Quote:
Originally Posted by CreamPuffer
I agree that the response by some only ends up supporting that man's claim. But you have to consider the fact that the US media (as well as others) seem to focus on extremists. Especially, since this whole war or terror began you see the extremists view more often. I'm sure if some guy makes a video about the Bible and how some verses are violent there is going to be a group of pretty peeved Christians. But your not going to hear about it because it's going to be some tiny little group causing problems. But when it comes to Islam they concentrate and emphasize the reactions of a couple and make it seem like it's widespread. I find that to be extremely sad. Your notion that there are mass riots is incorrect and ignorant.
|
As I've said before, I don't understand how you see this as an attack on Islam and Muslims as a whole; I interpreted it as an opportunity for the public (regardless of creed, nationality, gender, etc) to have a valuable forum to criticize those who use the religion as a catalyst for violence. Extremists do that, it's a fact, they're why we have a problem in the first place.
And I mentioned the rioting because it has happened before- remember the
riots in Denmark after the Muhammed Cartoon?
Or the extremist gathering in the Xinjiang province in China?
And how about the murder of Theo Van Gogh and subsequent protective custody of Ayaan Hirsi Ali after Submission was created?
Understand what I was saying before you call me ignorant, please. I never said that Muslims riot in response to all perceived infractions, rather that there HAVE been riots in response to situations. The latter is a fact, undebatable, and not grounds for name-calling.
I'm not saying these were your ordinary, run of the mill religious people who did it; it's people who are influenced by extremists. This, both the events and the movie, by far and large did not influence anyone to translate "extremist" to "everyday Muslims", but it most certainly is an example of a highly valued Western ideal- the right to express yourself and criticize.
Quote:
| One thing that I find to be very respectable aspect of Islam is that it teaches followers to be respectful of other religion's holy figures. For example, although they do no believe that Jesus was the son of God, they do view him as a prophet. They revere him and respect him. You don't see them making insulting sketches of Jesus, Moses or the Pope because they hold them in high regard. Christians on the other hand (not all) have no problems insulting or joking about other religions as well as their own. You see some Christians making sketches, telling jokes, etc.... no big deal. That's why the Catholic church takes all those insults because they happen so often. But for Muslims it is a big deal and they find great offense in that because it does not happen to them often. They make sure not to insult other people prophets and try not to insult other religious view, while others are constantly insulting theirs. |
Genuine question: why should the West restrict themselves and the most revered notion of our civilization - freedom of speech and expression, including criticism? And furthermore, if we believe that everyone is inherently equal, why should one group be exempt from criticism?
But even so- it was everyday Muslims who took it just like everyday Westerners do when they're poked fun of in the media: turn your nose up at it and walk on by. It's the extremists who call for blood that we have problems with- free speech should be curbed only when it will cause imminent bodily danger to someone (ie: fire in a crowded theater), not when it will offend someone. When someone who represents a segment of a population (in this case: religious extremists leading groups of following extremists) calls for the death of someone because they don't like what that person said/wrote/etc., it creates a problem.
In any case, what religion teaches and what its followers do can be two different things. Christianity calls for Christians not to murder and yet there are who identify as Christians who have committed murder. The religion may not espouse the action, but that doesn't change the fact that the follower did the action, and especially when you've got segments of the following citing the holy book as justification, whether right or wrong. The fact that they're doing it, I would think, would be cause for criticism from Muslims and non-Muslism alike. It's murder, reason for everyone to be pissed, and inappropriate use of a holy book, reasons for followers of that book to be pissed.
Shouldn't everyone then use freedom of speech to let these extremists know this is not accepted, tolerated or anything else? That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
This is bigger than religion. We're not pissed at extremists because they're followers of Islam; we're pissed because they're creating unnecessary restrictions on the values we pride ourselves on. Someone should not have to worry about whether their words will induce their murder. We should not have to push our values aside for another culture; they should be able to live side by side.
Quote:
| Honestly, that guy who made those Mohammad sketches was an asshole. Anyway, I personally have never seen any insulting sketches of Jesus coming from the Islamic world. Have you? Those sketches were not freedom of speech or some funny parody but direct hate and discrimination. Can you imagine newspapers and magazine featuring demeaning images of Asians or Blacks and stating that it was freedom of speech? |
We insult all religious leaders, political leaders, community leaders, groups of people, belief systems, etc. Jesus, Muhammed, Mary Magdelene, Republicans, Labour party of Britain, Fidel Castro, N. Korea, etc; if pressed, I could probably find something offensive towards Buddha.
Really, search for it, we're equal-opportunity discriminators now. Why? Because so often it's become we can't objectively critique something without uproar from someone, somewhere over something. When people don't let us have an honest discussion to get some of these issues worked out, we fall back on humor, hence the political cartoons and the extreme caricatures of these (and other) figures. It generally gets regular people to realize the absurdity of taking a hard-line approach to every single issue and that compromise is necessary, and subsequently support compromise.
Quote:
| As for this film it was insulting and a direct insult to Islam. He was not making a point of saying that a small minority of Muslims (extremists) misinterpret the text or anything. He was stating that their holy book teaches Muslims to be violent. His view was biased and untrue. |
You may find his views distasteful, you have no idea what I or many others think about it, but the point is- is there a sect that is saying this? Yes. Are they twisting the words of the Koran to fit their rabble rousing? Yes. This view isn't biased nor is it false; it's what certain misguided individuals are preaching.
You can choose not to follow it. You can choose to help ensure that people know what Islam is about. But defending the religion in an overarching fashion that includes defending the extremists doesn't really make much of a difference. This won't be solved by extremists and it won't be solved by apathy; it won't be solved by censure ship and it won't be solved by explaining that Islam doesn't condone this. This isn't a religious issue, this isn't an inherent problem with Islam- this is a problem with people who are calling for destructive means to be used against others; and are using a holy book to justify it.
