Islam - What's your view on it?

[kk20]

In the eyes of Millions, Bush and his best chum Blair are certified war criminals. I fully respect the rules but this statement is not misleading, its a fact

While I agree with what you're saying, im afraid using the word "certified" is wrong in this case.

 

[Public'sTwin]

No its not a fact its a matter of opinion and unless you wish to test the AUP you will drop the issue.

Really? You're going to invoke the AUP over an item that is, in actuality, a matter of debate?

Surely this must equally apply to proclamations of the existence of, say, God?

 

[aadil717]

Really? You're going to invoke the AUP over an item that is, in actuality, a matter of debate?

Surely this must equally apply to proclamations of the existence of, say, God?

Hmm...this is going to turn into a really silly debate over the AUP. Let's just agree to disagree about Bush and say its opinion, since he really isn't certified - convicted of anything - as of yet.

 

[Duck149]

I find the blind assertion of many faiths quite disturbing - off of the top of my head I cannot think of a single religion I would like to be associated with.
Throughout history religion has been a force for evil and a manipulative tool used to control the masses.
Look towards nations where intellect isn't demonised and you'll notice how weak religion is.

This isn't to say everyone who is subject to a "faith system" is evil, but the archaic beliefs that the systems enforce do often constitute what I would regard as such.

Oh and inb4 people saying that we need religion to be good people, may you take note that the majority of the most generous philanthropists in the world are without religion.

 

[SalmanBH]

I find the blind assertion of many faiths quite disturbing - off of the top of my head I cannot think of a single religion I would like to be associated with.
Throughout history religion has been a force for evil and a manipulative tool used to control the masses.

I am not going to deny the fact that there were people that have used religion to their advantage and in order to manipulate and exploit people's beliefs. But in no way, were the religions based on that concept.

 

[Scaff]

Really? You're going to invoke the AUP over an item that is, in actuality, a matter of debate?

Surely this must equally apply to proclamations of the existence of, say, God?

Has Bush been charged with any war crime?

No, as such it is not certified and certainly not a fact.

I've not once said that the subject could not be discussed (this however is the wrong thread to do so), what I have said is that its not a fact. As such citing the AUP is perfectly acceptable.

Now either drop this subject from this thread and keep to the AUP or get a holiday from GTP.

 

[Duck149]

I am not going to deny the fact that there were people that have used religion to their advantage and in order to manipulate and exploit people's beliefs. But in no way, were the religions based on that concept.

I wouldn't like to speculate as to why a religion was formed, but if I had to, I'd assume it was to explain the inexplicable and maintain order. Which, means that with progression in science and established governments religion is now irrelevant to the extend its counter productive. How many deaths or mutilations occur in the name of a book or deity - thousands annually.

The foundation of religion may not have been evil but their messages and philosophies have inspired it.

A harmless example of these lies is Santa or the tooth fairy, told to kids to keep them happy and quiet.

 

[PeterJB]

I wouldn't like to speculate as to why a religion was formed, but if I had to, I'd assume it was to explain the inexplicable and maintain order. Which, means that with progression in science and established governments religion is now irrelevant to the extend its counter productive. How many deaths or mutilations occur in the name of a book or deity - thousands annually.

The foundation of religion may not have been evil but their messages and philosophies have inspired it.

A harmless example of these lies is Santa or the tooth fairy, told to kids to keep them happy and quiet.

[citation needed]

 

[TP1]

[citation needed]

Oh, please.
It's 2012 and there are people getting stonned to death daily in the Middle-East, because of supposed adultery; all because of some book listed the code of conduct.
Jewish people slauttered for centuries just because they're jewish.
If you can't come up with your own examples, then you really need to turn on the TV, pick up a newspaper and read up on your history.
Or do you believe that the Crusades were just a missunderstanding.
If you don't believe that a single book (and all of its understandings) aren't guiding the masses, then I welcome you to a test: pick up an item that does not belong to you in an Islamic country. TIP: make sure the hand you use to pick it up is your least favourite.

 

[PeterJB]

Oh, please. It's 2012 and there are people getting stonned to death daily in the Middle-East, because of supposed adultery; all because of some book listed the code of conduct.

I'm not denying that is is occuring. But to say that thousands die anually because of religion is a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[TP1]

I'm not denying that is is occuring. But to say that thousands die anually because of religion is a bit of an exaggeration.

Is it? OK, then let's consider a less extreme example. Say a child has a disease that can be cured or terminal if left untreated. The childrens parents refuse to let their child get treated because their religious sect denies the use of science. So instead they just pray, all the way to their childs grave.

 

[PeterJB]

Well first of all cases of anything similar to people denying the use of 'science' on their terminal children are fairly uncommon. Certainly not numbering into the thousands. And if it happens that both the parents and child are consenting to it, then case closed, no matter how perverse it may be.

 

[kk20]

Is it? OK, then let's consider a less extreme example. Say a child has a disease that can be cured or terminal if left untreated. The childrens parents refuse to let their child get treated because their religious sect denies the use of science. So instead they just pray, all the way to their childs grave.

Umm. Muslims are allowed medical treatment you know.

 

[BobK]

Muslims must control their anger

Peace

That article has a frighteningly mixed message though.

It says this:

An Nusra Al Alamiya pointed out that the movie targeting Holy Prophet Muhammad was provocative and all ensuing attacks on U.S. embassies should end.

Immediately after, though, he says this:

Reactions against the insult directed at Holy Prophet Muhammad were legal and were things desired. This is a necessity of our faith. Defending the Holy Prophet Muhammad is a desirable Islamic behaviour.

Followed immediately by:

However, a Muslim must act based on the Islamic law and directives issued by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. We should not be acting in opposition to our Prophet Muhammad while thinking that we are defending him

And then:

We need to stop the insult to our Prophet Muhammad immediately and punish those responsible for the insult.

The duty of the Muslims is not merely to respond to the insults directed against Prophet Muhammad. Holy Prophet Muhammad's life, his high moral values and permanent message must be carried to the whole world. All means must be utilized to introduce Muhammad in the most accurate manner.

Umm. Muslims are allowed medical treatment you know.

I don't believe he was talking about Muslims here. Possibly Christian Scientists.

 

[Scaff]

[citation needed]

I can throw in just one that meets that.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the LRA attacks and the government's counter-insurgency measures have resulted in the displacement of nearly 95 percent of the Acholi population in three districts of northern Uganda. By 2006, 1.7 million people lived in more than 200 internally displaced person (IDP) camps in northern Uganda.[43] These camps had some of the highest mortality rates in the world. The Ugandan Ministry of Health and partners estimated that through the first seven months of 2005, about 1,000 people were dying weekly, chiefly from malaria and AIDS. During the same time period of January-July 2005, the LRA abducted 1,286 Ugandans (46.4 percent of whom were children under the age of 15 years), and violence accounted for 9.4 percent of the 28,283 deaths, occurring mostly outside camps.[45]

The ongoing battle between the LRA (Christian fundamentalists in Africa) and the governed resulted in situation that saw 1,000 people die a week during the first seven months of 2005. That's 28,000 in just seven months as the result of one religiously fueled conflict.

 

[Sphinx]

The study also addresses those points, which is exactly why I mentioned that support for extreme groups is actually lower than non-Muslims believe it to be and that the number who do support it has dropped over time.

I've read most of the study you supplied links to. What hit me straight away was that the study is focusing on American Muslim's either born or whom reside there. They of course would lean towards a more moderate view.

A three year old study that focuses mostly on Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia, highlights a higher level of support, thus more extreme views.

Consistent with this possible ambivalence about al Qaeda, respondents tended to show divided feelings about the general category of Muslim groups that attack Americans. Respondents were asked how they felt about “groups in the Muslim world that attack Americans” on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 meaning not all supportive and 10 meaning very supportive. It should be noted that the question did not specify whether these would be attacks on civilians or military forces, because in fact such groups tend to do some of both.


Responses were divided. The numbers giving a score above 5 were never a majority (Egypt 30%, Indonesia 27%, Pakistan 30%). However in no case did a majority give scores below 5 (Egypt 34%, Indonesia 45%, Pakistan 33%). Substantial numbers gave a score of 5, reflecting ambivalence (Egypt 23%, Indonesia 17%, Pakistan 13%). On average across all three countries the mean response was 4.3.

In a different question respondents were asked: “Thinking about groups in the Muslim world that attack Americans, would you say you disapprove of all these groups, approve of some but disapprove of others, or approve of all or most of these groups?”

In Egypt a majority (52%) said they approved of some groups that attack Americans; another 9 percent approved of most such groups, while 29 percent disapproved of all of them.

In Indonesia, a much lower 28 percent approved of some groups (approve most, 5%); a plurality of 47 percent disapproved of all of them.

In Pakistan, 24 percent approved of some groups and other 17 percent of most groups, making 41 percent who approved to some degree. Twenty-two percent disapproved of all of them (37% did not answer).

In Morocco in late 2006, 35 percent approved of some groups (approve most, 3%), but a 44 percent plurality disapproved of all of them.

Divided Feelings about Bin Laden

Consistent with the pattern of ambivalence about al Qaeda, views of Bin Laden are quite divided. Respondents were asked whether their feelings toward Osama bin Laden were positive, negative or mixed.

In Egypt, 44 percent said they viewed him positively, 17 percent negatively, and 25 percent had mixed feelings.

In Indonesia, a much lower 14 percent expressed positive feelings and 26 percent negative feelings (mixed, 21%; 39% did not answer).

In Pakistan—where bin Laden is thought by some to reside—a quarter (25%) had positive feelings toward him while 15% had negative feelings (mixed, 26%; 34% did not answer).

In late 2006 Moroccans showed no fixed view, with 27 percent positive, 21 percent negative, and 26 percent mixed.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

It's important to point out however, when the respondents were asked the question about groups attacking civillians the vast majority opposed it, and another question asking who they believed was responsible for 9/11 the marjority felt al Qaeda were not responsible. Therfore In my opinion there is a degree of divided loyalties in saying the right thing, when asked, and their support for these groups.

 

[Dennisch]

Apparently the current Mohammed discussion needed more oil, according to French magazine Charlie Hebdo:

Charlie Hebdo, a long-running French satirical magazine, angered hardline Islamic groups last year with a magazine guest-edited by "Mohammad", the Islamic prophet.
For their efforts, the magazine eventually found that their offices firebombed. Luckily no-one was injured, and the magazine went on to put up another shocking issue, with a cover that showed a traditionally-dressed Muslim man (perhaps Mohammed?) sloppily kissing a male Charlie Hebdo cartoonist.
Now, according to Le Monde, the editors of Charlie Hebdo are preparing to cause controversy again with a issue released tomorrow. The cover shows a Muslim man in a wheelchair pushed by an Orthodox Jew with foil cap and under the title "Untouchables 2", an imaginary sequel to a recent French film. The pair are saying (rough translation) "You must not mock us!" According to Le Monde, there are more shocking cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad inside the magazine "in daring positions".
Of course, given recent protests around the world about an anti-Islamic YouTube video and a new, higher reward on Salman Rushdie's head, we suppose the timing of this issue is... brave?
France's Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, is currently in Cairo and has condemned the cartoons, saying "I am against provocations".


Business insider.

 

[aadil717]

They're just doing that to wind up the minority (that aren't very clever - for destroying the offices -peaceful protests would of worked better on their level I think) because they know it will wind them up.

Don't think that they're not right for defending Islam; ruining the offices wasn't the right way to go about it.
I don't really see reason to bring religion, especially Islam at that; into violence - its not the religion it's the way people behave.
A bad person is a bad person whether they're Muslim, Christian, Atheist etc.
You always have that minority in a religion - take example of the current US Embassy troubles.
But I see that because they are Muslim they do (technically) have reason to be in this thread.

My view on the magazines cartoons and articles:
IMO its very wrong to be making fun of The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and I would protest against anything like this if it happened in my home town, even country - but not by causing destruction and chaos.
It may be their right of opinion to disagree with the teachings and the Prophet on a personal level, but I would appreciate them just to disagree and not mock.
The mocking that they do makes them just as bad and I think maybe the situation that happened at the embassies should of happened at the magazine offices instead as they probably deserve it (the people killed in the Embassies 100% did NOT).

 

[JediRage]

My view on the magazines cartoons and articles:
IMO its very wrong to be making fun of The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and I would protest against anything like this if it happened in my home town, even country - but not by causing destruction and chaos.
It may be their right of opinion to disagree with the teachings and the Prophet on a personal level, but I would appreciate them just to disagree and not mock.
The mocking that they do makes them just as bad and I think maybe the situation that happened at the embassies should of happened at the magazine offices instead as they probably deserve it (the people killed in the Embassies 100% did NOT).

Just to clarify. You are saying that the people in the Embassies don't deserve to be the target of the physical attacks because they did not have anything to do with ... well you-know-what.

But you do say that the magazine offices deserve to be the object of physical attacks, am I right?

Further, you say that you personally will not protest violently, but you encourage physical attacks against the magazine offices or other places that indulge in such activities? Am I understanding you correctly?

I am well and truly at a loss for words.

 

[Dennisch]

The mocking that they do makes them just as bad and I think maybe the situation that happened at the embassies should of happened at the magazine offices instead as they probably deserve it (the people killed in the Embassies 100% did NOT).

First bold part.

Second bold part.

Really? For a drawing? They deserve to die?

I would protest against anything like this if it happened in my home town, even country - but not by causing destruction and chaos.

This is how you are supposed to react.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Jesus makes it on South Park all the time.

Do you see Christians blowing up buildings and declaring jihad?

Constitutional rights to freedom of speech/press apply whether or not you claim someone is "divine."

No "prophet," messiah, or magician is above any form of ridicule or comical relief. If you don't want people to make fun of your religion then go hide under a rock with all the Scientologists.

 

[Famine]

IMO its very wrong to be making fun of The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)

Why?

Even if you take the stance that it's wrong for Muslims to make fun of or depict images of Muhammed (neither of which is actually the case), why do non-Muslims need to adhere to it when they don't adhere to any other part of the religion?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Jesus often makes it into Family Guy as well, they were mostly funny and satirical, but I'm not offended, even though I'm a Christian. But some of my Christian friends dislike it when they saw me watching those episodes, still I could laugh at the scene. I knew, no matter how silly the depiction, or insulting the scene was, it's just entertainment, no need to be taken seriously.

Same goes if they made a movie that insults or mocks Jesus or any other certain religion divine entity, those who got baited to violence / hatred have served the purpose of the movie maker, to instigate hate and chaos.

 

[aadil717]

Just to clarify. You are saying that the people in the Embassies don't deserve to be the target of the physical attacks because they did not have anything to do with ... well you-know-what.

But you do say that the magazine offices deserve to be the object of physical attacks, am I right?

No you are not.
Obviously the Embassy was the victim to violence it did not deserve.
The magazine offices don't deserve to be the object of physical attacks either, but I have never heard or seen about this incident and I'm sure many others haven't either. Which is why this should have got as much attention (in form of protests) as the film got.

Further, you say that you personally will not protest violently, but you encourage physical attacks against the magazine offices or other places that indulge in such activities? Am I understanding you correctly?

I am well and truly at a loss for words.

My view on the magazines cartoons and articles:
IMO its very wrong to be making fun of The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and I would protest against anything like this if it happened in my home town, even country - but not by causing destruction and chaos.
It may be their right of opinion to disagree with the teachings and the Prophet on a personal level, but I would appreciate them just to disagree and not mock.
The mocking that they do makes them just as bad and I think maybe the situation that happened at the embassies should of happened at the magazine offices instead as they probably deserve it (the people killed in the Embassies 100% did NOT).

The word "probably" means that in my mind it is open to debate.

No they definitely don't deserve to die but they're not exactly innocent compared to the people in the embassies.
They technically are provoking Muslims to act against them so yes, IMO they definitely deserved to have their offices burnt down.
Killing of people? Definitely not - because probably most if not all of those people working in the offices are innocent people.

What I was saying (since you never understood me first time) is that the Magazine offices were looking for attention and trouble when they released that article, and that's what they got. And now they're looking to do it again - so don't be surprised for something worse to happen because things like this will unfortunately only escalate because look at the crazy people (and what they did) in the Middle East.

Further, you say that you personally will not protest violently, but you encourage physical attacks against the magazine offices or other places that indulge in such activities? Am I understanding you correctly?

Um:

My view on the magazines cartoons and articles:
IMO its very wrong to be making fun of The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and I would protest against anything like this if it happened in my home town, even country - but not by causing destruction and chaos.

I don't encourage violence, I never have an never will.
When I said protesting, note that I condemn the bold bit.

I am well and truly at a loss for words.

:facepalm:

I am well and truly lost for words too; at no point, at all, did I say someone deserves to die over something like that.
I don't know if you've thought too hard about what I'm saying; putting words in my mouth; or just presuming I mean that but apparently I was not clear to you.
I would edit my post maybe to make my opinion easier to understand but I'll just give it properly again:

I believe that (as a human being and a Muslim) that violence is wrong.
To take people's lives shouldn't be our decision, it should be Allah's (God) - you should be accounted for your actions on the day of judgement.
To anyone who doesn't believe in God - well just understand that IMO it's not our right to really decide the fate of someone's life, especially when it's out of anger and hatred and then you act upon the innocent.

Why?

Even if you take the stance that it's wrong for Muslims to make fun of or depict images of Muhammed (neither of which is actually the case), why do non-Muslims need to adhere to it when they don't adhere to any other part of the religion?

Famine, I'm a Muslim and I said "IMO" so of course I would disagree with someone with opposing views.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone else at all, but I do have a right to give my opinion.

And I don't actually know of any Muslim who would make fun of the Prophet Muhammed either to be honest.

 

[Famine]

The magazine offices don't deserve to be the object of physical attacks

They technically are provoking Muslims to act against them so yes, IMO they definitely deserved to have their offices burnt down.

So... which is it?

Famine, I'm a Muslim and I said "IMO" so of course I would disagree with someone with opposing views.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone else at all, but I do have a right to give my opinion.

And I don't actually know of any Muslim who would make fun of the Prophet Muhammed either to be honest.

But this is the problem.

It's not forbidden to make fun of nor visually depict Muhammed* even in Islam - or any of the other prophets (including Jesus and Moses) that the Qu'ran says you must make no distinction between - so why are non-Muslims being held to a standard that not only doesn't actually exist in Islam but which they shouldn't be held to through not being Muslims?

That's exactly what happens whenever there's a riot against cartoons or films - non-Muslims being held to a non-existant Islamic standard that they shouldn't be held to.

* It's discouraged, but not forbidden, to make images of any sentient being. Muhammed and the other prophets are top of the list - not that you see any riots because someone drew Jesus distracting and trolling people - but there are even accepted Islamic artworks featuring him.

 

[aadil717]

So... which is it?

They don't deserve it.

However if someone does keep provoking another person (especially a group of violent people) it's their own fault for having the stupidity to end up in something I fear would end up like the attacks from last week.

Edit: they don't deserve physical attacks (human attacking human) but IMO it's their own fault for causing it because insulting a religion affects all types of people within that religion - and normally stupid people do stupid things in revenge.

But this is the problem.

It's not forbidden to make fun of nor visually depict Muhammed* even in Islam - or any of the other prophets (including Jesus and Moses) that the Qu'ran says you must make no distinction between - so why are non-Muslims being held to a standard that not only doesn't actually exist in Islam but which they shouldn't be held to through not being Muslims?

That's exactly what happens whenever there's a riot against cartoons or films - non-Muslims being held to a non-existant Islamic standard that they shouldn't be held to.

* It's discouraged, but not forbidden, to make images of any sentient being. Muhammed and the other prophets are top of the list - not that you see any riots because someone drew Jesus distracting and trolling people - but there are even accepted Islamic artworks featuring him.

Well I was just expressing my views that as a Muslim I really would oppose and wouldn't like at all someone mocking the Prophet.
Making images is one thing and I know it's discouraged but then making images for the sole purpose of ridiculing The Prophet is something I view strongly against.

 

[Joel]

They don't deserve it.

However if someone does keep provoking another person (especially a group of violent people) it's their own fault for having the stupidity to end up in something I fear would end up like the attacks from last week.

Edit: they don't deserve physical attacks (human attacking human) but IMO it's their own fault for causing it because insulting a religion affects all types of people within that religion - and normally stupid people do stupid things in revenge.

It's a shame when people aren't supposed to make jokes about a magic man in the sky just because it hurts some people's feelings.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Having a perseverance while being provoked into violence is a good practice of faith, a devoted person in a religion or faith should understand this and will not easily tempted to negative acts. It's a test of faith and devotion, and now we see how strong they are by the reaction they made.

 

[aadil717]

Jesus makes it on South Park all the time.

Do you see Christians blowing up buildings and declaring jihad?

Constitutional rights to freedom of speech/press apply whether or not you claim someone is "divine."

No "prophet," messiah, or magician is above any form of ridicule or comical relief. If you don't want people to make fun of your religion then go hide under a rock with all the Scientologists.

Any other Muslim I know would totally oppose the idea of mocking the Prophet.

Maybe most Christians don't feel the need to object and protest, but as a Muslim - the Prophet is really the role model for Muslims and ridiculing him is pretty much ridiculing a majority of the teachings and beliefs in Islam.

If people mock Islam or the Prophet; I feel that I at least should give my opinion on the matter as they've opposed mine for a start.

It's a shame when people aren't supposed to make jokes about a magic man in the sky just because it hurts some people's feelings.

Your opinion is yours. You have the right to say whatever you like, as did I.

 

[Famine]

Maybe most Christians don't feel the need to object and protest, but as a Muslim - the Prophet is really the role model for Muslims and ridiculing him is pretty much ridiculing a majority of the teachings and beliefs in Islam.

As Jesus is to Christians...

Well I was just expressing my views that as a Muslim I really would oppose and wouldn't like at all someone mocking the Prophet.
Making images is one thing and I know it's discouraged but then making images for the sole purpose of ridiculing The Prophet is something I view strongly against.

Did you see the Jyllands-Posten images? One of them was a bit... dodgy but the others were just pictures of a guy. So was the South Park depiction - it was literally Muhammed just standing there. Much like this piece of 13th Century Islamic art (feel free not to click if you are a Muslim - though it was drawn by a Muslim and met with Islamic approval of the day).


But the question is why you'd hold non-Muslims to this standard that, though it doesn't technically exist, only really applies within Islam.

Should I be protested against by Jews for every bacon sandwich I eat? It's their standard, not mine. So why should a non-Muslim, Danish newspaper be targetted by terror threats for publishing things that don't adhere to a standard that isn't theirs?