Islam - What's your view on it?

[Dennisch]

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

Unless it is about Mohammed. Then the gloves come off.

 

[OwensRacing]

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.

Novel Idea, Walk away.

 

[aadil717]

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?

Well me opposing the view is hardly on the same level as a Danish newspaper being targeted by terror threats etc.

If I say I like the colour blue, and you say blue is a silly colour - I will oppose your opinion but I still won't force it on you, as you have your own. However you could respect mine and there would be a form of peace between us then.

This is the same principle here; I'm not going to force my islamic opinion on you, but as you know there are a minority everywhere and in this case they act upon incidents like this with violence etc.

And yes I know as is Jesus, but I'm guessing in a more civilised western world that most Christians aren't that stupid to cause issues like we see in the Middle East.

Unless it is about Mohammed. Then the gloves come off.

Do I not have the right to my own opinion? Just because I'm opposing a view doesn't mean I'm going to act in a violent manner (as you're suggesting about the gloves).

 

[Azuremen]

Do I not have the right to my own opinion? Just because I'm opposing a view doesn't mean I'm going to act in a violent manner (as you're suggesting about the gloves).

But you seem to think that because some people will take the gloves off, everyone else should respect their arbitrary opinion?

That is like telling me I shouldn't say "Praise Allah!" sarcastically because someone might be so offended that they assault; that I'm somehow at fault for having my own opinion to the degree that I shouldn't have expressed it.

 

[Villain]

I'm guessing in a more civilised western world that most Christians aren't that stupid to cause issues like we see in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, they are that stupid.

 

[aadil717]

But you seem to think that because some people will take the gloves off, everyone else should respect their arbitrary opinion?

That is like telling me I shouldn't say "Praise Allah!" sarcastically because someone might be so offended that they assault; that I'm somehow at fault for having my own opinion to the degree that I shouldn't have expressed it.

You know most people wouldn't respect someone's opinion if someone didn't respect theirs. Opposing and disrespecting an opinion is two different things.

And no; to answer your question, if it gets to the level of someone attacking another person then quite honestly I don't think there's going to be a change of opinion if it's so strongly opposed.

Have I taken the gloves off, or now was it someone else?

If you say something and then get assaulted; it really has nothing to do with me.
I don't defend people who cause violence.
I respect people's opinions, I may argue against them but I'm not ridiculing them for their own opinion.

 

[Speedonator]

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?

Your reasoning is lame to say the least. Black people are offended by the 'N' word but if you're from a different ethnic background does that mean its ok for you to use the word? No! Its prohibited to depict images or insult influential leaders in Islam and if you are in adherence to a different creed or religion you must respect that by not stepping on their turf and keeping within acceptable boundaries. Discussing, debating and challenging something academically in a civilised manner is fine but insulting, ridiculing and dragging it through the mud isn't.

 

[Bopop4]

^But the Muhammed thing is religious, so to most people it really doesn't matter because well...


But the "N" word is totally unacceptable because of it's use and meaning years ago.
Its relation to a dark time is what makes it different form a bunch of morons blowing themselves up over a guy that died centuries ago.

You know that they are 🤬 crazy and deserve the worst kind of death when they beat children for flying a kite in the sky.

 

[Azuremen]

Your reasoning is lame to say the least. Black people are offended by the 'N' word but if you're from a different ethnic background does that mean its ok for you to use the word? No! Its prohibited to depict images or insult influential leaders in Islam and if you are in adherence to a different creed or religion you must respect that by not stepping on their turf and keeping within acceptable boundaries. Discussing, debating and challenging something academically in a civilised manner is fine but insulting, ridiculing and dragging it through the mud isn't.

Honestly, I don't think I could disagree more with you. The only reason people are offended by words is because they choose to be offended by certain words. Randomly saying the N word isn't any more offensive than any other word, it is how people choose to use it. And even then, it is the other party choosing to be offended by it because some since of being wronged.

If I want to mock the fact a religion is based on a guy riding a magical beast through the air to land at a special, magic rock, I think I'm fine.

 

[JediRage]

@aadil717

So, that's the kind of views moderate/peaceful muslims have? "I oppose their views and will not personally be violent against them, but if they get physically attacked by radicals then I can understand the viewpoint of the radicals".

I'm not surprised really because I've seen this reasoning time and time again.

 

[Speedonator]

Doesnt matter to whom? 1.6 billion Muslims? How can you insinuate its ok to insult Muslims but not black people? Theyre all human beings are they not?! The N word is disgusting as ridiculing someones belief, its not one or the other.

 

[Speedonator]

Honestly, I don't think I could disagree more with you. The only reason people are offended by words is because they choose to be offended by certain words. Randomly saying the N word isn't any more offensive than any other word, it is how people choose to use it. And even then, it is the other party choosing to be offended by it because some since of being wronged.

If I want to mock the fact a religion is based on a guy riding a magical beast through the air to land at a special, magic rock, I think I'm fine.

If person A calls person X a 🤬, X would be offended by the offensive nature of the content and not because he 'chose to be offended'. You wouldn't mock your own beliefs because you'd be offending and wronging yourself , so why mock the viewpoint of others? Jedirage, what do you expect when innocent Muslims are being butchered in iraq and Afghanistan by bloodthirsty NATO troops? Theyre human and have feelings just like everyone else. And these 'radicals' you speak of are simply resisting occupation, is that such a crime?

 

[Blitz24]

If person A calls person X a 🤬, X would be offended by the offensive nature of the content and not because he 'chose to be offended'. You wouldn't mock your own beliefs because you'd be offending and wronging yourself , so why mock the viewpoint of others? Jedirage, what do you expect when innocent Muslims are being butchered in iraq and Afghanistan by bloodthirsty NATO troops? Theyre human and have feelings just like everyone else. And these 'radicals' you speak of are simply resisting occupation, is that such a crime?

Its one thing to be offended, its another thing to scream bloody murder and massacre people who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Speedonator]

Its one thing to be offended, its another thing to scream bloody murder and massacre people who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

I agree. No one is condoning the violent protests and I certainly am not.

 

[OwensRacing]

Doesnt matter to whom? 1.6 billion Muslims? How can you insinuate its ok to insult Muslims but not black people? Theyre all human beings are they not?! The N word is disgusting as ridiculing someones belief, its not one or the other.

You are comparing something a person has no control over and can't change. To something a person freely chooses to do or believe.


Kinda like the handicapped. They can't fix it or change it. 99.9% didn't choose it.

When one chooses a religion. They freely did so. They are not stuck with this choice.

So this comparison is not the same.


Now say making fun of ones clothing. That is like making fun of ones religion. Compare free choice things to each other.

 

[Azuremen]

If person A calls person X a 🤬, X would be offended by the offensive nature of the content and not because he 'chose to be offended'. You wouldn't mock your own beliefs because you'd be offending and wronging yourself , so why mock the viewpoint of others? Jedirage, what do you expect when innocent Muslims are being butchered in iraq and Afghanistan by bloodthirsty NATO troops? Theyre human and have feelings just like everyone else. And these 'radicals' you speak of are simply resisting occupation, is that such a crime?

I mock my own beliefs constantly, so your point again fails.

You clearly don't understand how I feel about this - people choose to be offended by words that have been assigned meaning by society. The words, when taken alone, are just words and people choose to be offended. It is a simple matter of will.

These radicals choose the lesser path of resorting to violence because their arbitrary beliefs have been insulted. To me, it is the lowest form of humanity that decides to be extreme over something as trivial as words.

 

[Speedonator]

Please cut the mumbo jumbo, you've dodged my original point like a bunch of weasley politicians.

 

[Azuremen]

Please cut the mumbo jumbo, you've dodged my original point like a bunch of weasley politicians.

I've not dodged a thing.

Again, I feel people choose to be offended. I don't see what is so complicated about this. Words hold meanings as people choose to let them hold - nothing more, nothing less. So please explain to me how I am being like a weasley politician.

 

[Famine]

Its prohibited to depict images or insult influential leaders in Islam

A significant part of the point is that it isn't.

Incidentally, remind me what the rules and prohibitions of being black are.

Well me opposing the view is hardly on the same level as a Danish newspaper being targeted by terror threats etc.

It kind of is - particularly as you've said you find it understandable and would join in (peaceful) protests against such publications in your own country.

It's not forbidden in Islam to portray Muhammed - it's strongly discouraged to make images of any sentient being, but it's not forbidden. Most of the Jyllands-Posten images (and the censored-by-CC South Park episode) were just images of Muhammed (or that purported to be Muhammed) not doing anything that could be construed as insulting to Islam - just as this image of accepted 13th Century Islamic art depicting Muhammed. But even if it were, it's limited to Islam. It'd be a rule for Muslims

So why are non-Muslims to be held to this rule for Muslims? Why do you think it's acceptable to hold non-Muslims to rules that apply to Muslims? Why are Jews not protesting that I eat bacon if I'm to be held to standards of religions I don't adhere to - would that be acceptable too? It's a Sikh rule for Sikhs to cover their hair - would you accept Sikhs protesting against you for not covering your hair or attacking the offices of fashion magazines for showing models with uncovered hair?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Doesnt matter to whom? 1.6 billion Muslims? How can you insinuate its ok to insult Muslims but not black people? Theyre all human beings are they not?! The N word is disgusting as ridiculing someones belief, its not one or the other.

It's not the same thing. You can't change your ethnicity. Also there's nothing to criticise about it, unlike religion.

 

[aadil717]

@aadil717

So, that's the kind of views moderate/peaceful muslims have? "I oppose their views and will not personally be violent against them, but if they get physically attacked by radicals then I can understand the viewpoint of the radicals".

I'm not surprised really because I've seen this reasoning time and time again.

At what point did I say that? You're deliberately putting words in my mouth.
I do not support violence, and if you think otherwise then what can I do? I've already explained many times I don't.
I was merely explaining the reason the violence could of been caused; which was because they were technically provoked into anger and because they are uneducated they acted in such a way. Just because I was explaining doesn't mean I represent them.

This is the same principle here; I'm not going to force my islamic opinion on you, but as you know there are a minority everywhere and in this case they act upon incidents like this with violence etc.

And yes I know as is Jesus, but I'm guessing in a more civilised western world that most Christians aren't that stupid to cause issues like we see in the Middle East.

Do I not have the right to my own opinion? Just because I'm opposing a view doesn't mean I'm going to act in a violent manner (as you're suggesting about the gloves).

.

It kind of is - particularly as you've said you find it understandable and would join in (peaceful) protests against such publications in your own country.

Understandable as people's human nature causes them to do so (particularly in this case where they are either uneducated or wrongly educated).
If it was to ever happen here, I'd take part in a peaceful protest to let publishers and the newspapers know that we disagree (like the uni fees protests) and maybe they would then respect our opinions and choose not to do it again - an apology - which I highly doubt would ever happen would be even better, but it would be good if they acknowledged and then respected my islamic beliefs too.

So why are non-Muslims to be held to this rule for Muslims? Why do you think it's acceptable to hold non-Muslims to rules that apply to Muslims? Why are Jews not protesting that I eat bacon if I'm to be held to standards of religions I don't adhere to - would that be acceptable too? It's a Sikh rule for Sikhs to cover their hair - would you accept Sikhs protesting against you for not covering your hair or attacking the offices of fashion magazines for showing models with uncovered hair?

I suppose in the Middle East - where Islamic law is practised their opinions may differ slightly.
You've already asked these questions, and that's the best short answer I can give. Just because I am Muslim, doesn't mean I represent and agree with all their views.
I don't think eating bacon (which also forbidden in Islam) or uncovering your hair is going to insult or offend anyone as its not ridiculing a person or religion. I don't get offended if one of my friends is an Atheist, one is a Christian etc. as I respect they're opinions, just because someone else cannot doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to.

 

[Famine]

If it was to ever happen here, I'd take part in a peaceful protest to let publishers and the newspapers know that we disagree (like the uni fees protests) and maybe they would then respect our opinions and choose not to do it again - an apology - which I highly doubt would ever happen would be even better, but it would be good if they acknowledged and then respected my islamic beliefs too.

But you're still not answering the questions.

Why do you believe images of Muhammed are innately wrong, despite not being forbidden and despite centuries of Islamic art depicting Muhammed?

Why must non-Muslims be held to this (non-existant) Islamic standard?

Why, if that is the case, are you not required to adhere to Sikh standards - like covering your hair - or the standards of any other belief set on the planet?

 

[aadil717]

But you're still not answering the questions.

Why do you believe images of Muhammed are innately wrong, despite not being forbidden and despite centuries of Islamic art depicting Muhammed?

Why must non-Muslims be held to this (non-existant) Islamic standard?

Why, if that is the case, are you not required to adhere to Sikh standards - like covering your hair - or the standards of any other belief set on the planet?

I said I believe it's wrong to make cartoons of him for the sole purpose of ridiculing him, and it'd just be better if he wasn't drawn at all to prevent things like this from happening. That's why I believe it's wrong.
Also drawings, especially of his face wouldn't really go well as most do not even know what he looks like. So then drawing him inaccurately is pointless and using words as a medium rather than images would work better.

 

[Famine]

I said I believe it's wrong to make cartoons of him for the sole purpose of ridiculing him, and it'd just be better if he wasn't drawn at all to prevent things like this from happening. That's why I believe it's wrong.
Also drawings, especially of his face wouldn't really go well as most do not even know what he looks like. So then drawing him inaccurately is pointless and using words as a medium rather than images would work better.

And the second two questions? The important ones?


Most of the Jyllands-Posten images were just of Muhammed. No ridicule. The (second) South Park appearance was just of Muhammed. No ridicule.

 

[aadil717]

And the second two questions? The important ones?

Most of the Jyllands-Posten images were just of Muhammed. No ridicule. The (second) South Park appearance was just of Muhammed. No ridicule.

I answered those two questions at the end of the fourth post above this, I believe.
And as you say, no ridicule - so I'm not condemning South Park (even though I hear they're not exactly always respectful to all) or Jyllands-Posten.

 

[Famine]

I answered those two questions at the end of the fourth post above this, I believe.

Ah, I see you edited it five minutes after I reasked. But no, you didn't answer them.

Let's break it down to something simpler.

You believe in "x" religious rule (regardless of its foundation). An institution or individual, that is not you and does not adhere to that religion, breaks rule "x". You're offended and choose to protest against them breaking that rule, demanding an apology and that they never do it again.

Jeff believes in "y" religious rule (regardless of its foundation). You, who are not Jeff and who does not adhere to that religion, break rule "y". He's offended and chooses to protest against you breaking that rule, demanding an apology and that you never do it again.


Why do you think it's perfectly reasonable for you to hold "institution that mocks Muhammed" to the rules that you think govern your religion to the point of protesting and demanding an apology, but not for Jeff to demand you cover your hair up - the rules of his religion?

You're perfectly entitled to be offended by anything you see fit. But it's your choice to be offended and it is not the responsibility of anyone else to avoid causing that offence - just like it's not your responsibility to avoid causing offence to someone who thinks hair should be covered.

 

[aadil717]

Well I'd think that an apology would be nice if we were to carry on having a peaceful relationship, rather than one of anger or hatred.
I don't demand an apology, but it helps remake broken ties between people.
If someone was to carry on to keep offending me, I would in the end settle my opinion to; that they are disrespectful IMO and wouldn't want anything to do with them ever again.
Protesting on my behalf is just to show that I do not agree, I have that right, and I would hope that because of protesting the person would realise and perhaps change their opinion. If they don't then that's really up to them if they don't respect me or my beliefs etc, but I at least tried to make them understand from my point of view that it was offensive.

 

[Famine]

Okay, you're not getting this and I don't really know why.

You know how you don't cover your hair? That's a rule of Sikhism. By not covering your hair you're offending Sikhs. Why are you not covering your hair?

 

[aadil717]

Hmm...well I'm not aware of being offensive but now I'm understanding you.

But then again I'm not ridiculing their belief so I'm not sure I'm being offensive in the first place?

I wasn't offended by someone drawing the Prophet, rather someone drawing a cartoon of him just to ridicule him.

 

[Famine]

Jyllands-Posten weren't ridiculing anyone either - they still got death threats and there were associated bombings*.

You cannot hold others to the standards of your religion unless they also follow your religion. There is no case for someone who breaks your religion's rules to apologise for it if they aren't their religion's rules too.

You're welcome to take offence. You're welcome to dissociate yourself from them due to your offence. Requiring them to apologise and stop doing whatever it was that offended you? No dice, because anyone can take offence at everything you do and say too.


*But even if they were, it's freedom of expression. Ever told a joke? Ever told a joke that didn't in some way laugh at the misfortune or ignorance of others, ridiculing them?