Blasphemy Rights Day.
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Description: World Politics
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34631
Printed Date: 28 April 2024 at 10:06am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Blasphemy Rights Day.
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Subject: Blasphemy Rights Day.
Date Posted: 03 October 2015 at 3:00am
|
"While many perceive 'blasphemy' as offensive, this event is not intended to ridicule and insult others. Rather, it was created as a reaction against those who would seek to take away the right to satirize and criticize a particular set of beliefs given a privileged status over other beliefs." The campaign group added that observing Blasphemy Day "is a way of showing opposition to any resolutions or laws, binding or otherwise, which discourage or inhibit freedom of speech of any kind." They add that "Freedom of expression, including the right to criticize any belief, religious, political, or otherwise, is the only way in which any nation with any modicum of freedom can exist. I am trying to understand the massive reatcion such things seem to have in the Islamic world. Please tell me why this offends. More at; http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/09/new-us-free-expression-campaign-website-launched-for-international-blasphemy-rights-day Warning, it's from the secular society's web site. |
Replies:
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 04 October 2015 at 12:11pm
| Please tell me why others doing stuff or believing stuff which has no impact on your life causes offense. I just don't get it. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 05 October 2015 at 7:08am
| Tim I believe you are thoughtful and intelligent, therefore, let's just say, indeed, "the devil is in the details." |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 05 October 2015 at 7:37am
That explains nothing to me. I might be cleverish at some stuff but criptic cross words I cannot do at all. |
abuayisha wrote:Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 8:25am
| Perhaps you may want to unpack "doing stuff" and "believing stuff"...such are the details wherein one may come to understand why people are offended, or explain a possible rationale. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 07 October 2015 at 12:04pm
Today there is war in Syria where Muslims are killing each other over a difference in the version of Islam they have that I cannot even grasp. That offends me massively. With such horror in the world why would anybody spend any time caring about what somebody else said that you did not actually hear and has no effect upon you at all? |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 08 October 2015 at 7:58am
Is this rhetorical question written in defense of Blasphemy Day? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 08 October 2015 at 11:36am
No. I am truely unable to comprehend the issue. It's like being told somebody has cast a spell against me or that somebody has burnt my country's flag. I hope they enjoyed it! I will not be taking any notice of it. Waisting serious time on such a thing is just pointless. It would make me look st**id at best. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 7:50am
| Well, tell me something Tim, ever watch a good movie and cry during, or at the end of the picture? If not, do you also fail to comprehend why others may cry in a movie theater? |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 10:06am
|
There are movies that I don't like to watch -- some because they are too
sad, and some because I find them offensive or excessively violent or
gory or whatever. So I don't watch them. Simple. I don't mind if others watch them though. That's their business. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 10 October 2015 at 8:46am
Yes, I am very easily moved to tears by a tear jerker movie. Bit unmanly there... But what has that to do with something I don't watch or need to hear about? If I don't want to be so moved I just don't watch it. Even when I have been so moved, I understand that it's just a story. I am never deeply motivated in the way the present civil war between Muslems is motivating me to do my very little best to stop it. As a result of the death coming out of the Islamic world view at the moment I try to put hings in perspective. That's why I am on here. Or at least that's the biggest reason. I got kicked out of a different Islamic forum due to not wanting such a war to happen. I think they were Sunni but I could be wrong on that. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 October 2015 at 5:13am
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611231/Richard-Dawkins-in-extraordinary-blast-at-Muslims-To-hell-with-their-culture'To hell with their culture' - Richard Dawkins in extraordinary blast at MuslimsIn the same spirt, what do you care about what somebody else thinks about your god? |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 11 October 2015 at 8:12am
It's called emotions, and for some reason I knew you weren't a Vulcan incapable of understanding why people are offended. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 11 October 2015 at 9:34am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=wotTSRBQLq0 |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 October 2015 at 10:29am
But given the serious stuff happening in the world why does such hot air cause you to care about it? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 11 October 2015 at 10:34am
I watched it but I think I have missed the context of what the guy is on about. What exactly does he think is imperialist/evil/not self aware about ardent atheists such as Dawkins? |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 October 2015 at 7:23am
It believe that because of the serious times we are now living all such "hot air" can be problematic. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 October 2015 at 8:53am
I understand why people are offended. As an "unbeliever", I find a great deal that is personally offensive in the Quran, not to mention the Bible. However, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that either should be banned or that those quoting scripture (per se) should be punished. If I don't like a book, I don't have to read it; but I have no right to tell others what they can or cannot read or write. As for my emotions, they are my problem, not yours or anyone else's. Being able to control one's emotions is a part of being an adult. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 13 October 2015 at 1:18am
This is the question I am asking. Why does this hot air spoken not even in your presence but written somewhere where you have to go and find it cause you trouble. Secondly, these times are the least violent ones in human history. All previouds periods have been more violent. It's just that today we get to see it more. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 13 October 2015 at 7:43am
| Are you completely unaware that individuals have acted upon narratives written or articulated by others? Rhetoric indeed has consequences, and should be used responsibly in a civil society. It would be nice if everyone was as cool as Tim the plumber. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 13 October 2015 at 9:16am
That has a small point to it but what about when it's not in your society? When you have to go out of your way to find it? |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 October 2015 at 1:10pm
This is the excuse used by every wife abuser since time began: "It's not my fault -- she shouldn't have got me mad!" I repeat: people are responsible for their own emotions. That's what being an adult is all about. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 14 October 2015 at 8:01am
| That's quite a leap Ron, but I guess the topic is general enough to be inclusive of domestic violence. My concern however is when irresponsible speech and completely manufactured fear of the "other" leads individuals such as Anders Breivik to harm innocent people. Having said that, I don't absolve Breivik, or a wife beater, of responsibility for their own actions. But, that doesn't mean that a society should not expect and even demand responsible and thoughtful human communication, which doesn't cause harm or incite others to violence. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 October 2015 at 11:42am
|
I'm not trying to change the subject to domestic violence. It's just a useful analogy. It's true that there are some people whom it is unwise to provoke; but whatever you may think of the provocateurs, it is the person who crosses the line from insulting words to violent actions who is at fault. If I recall correctly, abuayisha, I believe you live in the US. As a minority in your country, it seems to me that you should be among the strongest supporters of freedom of expression. Try to imagine yourself as an unbeliever while you read the Quran, and see how many times we are insulted and even threatened by it. We are described as "the worst of creatures" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=98&verse=6 - 98:6 ), "unclean" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29 - 9:29 ). Muslims are to be "forceful" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=48&verse=29 - 48:29 ) and "harsh" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=73 - 9:73 ) with us. They are promised Paradise for killing us ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=111 - 9:111 ). They are to fight us until we pay the "jizya" (a.k.a. extortion) and are "humbled" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29 - 9:29 ). Jews in particular are described as "apes" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=7&verse=166 - 7:166 ) and are cursed by God for causing corruption ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=64 - 5:64 ). And I could go on. I will defend your right to read a "Holy Book" filled with such vicious hatred, and even preach it in your mosques, even though I find it offensive and I worry about what violence it might provoke. In turn, you must allow our books and our movies that tell what we regard as the truth about Muhammad and about Islam. Remember, it cuts both ways: one man's blasphemy is another's sacred truth. On second thought, maybe it doesn't always cut both ways. It just occurred to me that the comparison I made above is symmetric except in one significant way. Notice that in both cases, the concern is for possible violence that may be provoked among Muslims. For my comparison to be completely symmetric, if Muslims are provoked to violence by criticisms of their religion, then it should be non-Muslims who would react with violence to the Quran's criticisms and threats against them. Instead, it is Muslims who may be incited to violence by intolerant passages in the Islam's scripture; and also Muslims who might be incited to violence by criticisms of Islam. I wonder why that is... ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 15 October 2015 at 8:20am
|
With respect to that which you have mentioned concerning Quran text, this is theology, and as such must be taken in context. Perhaps that's a discussion for interfaith.
As an American I am indeed blessed to have freedom of speech, and feel myself to be a strong supporter of that freedom for others as well, however, with freedoms there comes responsibility. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 15 October 2015 at 9:17am
Just because it is theology does not make it not clearly incitement to violence. That it is a respected by lots book and that if it were treated as any other book then the Bible would be next are the only things stopping anybody using these books to teach from being prosecuted as inciting racial/religious and general violence in western societies. That is just how it is. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 October 2015 at 2:34pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "context", but given that most people (Muslims especially) regard their religion as something to be taken very seriously, it seems to be that the context here makes the message all the more worrying. On the other hand, if the context is a work of fiction (e.g., The Satanic Verses) or a satirical magazine (e.g. Charlie Hebdo), then surely anyone taking it seriously is missing the point.
But that does not include the responsibility not to offend others. No one has the inherent right not to be offended. Or if we do, then I demand that you stop promoting that offensive book you call the Quran. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 October 2015 at 7:47am
|
What I mean by context is that Islamophobes, such as yourself, selectively pick verses from the Quran without understanding them, as to never miss an opportunity to snipe and speak maliciously about Islam.
Indeed I think there is a vast difference between no one having an inherent right not to be offended, and having an inherent right to offend others. Speech can be harmful and I'm surprised anyone would argue the privilege to cause harm. With rights come responsibility, and no one has an absolute right/freedom without limits. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 16 October 2015 at 8:27am
There is a bunch of Christian nutters who protest that various/almost everybody is gay and do this protesting about American soldiers being gay at the funerals of soldiers who have died in war. This truely the prime example of a missuse of freedom of speach. The time that families are greiving for their dead sons and daughters should be respected. Hurling unfounded insults at this time is right out of order. There was some fuss here in the UK a few years ago about Islamic graves being desicrated. The police immediately went around to the local racist thug clubs, BNP etc, and spoke to them about it. The response from them was; "Yes, that's out of order, no need to push over somebody's grannies grave stone! We will have a word with the youngsters, 'cause it's not going to any of us." After they came back with the news that the young would be thugs had the same reaction other suspects were looked for. It turned out that it was one bunch of Islaimic types doing it to another. I do not walk about the world confronting people going into the mosk. That, I feel, would be too forceful. Too pushy. I do confront those who attempt to convert me. When you do that you are fair game. This forum is about spreading Islam. As such it is fair game to be confronted by the plain simple arguments of reality. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 October 2015 at 1:23pm
Hey, I'm just quoting the Quran. It is the Quran that seemingly never misses an opportunity to speak maliciously about unbelievers. Regardless of how you might want to contextualize or interpret those passages, surely you can see how unbelievers might find them offensive. It's hard to see words like "corrupt", "perverted", and "the worst of creatures" as complimentary.
I don't see how blasphemy can be harmful. Except to the speaker himself in a Muslim country, that is. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 10:52am
| Well, you'll find that over half of European countries have laws against blasphemy, however I'm not specifically advocating laws against blasphemy since some people, such as yourself, may unknowingly blaspheme. I simply think it's neighborly to not go out of your way to bash and provoke harm. I mean, good grief, don't people have better things to do with their time? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 1:05pm
Yes sure, but surely when they do, unless they do it with the obvious intention of insulting you to your face, then you also have better things to do. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 8:58pm
If you oppose blasphemy laws, then you are in agreement with me and with the opening post. And I agree as well that people shouldn't deliberately provoke others. On the other hand, as Noam Chomsky likes to point out, if freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it must include freedom for speech that you hate. Besides, one person's blasphemy can be another's high comedy. The Book of Mormon, (the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_%28musical%29 - musical , not the scripture  ), for example, is very deliberately blasphemous and offensive, especially to Mormons but I think to religion in general. It is also reported to be one of the funniest musical comedies in years. (I haven't seen it myself but I have heard a few of the songs and read many reviews.)I think blasphemy often has a serious point to make as well. As deeply, profoundly silly as Mormonism is, it is really not much different from most other religions. Perhaps as you laughed along with The Book of Mormon, you might see the parallels with all the other religions of the world -- including your own.  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 October 2015 at 7:35am
Once again, you're not missing an opportunity to snipe and be flippant about theology. Is there not a time and place for everything? "sigh" I think having a "right" to do something doesn't make it right to do. I watched in pain for the families of dead soldiers returned to the United States for burial, while a group of "freedom of speech" protestors stood outside the cemetery shouting awful things as the funeral procession passed by. Okay, freedom to hate, and likewise, freedom to hate such despicable behavior. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 18 October 2015 at 7:52am
Certainly that is out of order. I have used the same example. Just asking for a broken nose. It is however not the same as a blanket bann on another's speach. |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 November 2015 at 6:07am
|
I'm an advocate of blasphemy being 100% legal everywhere. Everyone should have the right to insult Christianity, Jesus, Paul or whoever. It's easy to ignore all of these attempted insults. I don't feel insulted. Only those weak in their faith feel insulted. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 November 2015 at 8:15am
|
To begin with, there are absolutely exceptions to free speech � legal exceptions, in fact which include: child pornography, incitement, sexual obscenity without literary, artistic, political or scientific value and �fighting words and offensive speech.� And no, this is not a �slippery slope;� these are rules that have always been here and should always stay here, for good reason.
Part of Cates� confusion, I imagine, boils down to her understanding of why free speech exists. No, it�s not for people �to express themselves.� In the Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the Court ruled against Chaplinsky�s freedom to profanity and offensive speech. �It has been well observed,� wrote Justice Frank Murphy, �that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.� http://emorywheel.com/free-speech-some-exceptions/ |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 18 November 2015 at 4:11am
|
Blasphemy doesn't hurt people. Child pornography does. Blasphemy can be ignored. Child pornography can't. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 November 2015 at 7:47am
| Well certainly we as a society can and should have honest and rational discourse, but I would argue that blasphemy and other such vile speech shouldn't be ignored. Indeed it does hurt people. And indeed rhetoric has consequences. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 November 2015 at 8:34am
Like who, for instance? Hurt feelings are not in the same league as physically abused children.
The question is whether it ought to have consequences, and what those consequences should be. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 November 2015 at 1:02pm
| Ron we can play semantical games all day, but I place no moral equivalency upon those who speak irresponsibly and those who violently act irresponsible. Of course the latter is deserving of our repudiation. Indeed it is sad that we are having to take sides when both are bad. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 19 November 2015 at 2:18am
| There is a difference between saying "I disaprove of unbelievers" and "Kill all those who do not believe". |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 22 November 2015 at 8:58am
When some Muslims claim that the Quran predicted all modern science or Islam is a superior religion or the Bible is corrupted or infidels will burn in hell, this does hurt my feelings. I get angry when to read such stuff. So what? My feelings and my anger are my problem. Everyone has the right to write nonsense like the splitting of the moon really happened. I have to live with that. And I do. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 23 November 2015 at 8:26am
| That which you refer to as nonsense (splitting of the moon) is theology, and either you believe or not. Frankly, to troll an Islamic discussion board and refer to our religion as nonsense is indeed foolish and unacceptable behavior. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 November 2015 at 10:01am
The Moon has never split in two. There has never been a world flood. It does not matter that it says otherwise in any book, the Bible, the Koran or anything else. The world is as it is and wishing it otherwise is not going to change the world. It does not matter if you are or are not offended by the real world. Have a look at the various Moon threads to see how we, atheists, respond to somebody talking gibberish. How else should we respond in that thread and then assume that we see any religious theology as equally valid. How should we respond and why should we respond differently? |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 12 December 2015 at 4:01am
The literal interpretation is nonsense. Myths and parables in holy books encode deeper meanings. The idea that a snake really talked to Adam and Eve is also nonsense. The symbolism behind it is not. The same applies to the split moon. Literalism poses a serious threat. We have to speak out against it. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 December 2015 at 7:33am
| Once again, this is theology, and the faithful indeed believe literally that Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad performed miracles in spite of what you term nonsense. You would have absolutely no need to speak out against it if you weren't participating in on a religious discussion board. Please have some respect or leave. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 December 2015 at 11:18am
|
Some of the faithful take their scripture literally, and some do not. I imagine each side thinks the others' beliefs are nonsense. Is Islamicity only open to the literalists? Or are we so politically correct that we cannot express our views frankly and openly? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 13 December 2015 at 11:00am
| I think what makes for good discussion is expressing views frankly and openly, and Islamicity is extremely liberal in that respect, as you well know. But let's keep the discussion respectful. As I mentioned before, theology by its very nature calls for faith and belief, and if you don't believe Moses literally parted the Red Sea, this is your choice. What point is there in becoming belligerent in your rejection, moreover to even articulate that you have somehow been harmed by such beliefs!? I personally feel it's entirely disingenuous to suggest political correctness or frank and open discussion is what's at play here, but just trolling an Islamic discussion board. I would hope that the moderators take note of such behavior as it is clearing in violation of the rules for discussion. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 15 December 2015 at 9:47am
The lives of many people have been and are beeing harmed by the demands that religious people put on others. This, on this forum, is the demand that we respect your beliefs to the point of not saying what we wish to and not challenging your professed views that the moon has split in two and then got better. To ever greater demands backed by ever greater pressure, threats and violence in the rest of the world. That is the point of this thread. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 December 2015 at 7:55am
Tim perhaps you haven't noticed that theology has long since ceased having significant political power in the world. When it comes to harm and pressure look no further than secular capitals of the world. Is it too much to "demand" civil discourse? |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 16 December 2015 at 10:03am
What is civil and what is not is different to all of us. Civility in Saudi Arabia demands that female politicians cannot directly talk to male citizens. Civility in the rest of the world demands that we explain to the Saudis that this is very wrong. Totally uncivil. They don't like people telling them that and demand civility. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 December 2015 at 5:15pm
I'm not sure what you find disrespectful or in violation of the rules here. Is it the word "nonsense" that you find objectionable, or the claim that literalism poses a "serious threat"? Or something else that I'm missing?  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 December 2015 at 9:00pm
Greetings Tim the plumber, I would ask; Where's the proof for your statements? Undoubtedly though, you believe your statements to be true. Peace and blessings to you, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 December 2015 at 9:04pm
I agree with both these statements by Matt. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 17 December 2015 at 7:43am
I'll let the moderators decide what is civil on this discussion board. I can only suggest that when it comes to religious observances that the other have respect. What you have said about Saudi is not only incorrect, but even if it were, one would think "the rest of the world" would have far greater priorities for their demands. Further, I think one of the problems with secularism is that one only needs to consult ones own mind for what civility is or isn't. Those who have a set of morals and values stemming from theology have a path (sharia) to walk upon, or reference. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 17 December 2015 at 7:58am
If you're looking for a semantic word game kindly look elsewhere. What I object to is a preponderance of nasty and disrespectful behavior targeting Islam from yourself and others. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 December 2015 at 10:27am
Greetings abuayisha, I am shocked to hear you say this. Really? Iran - Ayatollah Khamenei What about Syria, Iraq, Egypt? They are all struggling politically, because of theology. asalaam, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 December 2015 at 10:33am
I have to agree with Tim here... and I do not see where Ron has said anything that is disrespectful. He is just sharing his opinions, and his beliefs. (note: would it have helped if he had said, 'it is nonsense to me', in his statement?) To not allow this is to deny open discussion and free expression of beliefs... freedom of speech. It is called censorship, whether it is done by others, or is demanded of people to self-censor... (as it is in Iran). People will never be perfect in their speaking. There will always be times when what one person says, may be taken wrong by another. This is why open discussion must be allowed... to clear up misunderstandings. We can not expect people to be perfect in everything that they do, and we should not wish to punish everyone for every mis-step they make. This does not lead to peace and understanding, but only erects barriers to peace and understanding. asalaam and blessings to all, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 17 December 2015 at 12:11pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35086357
Given that you claim that this sharia gives good guidance as to how to behave it is strange that it is interpeerated so differently in so many places. And how little the Islamic world is aware of the differences. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 December 2015 at 7:13am
I would argue that Iran is an autocracy and psuedo-theocratic at best. The "struggling politically" seen in the lands you've mentioned is because they are all client states. Religion is not to blame, but intervention from outside. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 December 2015 at 7:29am
This only means that it wasn't a political campaign as we here in the west understand campaigning for votes. There is no official law which forbids a women from address a man as you originally asserted. Saudi has their own customs and practices which should be respected by outsiders as such. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 18 December 2015 at 10:05am
What are you talking about????? Femal candidates would have been arrested by the religious police in Saudi if they had addressed male voters directly. It is reasonable for you to comment upon stuff that happens in the USA and for me to comment upon stuuf that happens in Islamic basket case states. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 December 2015 at 3:38pm
I'm not looking for word games either. I'm trying to understand what behaviour (originally Matt's, but now apparently mine as well) you find "nasty and disrespectful". We are expressing our views, in as respectful a manner as we are able. Which is quite a challenge, given the nastiness and disrespect with which we are confronted time after time in the Quran. Matt said that "Literalism poses a serious threat. We have to speak out against it." If that is nasty and disrespectful, then what of the Quran (9:123), which urges believers to "fight ... the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness"? Do you not see how that statement (among many others), when taken literally, is a direct threat to us? Should we be "respectful" about such threats? I understand that you don't like our views, just as there are aspects of Islam that we don't like. IMHO that is all the more reason why we need to talk about them -- as respectfully as possible, but as frankly as necessary. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 7:06am
Perhaps you're more familiar with Saudi penal code than myself. What section or law would these women have violated to have been arrested? Speaking to a man is not against the law in Saudi. How Saudis structure their political campaign isn't our concern, but that of the Saudi people. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 9:04am
|
"Female candidates have had to speak behind a partition while campaigning or be represented by a man. ... The election is segregated, like everything else in this deeply conservative society." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35075702 - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35075702 It doesn't much matter whether there is an actual law against women speaking to men in public. "There is no official law that bans women from driving but deeply held religious beliefs prohibit it, with Saudi clerics arguing that female drivers 'undermine social values'." http://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/eleven-things-women-in-saudi-arabia-cant-do - http://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/eleven-things-women-in-saudi-arabia-cant-do Also worth noting (from an article ten years ago, so perhaps things have improved somewhat since then): "Men and women do almost nothing together in Saudi Arabia -- at least not in public. For instance, events like a soccer match are strictly for men. It's a country where culture and religion make women live mostly restricted segregated lives. In public, there are separate sections where they eat, where they work, and where they pray. There is also segregation inside their own homes. One woman took 60 Minutes on a tour of her house, and showed a separate entrance and living room for men. The woman said the men's living room is separated by a closed door from the living room for women. She also said that unless guests are close relatives, men and women don't sit together in the same room. It's not a custom she would consider violating. 'The society force it. And if you do something against the society, you will feel, you will have a problem,' she says. 'So it's better to go within the mainstream of the society, fit in, be conformist in a way, and be innovative in another way.' According to the rules of Saudi society, a woman needs written permission from a man to do almost anything: to get an education, to get a job, and even to buy a plane ticket. " http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-speak-out-in-saudi-arabia/ - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-speak-out-in-saudi-arabia/ ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 11:16am
self-censorship, and self-inhibition... the antithesis of freedom. ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 7:26am
| Sounds a lot like what we here in the West call assimilation. It's the same conformist attitude that forces Muslim women who don the veil to remove it under penalty of law, as well as, to fit in. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 20 December 2015 at 9:13am
Greetings abuayisha, I get your point, but there is no punishment for wearing, or not wearing the hijab, in the west. Most people used to not have any problem with that, treating it as just another form of dressing. That is the freedom we wish to retain. I think we all would like to retain the casual attitude towards muslims, that once prevailed. When it begins to look as if people do not come to our societies because they appreciate what they offer... when it begins to look as if they come to the society and then want to change it... then problems arise. asalaam and blessings, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 21 December 2015 at 7:36am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering Hamza Yusuf criticized the French government for the ban, writing: While I am personally opposed to the face veil, it is a legitimate, if minority opinion, in the Islamic legal tradition for a woman to wear one. Most women who wear it believe they are following God�s injunction and not their husband�s. French laicism seems as fundamentalist as the very religious fanatics it wants to keep out. On a trip to France a few years ago, I was shocked to see pornography openly displayed on the streets in large advertisements. How odd that to unveil a woman for all to gape at is civilized, but for her to cover up to ward off gazes is a crime... While the French Prime Minister sees no problem with exposing in public places a woman�s glorious nakedness, he is oddly and quite rabidly disturbed by allowing others to cover it up. The sooner secular nations learn to allow people of faith to live their lives in peace, the sooner peace will flourish. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 21 December 2015 at 11:53am
Greetings abuayisha, Can we agree that when something becomes a threat it must not be allowed? That laws are made to protect people from threat? This is a very recent thing. No imposition has been made up to this point... (unlike the impositions that have always been placed on others living in islamic nations... I wonder if those nations would welcome outsiders that hid their faces?). When faces are hidden and people can not be identified, this becomes a problem in a society that is living under attack. Attackers must be able to be identified. People must not be able to hide themselves from identification. Can you understand how this is seen as a threat and why laws are being made to prevent it? People must not be allowed to use religion to hide evil deeds, and evil people. I would expect innocent people to want to reveal themselves so that evil ones would be exposed. asalaam and blessings, Caringheart final thought: I wonder what would happen if the nations requiring burqa's began to realize that those very burqa's could be used as a means to hide and attack from within? What would happen if those nations came under attack from outsiders, using the burqa to hide their identities? ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 22 December 2015 at 7:12am
The ban has little or nothing to do with public safety, but any conspicuous religious symbol is seen as a threat to secularism in France. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 22 December 2015 at 11:59am
It is seen as an inposition of repression upon the women who are pressurised into wearing it by their families. Not revealing your face is a very anti-social thing to do. If you do this due to not wanting to yourself then it must be asked why the hell not? What are you hiding??? If it is due to family pressure then that is not OK in a modern society. Women need to be as empowered as men in the west not restricted by not being able to make any sort of relationship due to not being able to show their face. |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 22 December 2015 at 4:09pm
Greetings abuayisha, So the answer is no, you can't see how people being able to hide their identities can be a threat? As I asked... Would islamic nations welcome outsiders coming in whose faces they could not see? asalaam and blessings, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 23 December 2015 at 7:41am
| The answer is that France has motivations other than public safety. If you're asking me should people be allowed to do their banking in ski masks, than my answer is no. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 23 December 2015 at 8:36am
So what is the difference between that and all other social/business interactions in society? |
Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 December 2015 at 10:21am
 hehehe - That made me smile.but seriously, how can you be the judge of what France's motivations are? The government is dealing with a serious problem. They are responsible for protecting the people, and for maintaining the stability of the nation. Just as you wouldn't trust a person walking into a bank wearing a ski mask, why would you feel any safer knowing that there were people determined to terrorize or bomb, allowed to walk around on the streets with their face covered? ... and I don't mean just muslims... anyone could don the burqa as a cover, if they wanted to do ill, and especially if they wanted that ill to be blamed on muslims. asalaam and blessings, Caringheart ------------- Let us seek Truth together Blessed be God forever "I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis |
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 December 2015 at 8:25am
France adheres to a strict form of secularism, known as la�cit�, which is designed to keep religion out of public life. This principle was entrenched by law in 1905, after fierce anti-clerical struggles with the Roman Catholic church. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-2 |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 8:23am
Well, your words seem to point to criticismphobia, because all I do is criticize a literal understanding of certain parts of holy books. I'm puzzled by this overreaction. I do respect people and because of that I might challenge some of what they say or write. I focus on the issue, not the person. When people say snakes can really talk or the moon was really split or Moses really parted the sea I voice my disagreement (the latter myth might have been inspired by the oral traditions created after the tsunami caused by the Minoan eruption) and this has nothing to do with trolling. Literalim can cause a lot of problems. It'd be irresponsible not to criticize it. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 8:29am
I expressed my disagreement with particular literal interpretations. Why is this disrespectful behavior targeting Islam? I know numerous modern Muslims, who look at the symbolic meaning of the splitting the Moon. There are different ways to interpret religions, aren't there? ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 8:45am
This is an excellent summary of the core of the matter. I wish Abuayisha had responded to this. I guess he ran out of arguments. Two of the most troubling aspects of the Quran are 1) The demonization of the disbeliever, promising hellfire and torture over and over again 2) The promise of entering paradise for martyrdom The Bible also contains lots of troubling aspects and not only in the Old Testament. The apostle Paul tells women to keep their mouths shut during community gatherings in the same manner Saudi clerics do today. The difference is that the Bible isn't the literal word of God and that Christianity evolved over the centuries and went through a painful process called Reformation. Women can be bishops, though not Pope yet. How was all this change made possible? Discourse. Criticism. Sometimes nastiness. It was necessary. And it was worth it. Today's Christianity, though far from being perfect, is a lot better than it was 600 years ago. And the discourse continues. Christians have learned to see criticism as an opportunity. I wish more Muslims had the same courage. Only a modern interpretation of Islam can help create a more peaceful world. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 9:08am
I think the ban has multiple reasons 1) Face veils violate the French dress code - there are limits on how you can appear in public - you can't be naked and you can't be fully cloaked 2) Face veils fuel hatred against Muslims far more than headscarves do thereby leading to more votes for right wing parties 3) Both headscarves and face veils are seen as discrimination against men, because the tradition assumes that men are primitive animals unable to control their urges 4) In many cases it's men forcing women to wear a face veil against their wishes 5) Face veils rob women of their individuality and make them look like indistinguishable black robots 6) Face veils are against the very nature of humanity - if you study the brain you'll find a large portion solely dedicated the interpretation of facial expressions which are a fundamental part of human communication I wish Germany had the guts to introduce a ban on face veils. But our politicians fear terrorist attacks as a result of introducing such a law. ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 9:31am
Come on, the issue is even more serious than that. Saudi law does not only prohibit women from talking to a man (who isn't a relative watching her) it also prohibits women from getting too close to such a man, even without even saying a word. Saudia Arabia imposes one of the most strict versions of Sharia law. Here's a recent example from Banda Aceh in Indonesia, also exforcing inhumane, cruel Sharia law: "The whipping girl - Screaming in agony, a woman collapses as she and a man are caned under Sharia law in Indonesia merely for being 'seen in close proximity' to each other without being married. The woman was accused of getting too close to a fellow university student. She was brought to a mosque where she was caned in front of a crowd. The woman received five lashes and at end had to be taken to hospital. Under the law men and women, who are not spouses, are not allowed to get too close due to the 'khalwat' offence and punishment is by public caning." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377187/Screaming-agony-woman-caned-crowd-close-proximity-man-not-married-Indonesian-region-s-sharia-law.html - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377187/Screaming-agony-woman-caned-crowd-close-proximity-man-not-married-Indonesian-region-s-sharia-law.html "Several sharia crimes, such as khalwat (close proximity of unmarried man and woman) are punishable ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country What do you know about khalwat? Is the article wrong? ------------- A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt |