The war on ISIS.

[Alex p.]

That's you, right...?

Not really getting what you are at...

 

[jimipitbull]

My main point is that the non muslim world has not enough understanding of how Islam works, that's why I don't think you (and not referring to you textually, just the idea behind the video that started the whole thing) should make fun of something you clearly don't understand. .

Perhaps the radical jihadists just needed a good laugh when they were growing up, but people like you stopped everyone sharing all the good jokes about Islam.

I think censorship is what started this debacle. .

 

[Famine]

Not as new as it may seem, but yes there were a number of changes along the way.

Not new in terms of the USA, but in terms of the UK

That said, as recently as the 1960s some arms of Islam thought that the moving pictures of television were a breach of the cultured aniconism, what with images of people being created 20+ times a second and then widely broadcast to tens of millions of TV sets - and the Taliban forbade photography. Seemed to be fine with Osama's videos though, oddly... It's not like crazies to be so inconsistent, is it?

 

[ECGadget]

Not new in terms of the USA, but in terms of the UK

That said, as recently as the 1960s some arms of Islam thought that the moving pictures of television were a breach of the cultured aniconism, what with images of people being created 20+ times a second and then widely broadcast to tens of millions of TV sets - and the Taliban forbade photography. Seemed to be fine with Osama's videos though, oddly... It's not like crazies to be so inconsistent, is it?

Inconsistencies with crazies?? Who would have thunk it?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not really getting what you are at...

You seem to have no truck with people instinctively saying "Allahu Akbar" but are willing to pepper posts with OMG. Little difference, in my opinion

 

[numbnuts70]

No opinion is valid unless supported by evidence, unless it's an item of personal preference. See "No, you are not entitled to your opinion.".I don't see any particular evidence that he has specifically predicted this scenario in the last 25 years.

He has, in that time, stated that the royal family and the ruling elite are alien lizards and is famous for claiming to be the son of God though.
No, the truth is first peer-reviewed.

Ludicrous claims are at first ridiculed. And then repeatedly over time.

If you don't see any evidence, then I'm sure you haven't even looked past the little snippets (Lizards and son of god) that the mainstream media has spoonfed you, so that the majority of the sheeple can ridicule him.
They merely dipped their toe into an ocean of information that he has researched.

He's written many books on these subjects over the years, spoke to sold out theatres/arenas all over the world.

Here's parts 2,3 and 4 for perusal.

5 odd hours of particular evidence for you to absorb.

 

[Akira AC]

What? This has nothing to do with anything that I've asked you ...

* There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes

It has everything to do with what I said, in this case you are ignoring the fact that I am trying to use radical-based biases to explain why they justify their actions.

Obviously that will look like endorsing such behaviour, which is what extremists do, but you are ignoring the main point here which is understanding how their core values work (which are different from Christians and derivatives). Islamic law says that "Allah" can't be drawn, what you fail to see is that this is a Law, much to a point that this is a state law which can be implemented, it's in their legal code in some middle eastern countries.

In other words you don't understand where this:

Now I got to stop you right here. While the statement is true in a general sense, their motives are much clearer than that. Muslims believe that you shouldn't draw the prophet Mohammed in a picture, in other words, they consider that blasphemy. Both Charlie Hebdo and Garland TX were attacked for the same reason - both places either drew the prophet or sponsored events that allowed drawings of the prophet.

ISIS made perfectly clear that the reason that the two places were attacked was for the drawings of Mohammad, plain and simple.

This:

Further to @Famine's comments on aniconoclastic thought in Islam; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30814555

And this:

In Islam it is considered incorrect to draw the Prophet or God, whether it be in a good or bad sense.

Come from. I know you know what is Sharia law, I know you know that is based on the Quran because it was written there, what you do not know is that for a muslim this is a legislation (the charlie Hebdo Attacks were executed by the Salafi movement, who think the Quran accepted the beheadings, slaves and all that torture stuff that is generally conceived as the thing that needs to stop).

* But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.

You were stating that it's wrong to make fun of religion, beliefs or deities. You, not me. What does what I understand by the term "Islam" have to do with it?Okay, so now we're back to the part where you are saying that this is wrong - which is what I questioned in the first place.

Why is it wrong? Why do the values that underpin Islam get special treatment that renders them immoral to mock?I'm not making it look like anything. I posted your entire post, unabridged. If you meant something else you should by now have retracted what you said and clarified it.

This is wrong because you are denying their law system, making fun of "Allah" for a Muslim is similar to making fun of their social structure. The UK for example, you have gripes about your government but you don't try to discredit the institutions that found them, in the sense that you can't discredit the United Kingdom as a nation, because is a nation, you take ownership on that because you are part of it, you are a citizen of it.

For example sake, if someone from Germany said "british craftsmanship sucks", that person from Germany would be insulting that part of the identity that characterises the UK. The problem is that is something not tangible, because you are working with a general idea rather than an specific one. which is why I related to this:

* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings

So once again, you're not saying that Muslims or radical Islamists think these things, but they're what you think?

Yes, because they are not aware of it, hence why they are doing the same things the Catholic Church did during the crusades, I check historical records rather frequently and the centric problem is simple: they never had a French Revolution, human rights are not a legislation for them because such thing never happened with the Islam.

Their believe system puts "God" in a similar light we use a "Constitution" for a Nation, when you are insulting "Allah" you are not only insulting their religion, but their cultural Constitution as a Nation. As you can see the idea behind it is a non tangible one, but is still insulting when you take into account the people who identifies itself with that culture.

Edit:
Again I'm not justifying the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I'm just illustrating how Islam's belief system operates when threatened, extremists will take it as "a reason for a divine retribution" while non-extremist will take such thing as hate speech, example:

@Akira AC Oh, I did not like the Charlie Hebdo at all, because they insulted everything and anything. I am always offended when someone insults Allah or any Prophet, but as a Muslim I would never justify any attack. You see, people like ISIS take anything they can in order to blow something up or harm some people. A well thought out Islamic response would be to either go and talk to the editors about it, or ignore it because they insult everyone and that is just who they are.

And he himself is a Muslim.

 

[Famine]

That's an absolute load of gibberish that doesn't in any way clarify what you said.

Just answer who you were speaking for when you said these three statements:
* But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.

* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings

* There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes

In one post you say you're speaking for Muslims, then you say you aren't. In one you say you're speaking for radical Islamists, then you say you aren't. In one you say it's what you personally think, then you say it isn't.

For reference, all three statements are wrong, whomever you're speaking for.

If you don't see any evidence, then I'm sure you haven't even looked past the little snippets (Lizards and son of god) that the mainstream media has spoonfed you, so that the majority of the sheeple can ridicule him.

Oh my word.

 

[Akira AC]

That's an absolute load of gibberish that doesn't in any way clarify what you said.

Then elaborate, go ahead and tell me how you understand it, or go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong, the limit in which I can get a point across is limited by the capacity by which the other person can understand me.

Tell me why is a load of gibberish, then tell me why all 3 statements are wrong if you are not taking the context into account.


Edit: I had to reword this post a couple of times.

 

[Dennisch]

I am reloaded!

 

[Famine]

Then elaborate, go ahead and tell me how you understand it, or go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong, the limit in which I can get a point across is limited by the capacity by which the other person can understand me.

Tell me why is a load of gibberish, then tell me why all 3 statements are wrong if you are not taking the context into account.


Edit: I had to reword this post a couple of times.

Try answering the questions first. This is the third time of asking:

Just answer who you were speaking for when you said these three statements:
* But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.

* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings

* There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes

In one post you say you're speaking for Muslims, then you say you aren't. In one you say you're speaking for radical Islamists, then you say you aren't. In one you say it's what you personally think, then you say it isn't.

 

[Akira AC]

Try answering the questions first. This is the third time of asking:

* But there is a point where you stop making fun of them and you start making fun of Islam, which is when it goes overbound.

On Islam's behalve.

* Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings

On me and muslim's behalf.

* There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes

That was me, my behalf.

There, I responded.

Now go ahead and tell in which dimension diminishing values have no negative repercussion (as I and everyone else in the humanistic world sees them).

 

[Famine]

On Islam's behalve.

On me and muslim's behalve.

That's problematic. Firstly because you made no statement to indicate that your post was anything but your own opinion, but secondly given your previous statement:

I'm not a muslim myself, I just study them and try to see where they are coming from with their beliefs and moral codes, I can't say what a muslim think

It's also problematic because, as I already pointed out to you, an actual Muslim in this thread disagrees with you...

No self thinking Muslim with any morals could justify the attacks.

Now to the third part which you say is yours.

You say that you can't make fun of a god and you can't insult values or beliefs. Why do you say these things? What makes you think that a deity cannot be mocked and values or beliefs cannot be insulted?

The Taliban had values that don't allow them to make images of people, but they happily broadcast videos of beheadings and Osama bin Laden's cave rants. Come to think of it, they had values that included beheadings. Da'esh do too - and their values include pushing homosexuals off tall buildings. Why can these not be insulted?


Why are these things completely off limits for everyone?

(as I and everyone else in the humanistic world sees them).

Yeah, you might want to hold off on talking for other people for the time being.

 

[Akira AC]

That's problematic. Firstly because you made no statement to indicate that your post was anything but your own opinion, but secondly given your previous statement...

"I'm not a muslim myself, I just study them and try to see where they are coming from with their beliefs and moral codes, I can't say what a muslim think"

It's also problematic because, as I already pointed out to you, an actual Muslim in this thread disagrees with you...

Muslim =/= Islam

Now to the third part which you say is yours.

You say that you can't make fun of a god and you can't insult values or beliefs. Why do you say these things? What makes you think that a deity cannot be mocked and values or beliefs cannot be insulted?

The Taliban had values that don't allow them to make images of people, but they happily broadcast videos of beheadings and Osama bin Laden's cave rants. Come to think of it, they had values that included beheadings. Da'esh do too - and their values include pushing homosexuals off tall buildings. Why can these not be insulted?

Why are these things completely off limits for everyone?

And this is the part that I wanted to get, because you are not reading, you are arguing for argument's sake.

At no point did I say that I endorse radical actions, if you read carefully I said:

Charlie Hebdo attacks (while not right) where justified for Muslims because "Allah" was being mocked, not the actual people making the killings. There is a huge difference between loathing people and a "god", you can make fun of anyone but you can't make fun of a theological basis of a religion, "values" in the west is "Allah" in the muslim word, you can make fun of values but you can't insult them, because that would be insulting someone's believes.

"Allah" as in "God", note the quotation mark, is not there to justify, is there to quote. As I explained you more than once, the conception of the Islam God is not the same as ours, muslims see that "god" is everything, and it represents everything Islam stands for (and if I'm wrong then ECGadget has all the right to call me on it).

At no point I gave a discrete definition for "values" for Islam, what I was saying was that core values (i.e. compassion, innocence, etc...) are just part of what the idea of "God" or "Allah" represents, for a muslim disrespecting "Allah" follows into the same category of insulting values such as "honesty" or "Innocence"(and if I'm wrong then ECGadget has all the right to call me on it again).

Obviously a normal person would not like to consider "beheadings" as a value, but diminishing the idea of "Allah" for muslim is equal to someone in the west diminishing the idea of "integrity". Here in the western world we can't deny or belittle the idea of integrity, because most of our cultural and social constructions depend and are based under this idea otherwise we wouldn't have legislations or constitutions or states, because they are an integral conjunction of groups of people, and the treaties that conform a nation are based under this idea.

Edit:

The Taliban had values that don't allow them to make images of people, but they happily broadcast videos of beheadings and Osama bin Laden's cave rants. Come to think of it, they had values that included beheadings. Da'esh do too - and their values include pushing homosexuals off tall buildings. Why can these not be insulted?

Because you are generalizing, Muslims have tried to no avail in demonstrating that such actions do not define Islam.

Thus the problem, every time something happens is put on the Islam, rathern that the extremist who generate the conflict in the first place. It would be pretty shallow to consider that Sharia law is strict to all the Muslims, the problem is that they have different interpretations of it, but they use the same Ideological aspects.

And from all things, why would you mock a god? it has not reasonable basis, is just an idea and you can't kill idea, you can discredit but to discredit such a thing you have to be specific and not apply things as a general rule.

Now back to the Charlie Hebdo thing, mocking "Allah" is not making fun an idea, because you are not being rational with that. Is just hate speech towards a population, not believing a God doesn't automatically give you the right of belittling the people who believes in that God, and is even worse if you don't understand the idea of "God" as Islam sees it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In other words you don't understand where this: This: And this: Come from. (references to forbidden Islamic art) I know you know what is Sharia law, I know you know that is based on the Quran because it was written there, what you do not know is that for a muslim this is a legislation

You misquoted my own link completely, and you are very very wrong. As @Famine and others have pointed out the Qu'uran does not explicitly ban representations of humans, animals, or the prophet. That is in Hadith of later (and arguably indeterminate) origin. You'll see in the link that you wrongly used to bolster your argument that such representations exist in historic Islamic art. Fact.

I daresay at this point that you're talking out of your hat while flogging a dead horse.

 

[Imari]

For example sake, if someone from Germany said "british craftsmanship sucks", that person from Germany would be insulting that part of the identity that characterises the UK.

What if British craftsmanship does actually suck? Is it insulting if it's the truth?

 

[Famine]

Muslim =/= Islam

And this is the part that I wanted to get, because you are not reading, you are arguing for argument's sake.

You're literally not even reading your own posts. You've just said that the second point was what Muslims think, after saying that you can't say what Muslims think!

On me and muslim's behalf.

See?

At no point did I say that I endorse radical actions, if you read carefully I said.

No, you said that people can't - can't - make fun of a god or insult values and beliefs.

So please answer the question I asked you on that topic rather than going off onto a different one - that being why these things are off-limits.

 

[Akira AC]

What if British craftsmanship does actually suck? Is it insulting if it's the truth?

That is the point that I'm trying to get, a non British person would find no offense on it, but that also has the implication that someone who holds British nationalistic beliefs would take offense on it.

Is the same framework as racism, only difference that instead of a race you are insulting an idea, which in itself is also a belief, hence the problem.

 

[Dennisch]

We're still talking about a video, in where retards who's interpretation of an old book is frowned upon by a really large part of the community that reads the same book, blow themselves up. The only one offended, is someone who doesn't hold value to the rules and believes from said book.

 

[ECGadget]

@Akira AC @Famine I think this started with a simple miscommunication and misunderstanding and is starting to blow out of proportion now.

@Akira AC I really respect you for doing your best in explaining why Muslims would find certain things offensive from the viewpoint of Islam. But, I do have to correct you on a couple of things after reading through the posts. The concept of God in Islam is the same as the concept of God in Christianity and Judaism (and many other religions too). Allah is not everything, nor does Allah represent Islam. However, God is the ultimate creator of everything and is the one who bought down ALL the major religions, of which Islam was the final one.
For your second point there, we have 99 names of Allah, that Allah has revealed to us (which represent his qualities). These range from things like 'The most compassionate', 'The all forgiving', 'The all knower', 'The most just' etc etc. Now insulting Allah is offensive to a Muslim because it goes like insulting ones own parents etc. The whole concept of 'fear Allah' is not to be afraid of God in the way someone could fear a criminal etc, but to fear God in a sense of not wanting to disappoint God in the way we don't want to disappoint our parents. So in some ways you are right there, but also slightly wrong.

@Famine on the other hand is probably one of the smartest people I have ever met, and I can see clearly where he has come from in the fact of explaining things and the somewhat confusion on the posts. I honestly think it is something that has been partly lost in translation between you guys.

And as @TenEightyOne has pointed out, the Qur'an does not say anothing about not taking photographs of people or drawings etc etc, but there are warnings in the Hadith about this due to the fact of photos -> people hanging photos -> people praising photos -> people worshipping photos -> the greatest sin in Islam.
A very confusing topic in itself, one that I'd rather not go into because I know very little about it.

 

[Akira AC]

You misquoted my own link completely, and you are very very wrong. As @Famine and others have pointed out the Qu'uran does not explicitly ban representations of humans, animals, or the prophet. That is in Hadith of later (and arguably indeterminate) origin. You'll see in the link that you wrongly used to bolster your argument that such representations exist in historic Islamic art. Fact.

And you took my whole point out of context, or when did I said "the whole Muslim population is under strict Sharia law".

You're literally not even reading your own posts. You've just said that the second point was what Muslims think, after saying that you can't say what Muslims think! See?

And you are tanking the context out, as an attempt to call on flamebaiting, I don't know what are you trying to say honestly.

I can't say what a muslim think when they hear the word "Allah", but what I understood from the Quran is valid of understanding an idea.

You wouldn't identify yourself as a Christian even if you read the bible, see what I'm talking about.

No, you said that people can't - can't - make fun of a god or insult values and beliefs.

I'm lost here, why are you trying to say?

Well, actually I know that you are trying to break the logic within my argument using my biases, the problem with this is that I'm intentionally trying to appear biased (which I have explained many times) to explain a point.

So please answer the question I asked you on that topic rather than going off onto a different one - that being why these things are off-limits.

You went off topic too, and you completely dismissed this question:

Now go ahead and tell in which dimension diminishing values have no negative repercussion

I answered your questions as you want it, and I'm genuinely interested in knowing the response to this question.

Honestly I'm not trying to be insulting to you, there is no reason for it.

 

[jimipitbull]

Now go ahead and tell in which dimension diminishing values have no negative repercussion (as I and everyone else in the humanistic world sees them).

The fourth dimension - duration, or time.

 

[ECGadget]

We're still talking about a video, in where retards who's interpretation of an old book is frowned upon by a really large part of the community that reads the same book, blow themselves up. The only one offended, is someone who doesn't hold value to the rules and believes from said book.

If you're referring to me mate, I hold more value to the rules and beliefs from that book than ISIS ever will. I know for certain that I could explain any part of the Qur'an and Hadith in the light of Islam over anything they could explain. They are the ones that have no value to the rules and beliefs from it, because they are deplorable, disgusting humans with zero morals and zero understanding of the religion that pretend to follow whilst they go about killing.


On another note, what a strange picture... I should try holding a cuppa with my foot. If I burn myself, I blame you.

 

[Dennisch]

But you're not the one who feels offended!

Edit.

I hold more value to the rules and beliefs from that book than ISIS ever will.

Making you part of the large community in my post that frowns!

 

[Akira AC]

But you're not the one who feels offended!

I see what you are trying to do, that's interesting but I'm not following that path.

One thing I should point out though:

@Akira AC I really respect you for doing your best in explaining why Muslims would find certain things offensive from the viewpoint of Islam. But, I do have to correct you on a couple of things after reading through the posts. The concept of God in Islam is the same as the concept of God in Christianity and Judaism (and many other religions too). Allah is not everything, nor does Allah represent Islam. However, God is the ultimate creator of everything and is the one who bought down ALL the major religions, of which Islam was the final one.
For your second point there, we have 99 names of Allah, that Allah has revealed to us (which represent his qualities). These range from things like 'The most compassionate', 'The all forgiving', 'The all knower', 'The most just' etc etc. Now insulting Allah is offensive to a Muslim because it goes like insulting ones own parents etc. The whole concept of 'fear Allah' is not to be afraid of God in the way someone could fear a criminal etc, but to fear God in a sense of not wanting to disappoint God in the way we don't want to disappoint our parents. So in some ways you are right there, but also slightly wrong.

I was referring mostly to the Salafi movement, that is what I should have emphasised in the first place, I guess it was my mistake for not pointing that out during the first example.

 

[ECGadget]

But you're not the one who feels offended!

Edit.



Making you part of the large community in my post that frowns!

But I was offended by the video. Well, actually not the video itself (which without the Allahu Akbar would have been hilarious), I was only offended by the fact that just as ISIS misuse that phrase and make a mockery of it, the video was mocking ISIS and in that using the same mockery they do. That's all I found offensive of it, not the video in itself.

To explain why I am offended by it, whenever I pray I say Allahu Akbar a good twenty times at least in the space of a few minutes. When I pray I focus on nothing but connecting with God for those few minutes and then ask for peace and all that jazz, and then ISIS use it to go blow their lame butts off and kill all those innocent people. THAT is what sickens me, and the mockery in the video just makes it worse. Sorry...


So... now I am totally and utterly confused. Look what ISIS did to us. Mumbo jumbo'd us all. Gits.

 

[Dennisch]

That's what I am saying. You're offended by the blowuppies misusing a phrase, and not so much by the video itself. But Akira thinks Muslims are offended by the video.

 

[Akira AC]

That's what I am saying. You're offended by the blowuppies misusing a phrase, and not so much by the video itself. But Akira thinks Muslims are offended by the video.

Again ...

I was referring mostly to the Salafi movement, that is what I should have emphasised in the first place, I guess it was my mistake for not pointing that out during the first example.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And you took my whole point out of context, or when did I said "the whole Muslim population is under strict Sharia law".

I don't recall whether or not you did say that. I was answering the point where you said that imagery of the prophet et al was banned in the Qu'uran. It isn't.

In other words you don't understand where this: This: And this: Come from. (references to forbidden Islamic art) I know you know what is Sharia law, I know you know that is based on the Quran because it was written there, what you do not know is that for a muslim this is a legislation

You clearly said it was written there... so citation required.

 

[Dennisch]

So, now that that is over, back to the business of the day. Nope.

Russia is busy banning everything Turkish with a bunch of economical sanctions.

Certain Turkish goods can no longer be imported, or are heavily restricted.
Turkish companies are restricted in their business in Russia.
Russian tour operators are no longer allowed to sell trips to Turkey, and charter flights are suspended from and to Turkey.

The Turks also will need a Visa to enter Russia, starting January 1st.

Seeing that Turkey is a popular holiday destination for the Russians, this will hurt the tourism sector deeply.

But, for European tourists, no more drunk Russians in the All-in Resorts!