being the worst examples (well besides some sub saharan countries) of Islamic countries mainly due to the reasons listed in the second half of your post.

As for the first half:
1) No it doesn't, its 20 strikes and not a death sentance
2) Yes it is, we're working on it
3) Just don't insult him, its not like we're asking you're to start praising Islam or something
4) Now you're just losing the plot, all legal systems consider themselves morally justified in punishing those who break their laws

[Varaj]

No, see the Shia and Sufi angles

Oh really why is that alternative translations of the Koran are published from hiding?



He was all that :D

They he should be able to handle people saying it.


What you find acceptable. The people you're questioning think its immoral because they regard it as unacceptable.

Not what I find acceptable. I'm saying give people freedom even if I find it objectionable. That is the difference. I'm advocating freedom, you are advocating ignorance and death.

[Eliezer]

Actually I wasn't diverting the conversation, I was asking for clarification on the question posed by Varaj, if you want me to ignore him next time though...?

And not to be argumentative but many muslims regard the middle east as being the worst examples (well besides some sub saharan countries) of Islamic countries mainly due to the reasons listed in the second half of your post.

As for the first half:
1) No it doesn't, its 20 strikes and not a death sentance
2) Yes it is, we're working on it
3) Just don't insult him, its not like we're asking you're to start praising Islam or something
4) Now you're just losing the plot, all legal systems consider themselves morally justified in punishing those who break their laws


1) My bad. 20 strikes instead. Okay, still a problem.
2) Okay, we agree
3) WTF???? Mohamed was nothing more than a dreaming pedophile with a penchant for telling stories, plagiarizing Christians and Jews and happened to get in good with some real folk like Abu Bakr who had some real power and sought overthrow the current power structure. The prophet was no more holy or prophetic than your average pot smoker. The Q'ran is an ill conceived collection of "recollections" compiled and written after the faker, Mohamed's death and probably had little to do with what Mohamed said since his simplistic brain couldn't comprehend anything really complex. The companions probably heavily edited things when they wrote it down to make The Faker look better. Saying I can't take a copy of the Q'ran and burn it, piss on it, shit on it, feed it to pigs, cover it in bacon grease or anything physically possible to do with a book is just absolute shit. I don't give a damn about the sensibilities of millions of folks. It's wrong to say I can't do those things. I can insult the prophet and should be able to do so with legal impunity. If people want to ignore me, boycott my products or anything else like that then that is fine. But it is wrong for it to be criminal. That you even justify this re-exemplifies my earlier statements that you are an extremist and your religion is one of intolerance, not peace.
4) Yes, repetitive. Worth noting in certain contexts. The US flag code indicates how a flag should be treated but provides absolutely no punishment for not following it. So nothing wrong with saying I shouldn't insult the prophet or defile the Q'ran, but a real problem with providing punishment for violation of those statements.

[Varaj]

Darkfire. Any criminal law that is designed to protect the soul is wrong.
Laws are for earth, the material. If you can't show a tangible real world impact it isn't the realm of law.

[Darkfire]

Darkfire. Any criminal law that is designed to protect the soul is wrong.
Laws are for earth, the material. If you can't show a tangible real world impact it isn't the realm of law.

That we're just going to have disagree about I'm afraid.

[Darkfire]

1) My bad. 20 strikes instead. Okay, still a problem. Only if you consider adultery to be a minor issue


3) WTF???? Mohamed was nothing more than a dreaming pedophile with a penchant for telling stories, plagiarizing Christians and Jews and happened to get in good with some real folk like Abu Bakr who had some real power and sought overthrow the current power structure. The prophet was no more holy or prophetic than your average pot smoker. The Q'ran is an ill conceived collection of "recollections" compiled and written after the faker, Mohamed's death and probably had little to do with what Mohamed said since his simplistic brain couldn't comprehend anything really complex. The companions probably heavily edited things when they wrote it down to make The Faker look better. Saying I can't take a copy of the Q'ran and burn it, piss on it, shit on it, feed it to pigs, cover it in bacon grease or anything physically possible to do with a book is just absolute shit. I don't give a damn about the sensibilities of millions of folks. It's wrong to say I can't do those things. I can insult the prophet and should be able to do so with legal impunity. If people want to ignore me, boycott my products or anything else like that then that is fine. But it is wrong for it to be criminal. That you even justify this re-exemplifies my earlier statements that you are an extremist and your religion is one of intolerance, not peace.

You think you have a right to insult whatever people hold dear, I think people have a right to not have insulted what they hold dear. And seriously Eliezer I heard better hate spewing from Milo. I mean seriously thats a whole lot of rubbish and if you think differently have a chat to Cat, she's made a study of Islam and isn't a muslim, maybe her words will get through to you

[Varaj]

That we're just going to have disagree about I'm afraid.

Only if you consider adultery to be a minor issue



You think you have a right to insult whatever people hold dear, I think people have a right to not have insulted what they hold dear. And seriously Eliezer I heard better hate spewing from Milo. I mean seriously thats a whole lot of rubbish and if you think differently have a chat to Cat, she's made a study of Islam and isn't a muslim, maybe her words will get through to you

As long as we are clear you are on the side of oppression and against freedom we can agree to disagree.

[AZRogue]

Two things that really need to change: Islam needs to be seperated from government and they need to understand and accept that their laws are spiritual laws and cannot, in this modern world, have secular consequences.

Are they going to like it? Of course not. No cleric is going to stand by and allow their power to be diminished. But nothing less will solve the ongoing problems that Islam has been causing for itself and the world.

As it is right now, they'd all drink the Kool-Aid.

[Eliezer]

You think you have a right to insult whatever people hold dear, I think people have a right to not have insulted what they hold dear. And seriously Eliezer I heard better hate spewing from Milo. I mean seriously thats a whole lot of rubbish and if you think differently have a chat to Cat, she's made a study of Islam and isn't a muslim, maybe her words will get through to you

You do not have the right to not have insulted what you hold dear. You do not have the right to live in a world where no one says anything that bothers you or insults your sensibilities. It is childish and churlish to believe that. Because Islam teaches such it is a hate-mongering religion of mind control, word control and oppression.

You want a good example of how a mature mind set would handle insult? Kwalish Kid insulted Varaj in a way that Belladonna found unacceptable. She didn't fire bomb his house. She didn't take out a contract for his life. She banned him from her board. Issuing religious bans on books (not enforceable by law, but clerics saying people shouldn't read a book) is acceptable. Offering money to whomever kills the author is not. Cutting off trade relations with the Dutch, acceptable. Getting a mob together to fire bomb their embassy, not acceptable. Boycotting the newspaper, acceptable. Offering money and moral justification for killing the editor like a lamb, not acceptable. Seems real clear cut to me. Why do you think I should not be able to insult the prophet?

Maybe when Islam doesn't feel like a second rate religion in their own eyes they won't be so sensitive to people "insulting" their prophet. Until then I will tell them to grow up and get over it.

As for my ability to spew hate... Well, my hearts not in insulting the prophet. I actually think he was a good guy. It's both his followers and Islam that I have a problem with.

[Darkfire]

You do not have the right to not have insulted what you hold dear. You do not have the right to live in a world where no one says anything that bothers you or insults your sensibilities. It is childish and churlish to believe that. Because Islam teaches such it is a hate-mongering religion of mind control, word control and oppression.


Who are you to say what rights I should and should not have?


As for my ability to spew hate... Well, my hearts not in insulting the prophet. I actually think he was a good guy. It's both his followers and Islam that I have a problem with.

Really? Then why the insults?

[Darkfire]

As long as we are clear you are on the side of oppression and against freedom we can agree to disagree.

Does that make you the side of anarchy and moral degeneracy?

Seriously Varaj this is an issue of perspective and neither of us is right since neither of us prove the superiority of our pov. We can only believe in what we believe in.

[Varaj]

Who are you to say what rights I should and should not have?


We aren't suggesting removing any rights, you are.

And please don't try the 1984 "There are two types of freedom, freedom from and freedom too."

What you are preaching is oppression, plain and simple.

[Darkfire]

Two things that really need to change: Islam needs to be seperated from government and they need to understand and accept that their laws are spiritual laws and cannot, in this modern world, have secular consequences.

Okay answer me this, why is polygamy banned in the west? Cause as far as I see thats kinda a spiritual/moral law right there.

[Eliezer]

Who are you to say what rights I should and should not have?

Okay, you opened yourself up to this one... "Oh, so this is the problem. You have a problem with understanding basic human rights."

Because in the absence of compelling reason the default right is to the individual acting. You have the right to chose to be insulted. You also have the right to not take offense. You do not have the right to tell me not to do the insulting.

Really, I'm going back to how is this not simple?


Really? Then why the insults?
To show that I can. You told me I should not and I wanted to emphasize how stupid an assertion that is. Perhaps my point in that was lost.

[Darkfire]

We aren't suggesting removing any rights, you are.

Really cause here I was thinking that you were removing what we consider as our right to protect from ridicule and abuse that which we hold dear.


What you are preaching is oppression, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

Everything has its limits, including freedom of speech, otherwise all we're left with is anarchy.

[Eliezer]

Okay answer me this, why is polygamy banned in the west? Cause as far as I see thats kinda a spiritual/moral law right there.

Polygamy is banned in the US on the Federal level to deal with those damned mormons out in the Utah territory peaceably practicing their religion after having been kicked out of 3 states. They finally left the US and kept their loyalty to the US and after settling a huge tract of the west some people took offense to their religion all over again and banned polygamy for them.

The states ban it for various reasons, but mostly based upon religious prejudices. Yep, it's wrong. And it should be changed. I'm not saying western countries are perfect, I'm saying Islam is wrong.

[Eliezer]

Really cause here I was thinking that you were removing what we consider as our right to protect from ridicule and abuse that which we hold dear.

Everything has its limits, including freedom of speech, otherwise all we're left with is anarchy.

You don't have that right. No one does.

You have the right to protection of person and property from violence. You don't have the right to protect what you consider holy from ridicule. Huge difference. I'm curious as to why you can't see that.

[Darkfire]

Okay, you opened yourself up to this one... "Oh, so this is the problem. You have a problem with understanding basic human rights."

Basic human rights are at their core rights which allow a person to have a productive, peaceful and enjoyable life. I don't really see how the right to insult others falls into that bracket.


Because in the absence of compelling reason the default right is to the individual acting. You have the right to chose to be insulted. You also have the right to not take offense. You do not have the right to tell me not to do the insulting.

Really? How about you take a wander down the street and insult everyone you see. I'm curious how well your fellows would take your argument.


To show that I can. You told me I should not and I wanted to emphasize how stupid an assertion that is. Perhaps my point in that was lost.

Not really, its helping me build up a better and better picture of you all the time.

[Darkfire]

You don't have that right. No one does.

You have the right to protection of person and property from violence. You don't have the right to protect what you consider holy from ridicule. Huge difference. I'm curious as to why you can't see that.

Really, why don't I have that right? Please not as well I said 'dear', not 'holy'.

[Varaj]

Really cause here I was thinking that you were removing what we consider as our right to protect from ridicule and abuse that which we hold dear.


What you are preaching is oppression, plain and simple.

Everything has its limits, including freedom of speech, otherwise all we're left with is anarchy.[/QUOTE]

My right to swing my fist ends when at your face. If you can prove material damages from insulting Islam feel free to justify limiting my speech. It is about the most freedom. Limiting my speech doesn't limit you from walking away, turning the channel, etc. If I'm following you yelling you might have something, but then you get them for harassment not for speech.
Your way is nothing but limiting not about expanding rights.
My way takes nothing from you. Your way takes something from everyone.

[Darkfire]

Everything has its limits, including freedom of speech, otherwise all we're left with is anarchy.

My right to swing my fist ends when at your face. If you can prove material damages from insulting Islam feel free to justify limiting my speech. It is about the most freedom. Limiting my speech doesn't limit you from walking away, turning the channel, etc. If I'm following you yelling you might have something, but then you get them for harassment not for speech.
Your way is nothing but limiting not about expanding rights.
My way takes nothing from you. Your way takes something from everyone.[/QUOTE]

So basically while you would put the limit when material damage is cause Islam mearly puts the limit when they think spiritual damage has been caused (and please in mind this applies to all the prophets and God as well, not just the Prophet(pbuh))

[Eliezer]

Basic human rights are at their core rights which allow a person to have a productive, peaceful and enjoyable life. I don't really see how the right to insult others falls into that bracket.



Really? How about you take a wander down the street and insult everyone you see. I'm curious how well your fellows would take your argument.


Okay this is getting annoying. Islam violates in at least 2 instances basic human rights and you're sitting there arguing humans rights. I was trying to be funny about you not understanding human rights, but apparently I hit the nail on the head with that one.

May I recommend some basic reading http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Also specifically:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.



Once you understand those and can justify your position with any documentation on human rights get back to me. Until then go whimper in a corner lamenting your own lameness or continue to rant insensibly. Your choice.

[Eliezer]

So basically while you would put the limit when material damage is cause Islam merely puts the limit when they think spiritual damage has been caused (and please in mind this applies to all the prophets and God as well, not just the Prophet(pbuh))

If I can cause spiritual damage to Muslims by insulting the prophet then Islam is lamer than I had thought.

I may have to downgrade it to the same level as Hinduism in my mind.

[Darkfire]

Okay this is getting annoying. Islam violates in at least 2 instances basic human rights and you're sitting there arguing humans rights. I was trying to be funny about you not understanding human rights, but apparently I hit the nail on the head with that one.

May I recommend some basic reading http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Also specifically:


Once you understand those and can justify your position with any documentation on human rights get back to me. Until then go whimper in a corner lamenting your own lameness or continue to rant insensibly. Your choice.

You're just not getting this are you? Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences. We also consider the basic charter of human rights to largely with ours, but in cases where it doesn't we hold ours to be right.

An attitude held by many groups I might add, not just Islam.

[Darkfire]

If I can cause spiritual damage to Muslims by insulting the prophet then Islam is lamer than I had thought.

I may have to downgrade it to the same level as Hinduism in my mind.

And again with the insults. You really know how to prove a point about how people should be treated don't you?

[Varaj]

So basically while you would put the limit when material damage is cause Islam mearly puts the limit when they think spiritual damage has been caused (and please in mind this applies to all the prophets and God as well, not just the Prophet(pbuh))

When you can prove to me 100% your spiritual truth is better than anybody else's spiritual truth get back to me. That is why laws (should) limit to the material. It is testable and verifiable. Why should your made up (in the sense you can't prove it) be more important than the Christian's or the Hindu's or what ever?

[Varaj]

You're just not getting this are you? Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences. We also consider the basic charter of human rights to largely with ours, but in cases where it doesn't we hold ours to be right.

An attitude held by many groups I might add, not just Islam.


Until you can prove that your spiritual version is 100% true I'm going to fight for the most open system of rights available, not oppression.

Why are you willing to oppress everybody else on unfounded beliefs?

[AZRogue]

Okay answer me this, why is polygamy banned in the west? Cause as far as I see thats kinda a spiritual/moral law right there.

It's a social custom that I, personally, don't think should be against the law. It's not really religion having an influence over our laws. A better point for you to have made would have been to mention the government's obsession with making same-sex marriages against the law. That's more in line with what you were going for I think.

It's still not the same, though. I don't expect Islam to never TRY to influence its government, but it needs to have its hand removed from the steering wheel. For example: I am expected to pay 10% of my income as tithing to my local church. I don't. Whenever I do attend, which is about half the time, my pastor gives me dirty looks and even sometimes preaches a sermon about how important it is to pay your tithe. Whenever he does, I make a show of getting up and walking out of the church as he starts to get going. If he has a sermon about something else, I stay. I like his sermons, usually.

So far, for the last 12 years, I haven't once been whipped for not paying my tithes. I haven't been stoned, even a little bit, nor have I had to deal with anything other than a chiding sermon, which I walk out on anyway (again, no stones, no axes). Why? I'm sure that, if we let him, my pastor and others like him would make tithing mandatory. They don't because they can't. Hell, he still smiles and shakes my hand on Sunday.

I don't think any religious figure should have more power than my pastor.

[Eliezer]

You're just not getting this are you? Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences. We also consider the basic charter of human rights to largely with ours, but in cases where it doesn't we hold ours to be right.

An attitude held by many groups I might add, not just Islam.

Apparently I wasn't getting it.

You want to legislate thought and enforce your moral views and "spiritual harm".

Nope, wait. I got it long ago. My contention from the beginning is that you're an extremist and Islam is an extremist religion for holding precisely those views.

And again, the scariest part is that, "You're a moderate Muslim". That's what's scary, Darkfire. The gulf that separates us between what is right and wrong, moral and immoral is so great that we have little common ground. Whatever good Islam may bring about in the world is lost in this. It has no place in Western culture. It is antithetical to Western ideals and thinking. It is evil, oppressive and more concerned about power, control and violence than peace. The mantra of Islam is "There will be peace when you conform to our way of thinking".

[Trainz]

I came "this" close to Godwin the thread, but DF is really making it hard not to.

Oh, and... :shock: still.

[nerfherder]

You're just not getting this are you? Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences. We also consider the basic charter of human rights to largely with ours, but in cases where it doesn't we hold ours to be right.

This, I find scary.
An attitude held by many groups I might add, not just Islam.
I find them scary too.

[Goblin Girl]

Well, okay. Many consider Mormon pretty fundie, pretty conservative, a cult, non-mainstream and fairly radical.

That said, many consider the opposite to be true. In terms of mainstream protestant Christianity mormonism is ideologically radically different even if in external practices they very similar to mainstream.

I can certainly agree with the part I've bolded. I can't call them fundie or crazy though. If you've been around here for long, you already know some Mormons. Several much loved, long time members of this extended community are Mormons. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of them in person, and I think even more highly of them now.

So yeah, that religion has it's whack job extreme fringe, like any religion does. But it also has lots of Good People. Like IUD. Or Sobek. Or Joshua Dyal. Or Psion/Sangrolu/Caesar Slaad. :)

Edit: Yes, I know this isn't on topic. I don't care, because it's important to me to stand up for these really good guys.

[Freedom Canadian]

Islam has a different set of basic human rights that include one's dealing with spiritual consequences.

Mmh, interesting...

Is there a list somewhere ? I'm really curious about what those are.

As to why you can't have a right to protect what you consider dear from ridicule, I would like to present two reasons.

1) First of all, "ridicule" is a matter of opinion and it's always touchy to legislate matters of opinion. Laws need to be applied consistently across a nation and what one person finds insulting is not what another will find insulting.

Either you need to create very specific guidelines as to what is legally considered insulting, which makes the law useless (it's easy to find unlisted insults to bother people with) and unfair (it might not cover what I "consider dear"). Or you leave it to judge fiat, which makes for legal inconsistency (you'll never know if your next action is legal or not, it depends on a judge's future ruling). Or you leave it to the opinion of the person insulted, which is ridiculous because anything at all can insult some people even if you meant nothing by it.

It's a HUGE legal mess. It might work for hellholes like the Sudan, but it's not okay in nations where there is a rule of law.

2) Secondly, it can create a legal paradox of sorts. Let's use a muslim related example that sees a lot of news coverage these days. What if someone is offended by women who wear the hijab and someone is offended by women who don't wear the hijab. Whose right not to be offended do we back now ?

[Goblin Girl]

Really cause here I was thinking that you were removing what we consider as our right to protect from ridicule and abuse that which we hold dear.
You know, I think this is the root of the problem. Islam seems to believe that when a person says something bad about it's prophet, the prophet needs protecting.

To those of us who aren't Muslims, that seems silly, because we know that the best way to defuse ridicule is to just ignore it until the people spewing it get bored and go away.

See, if someone says that your prophet sucks, that doesn't *actually* hurt you or any other Muslim, and it certainly doesn't hurt the prophet. So, while people would be ok with an Imam making a pronouncement along the lines of "we decry this foul and childish intolerance and blasphemy!" in response, the idea that any Muslim could think it appropriate to retaliate with anything other than chiding speech is, quite frankly, appalling to the western world.

To put it another way, children on the playground allow words to escalate into violence. We expect that because they're children, and thus not fully civilized. When adults do it in the name of religion, they have no excuse.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You know, I think this is the root of the problem. Islam seems to believe that when a person says something bad about it's prophet, the prophet needs protecting.

To those of us who aren't Muslims, that seems silly, because we know that the best way to defuse ridicule is to just ignore it until the people spewing it get bored and go away.

See, if someone says that your prophet sucks, that doesn't *actually* hurt you or any other Muslim, and it certainly doesn't hurt the prophet. So, while people would be ok with an Imam making a pronouncement along the lines of "we decry this foul and childish intolerance and blasphemy!" in response, the idea that any Muslim could think it appropriate to retaliate with anything other than chiding speech is, quite frankly, appalling to the western world.

To put it another way, children on the playground allow words to escalate into violence. We expect that because they're children, and thus not fully civilized. When adults do it in the name of religion, they have no excuse.

I think there's a more fundamental issue. If you believe in human rights, then you have a positive duty to be insulted and see all that you hold dear insulted and not react with violence.

[Darkfire]

Until you can prove that your spiritual version is 100% true I'm going to fight for the most open system of rights available, not oppression.

Why are you willing to oppress everybody else on unfounded beliefs?

Varaj we believe we have the best of foundations, you know the whole God given truth and all that ;)

Which granted you probably think is a whole lot of bollocks, but that doesn't change the fact that we think it to be true.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Varaj we believe we have the best of foundations, you know the whole God given truth and all that ;)

Which granted you probably think is a whole lot of bollocks, but that doesn't change the fact that we think it to be true.

On what evidence and/or for what reasons do you believe you are in possession of "God given truth"?

[Darkfire]

It's a social custom that I, personally, don't think should be against the law. It's not really religion having an influence over our laws. A better point for you to have made would have been to mention the government's obsession with making same-sex marriages against the law. That's more in line with what you were going for I think.

It's still not the same, though. I don't expect Islam to never TRY to influence its government, but it needs to have its hand removed from the steering wheel. For example: I am expected to pay 10% of my income as tithing to my local church. I don't. Whenever I do attend, which is about half the time, my pastor gives me dirty looks and even sometimes preaches a sermon about how important it is to pay your tithe. Whenever he does, I make a show of getting up and walking out of the church as he starts to get going. If he has a sermon about something else, I stay. I like his sermons, usually.

So far, for the last 12 years, I haven't once been whipped for not paying my tithes. I haven't been stoned, even a little bit, nor have I had to deal with anything other than a chiding sermon, which I walk out on anyway (again, no stones, no axes). Why? I'm sure that, if we let him, my pastor and others like him would make tithing mandatory. They don't because they can't. Hell, he still smiles and shakes my hand on Sunday.

I don't think any religious figure should have more power than my pastor.

Firstly can I please just point out that contrary to apparent popular belief the stoneing/killing/beating people actually doesn't apply to the vast majority of punishments in Islam.

Secondly no one goes around checking your accounting to see if a muslim payed their zakat (its not a tithe as it doesn't go to church, but instead it goes to charity) nor would they have any power to do anything even if they knew you hadn't payed it, but that's not the point.

The point is that paying Zakat is good for both the muslim who pays it and for those who recieve it. That is why it and so many other things are mandated because they are good for the things for the muslim to follow.

[Darkfire]

The mantra of Islam is "There will be peace when you conform to our way of thinking".

You are aware of the irony of this statement since you're condeming me for not following your way of thinking?

[Darkfire]

You know, I think this is the root of the problem. Islam seems to believe that when a person says something bad about it's prophet, the prophet needs protecting.

To those of us who aren't Muslims, that seems silly, because we know that the best way to defuse ridicule is to just ignore it until the people spewing it get bored and go away.

See, if someone says that your prophet sucks, that doesn't *actually* hurt you or any other Muslim, and it certainly doesn't hurt the prophet. So, while people would be ok with an Imam making a pronouncement along the lines of "we decry this foul and childish intolerance and blasphemy!" in response, the idea that any Muslim could think it appropriate to retaliate with anything other than chiding speech is, quite frankly, appalling to the western world.

To put it another way, children on the playground allow words to escalate into violence. We expect that because they're children, and thus not fully civilized. When adults do it in the name of religion, they have no excuse.

We're not concerned about it hurting the Prophet or God. We're concerned about it hurting you.

[Darkfire]

On what evidence and/or for what reasons do you believe you are in possession of "God given truth"?

In the whole range of fruitless and pointless dicussion we've had/could have this ranks up at the top. Atticus you don't believe in the prophets nor do you even believe in God, so I'm just going to save the time and leave it at that as we're not even going to come close to agreeing on why Muslims think God has given them His message.

[Darkfire]

Freedom Canadian

I want to spend some time on your post and I've got to rush off to work, my apologies for that, but inshallah I'll be able to answer it later today.

[The Winslow]

Okay answer me this, why is polygamy banned in the west? Cause as far as I see thats kinda a spiritual/moral law right there.

Widespread polygamy (that is to say, polygyny because polyandry is rather infrequent) results in a shortage of available women, which itself results in a lot of angry young men, which itself results in violence.

To put it another way, if Earth's population was, say, 67% women and 33% men, then bigamy would be the norm. But it's 50/50 (or 51/49 -- there is a slight majority of women, but not enough to allow polygamy for everyone) so we have to end up with a married group comprised of 50% women and 50% men; that is to say, one of each.

(What about same-sex marriages, you'll say? Well, given that the proportion of homosexuals seems to be the same in both sexes, it is irrelevant to this question. But since the reasoning above doesn't apply to them, there's no reason against polygamous same-sex marriages!)

[Varaj]

Varaj we believe we have the best of foundations, you know the whole God given truth and all that ;)

Which granted you probably think is a whole lot of bollocks, but that doesn't change the fact that we think it to be true.

Since you want to remove freedoms based on this truth you must prove it is true. What proof do you have, or are you willing to remove freedoms on unfounded beliefs?

[nerfherder]

We're not concerned about it hurting the Prophet or God. We're concerned about it hurting you.
Islam says you should beat and stone people to death for their own good? :confused:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

In the whole range of fruitless and pointless dicussion we've had/could have this ranks up at the top. Atticus you don't believe in the prophets nor do you even believe in God, so I'm just going to save the time and leave it at that as we're not even going to come close to agreeing on why Muslims think God has given them His message.

Not good enough, because:

Since you want to remove freedoms based on this truth you must prove it is true. What proof do you have, or are you willing to remove freedoms on unfounded beliefs?

You're wanting to justify a exception to fundamental Human Rights principles on the basis of claims made by Islamic doctrine. If so, your obliged to provide persuasive evidence for those claims. Do so, or admit to irrationality and be ignored and/or ridiculed.

(And now you begin to see why it was a very smart move for Christianity to retreat from politics after the Enlightenment. Indeed, it was one of the smartest tactical withdrawals ever effected in the history of intellectual combat - it's not too much to say that Chrstiainity's survival to date depended on it. Unfortunately for Christianity, the "New Atheists" have begun to pursue... and the smart Christians are rapidly retreating behind the fortress of Steven J Gould 's "non-overlapping magisteria" (and may yet survive as a result). But you can't do that, can you Koran-is-the-Word-of-God boy?)