Er, they burned the Danish embassy: did anyone notice?

[Johnny Canuck3]

The one by Ibn Warraq comes across as a tad sensationalist. But then he has a self-confessed agenda doesn't he.

Which is great if this were just an issue of freedom of speech but it's just the tip of a the iceberg isn't it. One were Islam as a faith and Muslims globally are in the line of fire of constant propaganda relating to the wests (Mainly US & UK) war on terror. I think you have to look at it in the wider context. Sure the embassy attacks set only against the cartoons look like a massive over reaction but in the context of whats happening globally it's not surprising. The cartoons do seem to be the straw that broke the camels back to me.

The fatwa on Salman Rushdie happened long before the current situation. What was the straw breaking the camels back, back then?

Why is it necessary to counsel violence or death for those who criticise or lampoon Islam?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Again this article fails to acknowledge the context in which these things are happening. It's all fairly well for some nice Jewish grandma to say that Muslims don't have a sense of humour. But then she's not on the receiving end of it is she. I don't mean the jokes by the way.
She's just another person who has her own agenda and subsequent spin on the matter and can't be arsed contextualising why there may be an adverse reaction to something oh so petty like a few little jokes about big Mo.

Like I've said it's more than the cartoons and if you haven't figured that out yet then your unlikely to soon.

I bet she makes some nice chicken soup though our Barbara.
More good stuff from Babs:
So I'm a 'Homophobe,' Am I?
The myth of Israeli 'apartheid'



Now do you want some tea with this cake guys

Well, you've given us the straight dope on Barbara as elderly jewish woman, but you've said little about what she has to say.


From your article on Ibn Warraq:


Ibn Warraq: Yes, in the West it should be possible, provided that we do certain things. That is to say we're not afraid of looking critically at Islam in the way that we have looked critically at Christianity, or any other religion, in the way that we have criticised the Bible, higher Biblical criticism has existed since at least the 17th century with Spinoza and so on, going on to the 19th century in Germany. And yet nobody dares to look at the Qur'an in the same way. Even in the academic community there is a kind of taboo about discussing the Qur'an scientifically. I'll give you one example: my friend Christof Luxenberg brought out a book on the Qur'an written in German and showing that a large part of the Qur'an must have been originally written in Aramaic, and it is a solidly argued, brilliantly philological examination of the Qur'an. But it was boycotted, people refused to discuss it, even in university circles, they dismissed it out of hand and said, 'Well we do not wish the hurt the sensibilities of the Muslims.' I mean it's incredible. So if we are consistent, if we remain critical in the way that we have remained critical of the Bible and so on, then the Muslims will be forced to look at their own religion in a critical way as well. We live in the free West, or in Australia for example, and New Zealand, where there is a democracy and freedom of expression. We should take this opportunity to remain critical, and that's the only way we are going to help the Muslims in the West. As somebody once said, we're not doing Islam any favours by shielding it from enlightenment values.

 

[nino_savatte]

The fatwa on Salman Rushdie happened long before the current situation. What was the straw breaking the camels back, back then?

Why is it necessary to counsel violence or death for those who criticise or lampoon Islam?

Is there a point to this? No, you're just trying to score a cheap point.

 

[nino_savatte]

Weak, absolutely fucking weak.

 

[Fong]

Weak, absolutely fucking weak.

How was what Ibn Warriq just said wrong? I thought it was pretty straight forward.

The idea that the 'west' is demonising muslims, I do not believe. There are sections, of course there are, there are sections of our society that condem everything as they relate to house prices. That isn't the 'west'.

In fact, I have argued and Ibn Warriq argues in his peice too, that the 'west' has gone out of its way not to offend or upset Islam. We go out of our way to constantly say, its only the extremists, just the nutjobs, not the mainstream, we go out of our way not to criticise Islam. Yet somehow this counts as demonisation of the entire Muslim faith?

I see that as little more then an excuse to deflect away from the fact that there are a lot of muslims in the world who are willing to use violence when they do not get what they want. Until we start to confront that and use that in our thinking, we will forever be falling onto our back leg as we consistently lose ground to fanatics that are willing to use violence. We give people like Bush all the support they need to 'fight against terrorism' because we never had the balls to confront it earlier.

I said it before, just because something is confrontational, doesn't mean its wrong and doesn't mean its racist. Yes we will have to face extremists who will use and call for violence, but we have to live our lives in the same way we lived it before. That means doing exactly as we would, criticising Islam and its treatment of women and its vilification of Homosexuals, pushing at it constantly like we did Christianity, tearing at the inconsistences, the mistakes, the errors, the hypocrisy. Not backing down the moment violence rears its head, and then making excuses that we drove them to it cause we demonised them.

 

[nino_savatte]

How was what Ibn Warriq just said wrong? I thought it was pretty straight forward.

The idea that the 'west' is demonising muslims, I do not believe. There are sections, of course there are, there are sections of our society that condem everything as they relate to house prices. That isn't the 'west'.

In fact, I have argued and Ibn Warriq argues in his peice too, that the 'west' has gone out of its way not to offend or upset Islam. We go out of our way to constantly say, its only the extremists, just the nutjobs, not the mainstream, we go out of our way not to criticise Islam. Yet somehow this counts as demonisation of the entire Muslim faith?

I see that as little more then an excuse to deflect away from the fact that there are a lot of muslims in the world who are willing to use violence when they do not get what they want. Until we start to confront that and use that in our thinking, we will forever be falling onto our back leg as we consistently lose ground to fanatics that are willing to use violence. We give people like Bush all the support they need to 'fight against terrorism' because we never had the balls to confront it earlier.

I said it before, just because something is confrontational, doesn't mean its wrong and doesn't mean its racist. Yes we will have to face extremists who will use and call for violence, but we have to live our lives in the same way we lived it before. That means doing exactly as we would, criticising Islam and its treatment of women and its vilification of Homosexuals, pushing at it constantly like we did Christianity, tearing at the inconsistences, the mistakes, the errors, the hypocrisy. Not backing down the moment violence rears its head, and then making excuses that we drove them to it cause we demonised them.

You have no idea to whom or to what I was replying, Fong. So you leap in with your size twelves, kicking and thrashing about, like some bar room brawler spoiling for trouble. What I said was for the benefit of Mr Canuck. If you want to pick a fight, kindly go and find someone else.

 

[friedaweed]

Well, you've given us the straight dope on Barbara as elderly jewish woman, but you've said little about what she has to say.
Blahdy blah

I've said enough on both and you've failed to respond to the points i made. Context Johnny context. They both lack context.
Both articles have their own individual arguments which are worthy of consideration but both fail to recognise the climate in which the cartoons are being challenged. You can try and point score all you like but it still doesn't change the fact that both the articles avoid the context in which the disquiet about the cartoons came about.

Better still lets hear what you think or do your thoughts depend on what you can cut and paste.

I made the point loud and clear that both Babs, (who i referred to as grandma not an elderly Jewish woman, if you read her site you may see the connection duh) and Ibn Warraq have got their agendas. Both have written a piece with interesting views and as far as I'm concerned both have failed to recognise why the pan has simmered over in relation to these cartoons. Try if you will not to look at it as an over reaction to a single act but maybe a final straw from a number of people in several nations who are tired of being painted as folk devils by their own media and who are angry about some of the wests deliberate attacks against muslim nations and the Islamic faith at home.

When a xtian Nation (Supported by the xtian religious right) illegally invades a Muslim country under false pretences and whilst there specifically uses Islamic religious taboo to terrorise individuals do you not think that Muslims internationally will see it as a direct attack on their faith.. The behaviour in gitmo and Abu Ghraib which has now been globally acknowledged as an evil dehumanisation of people based on their religious beliefs is just as much the reason people are demonstrating against these current attacks at taboo aspects of the Islamic faith.

No one is trying to justify the behaviour of those who torched the embassies but the point which I'm trying to get across to you is if you try to contextualise it you might understand it more and panic about it less

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

What makes ordinary people protest Johnny?
Is it just a reaction to a single act or the slow drip drip drip of oppression?

98% of the words in your posts on this thread are C&P and subsequently not your own thoughts.

If you're not trying to point score then lets hear your opinion. Your opinion about ordinary everyday Muslims like the ones I live alongside. That would be interesting. I remember seeing Salman Rushdie come on stage at a U2 concert back in the day. Strangely none of the Muslims in the 72K audience rushed onstage to kill him. But then times were different then :

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've said enough on both and you've failed to respond to the points i made. Context Johnny context. They both lack context.

I remember seeing Salman Rushdie come on stage at a U2 concert back in the day. Strangely none of the Muslims in the 72K audience rushed onstage to kill him. But then times were different then :

At the end of your post, you respond obliquely to a question I ask.

You say the cartoon business must be viewed in context. To understand that context, I asked you, what was the context wherein a fatwa was issued against Rushdie for his criticisms of Islam?

What was the context?

Perhaps none of the concertgoers tried to kill Rushdie, but someone must have taken the threat seriously, or else he wouldn't have been forced into seclusion under guard for year after year.


........................................

And yes, you did refer to her as a jewish grandma:

11-02-2006 10:53 AM
friedaweed Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Canuck2
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0055.html


Again this article fails to acknowledge the context in which these things are happening. It's all fairly well for some nice Jewish grandma to say that Muslims don't have a sense of humour. But then she's not on the receiving end of it is she. I don't mean the jokes by the way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you're not trying to point score then lets hear your opinion. Your opinion about ordinary everyday Muslims like the ones I live alongside. That would be interesting.

It's unclear to me what you mean by my 'opinion of ordinary everyday Muslims'.

I might have an opinion about your neighbor if I met him or her, but I find it difficult to form an opinion about something so large and diverse as 'ordinary everyday muslims'.


Why is there a row about cartoons? You say, 'context'. Perhaps, but we also must consider the nature of the religion, part of which nature is expressed by ibn Warraq in your article:

" More recently in fact, you hear that Islam is the fastest growing religion and all that, and this is repeated ad infinitum, without any statistics or facts to back it up. There have been an incredible number of people converting in, of all places, Algeria, to Christianity, because they see Islam as a death-orientated religion. But of course since apostasy is punishable by death, this is not readily admitted."

 

[friedaweed]

It's unclear to me what you mean by my 'opinion of ordinary everyday Muslims'.

I might have an opinion about your neighbor if I met him or her, but I find it difficult to form an opinion about something so large and diverse as 'ordinary everyday muslims'.


Why is there a row about cartoons? You say, 'context'. Perhaps, but we also must consider the nature of the religion, part of which nature is expressed by ibn Warraq in your article:

" More recently in fact, you hear that Islam is the fastest growing religion and all that, and this is repeated ad infinitum, without any statistics or facts to back it up. There have been an incredible number of people converting in, of all places, Algeria, to Christianity, because they see Islam as a death-orientated religion. But of course since apostasy is punishable by death, this is not readily admitted."

It's not my article it is his It does look like its you that supports 'Islam as a death-orientated religion' though. Which you're very much entitled to if that's your opinion.

To understand the row you need to understand the context in which the row is taking place. If you don't get it this time I'm giving up.
I'm not trying to defend Fatwa's or indeed the religion but just trying to get you to acknowledge that there are reasons why ordinary people do extraordinary things when they feel alienated. Dehumanising people because of their religion isn't going to help matters is it. Unless you have an agenda that is.

I see you're still relying on other peoples words to say what you can't though. So do you support the above quote that suggests Islam is Evil and Xtianity is good

http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/news/munster_abboud_05.pdf

What's your view on this article.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's not my article it is his It does look like its you that supports 'Islam as a death-orientated religion' though. Which you're very much entitled to if that's your opinion.

I don't presume to say that I know enough about Islam to say it's a death oriented religion. However, people like ibn Warraq, who do know the religion, are saying as much, which leads me to think that the idea is worthy of airing and debate.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's not my article it is his It does look like its you that supports 'Islam as a death-orientated religion' though. Which you're very much entitled to if that's your opinion.

To understand the row you need to understand the context in which the row is taking place. If you don't get it this time I'm giving up.
I'm not trying to defend Fatwa's or indeed the religion but just trying to get you to acknowledge that there are reasons why ordinary people do extraordinary things when they feel alienated. Dehumanising people because of their religion isn't going to help matters is it. Unless you have an agenda that is.

I see you're still relying on other peoples words to say what you can't though. So do you support the above quote that suggests Islam is Evil and Xtianity is good

http://www.acij.uts.edu.au/news/munster_abboud_05.pdf

What's your view on this article.

I'll get back to you: we're looking for a new car, and it's a sunny Sunday afternoon - perfect for walking the car lots.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

One last thing though: you still haven't explained the context that led to the Rushdie fatwa, due to his criticism of islam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Another question re: your post. Are fatwas extraordinary in islam?

 

[friedaweed]

One last thing though: you still haven't explained the context that led to the Rushdie fatwa, due to his criticism of islam.

I never said i would
Happy car hunting. Don't take dick hunting with you though

 

[friedaweed]

Are fatwas extraordinary in islam?

I don't see them a lot round these parts, what do you think?

Did find this on Salmon though..

there were those—most notably John Berger and John le Carré—who declared that Rushdie was the author of his own victimhood. He had offended the adherents of a great religion that was a voice of the poor and downtrodden. He had done so, numerous critics uttered darkly, "knowing what he was doing." His book was the root cause of the fatwa. The Cardinal of New York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, and the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano united in defining the problem as one more of blasphemy than of terrorism. President George H.W. Bush, invited to comment when barely recovered from the Iran arms-for-hostages racket, said that his response would depend on any threat to "American interests." And the neoconservative school of columnists was almost unanimous in jeering at Rushdie for being hoist by his own petard. His sympathy for "Third World" causes, it was loftily said, should help him to appreciate the irony. And the irony was at his expense, so it served him right. Thus wrote Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, A. M. Rosenthal, and others.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200304/hitchens

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I never said i would
Happy car hunting. Don't take dick hunting with you though

Your point, though, is that muslims are highly upset about the cartoons at least in part because of the background world situation.

So what world situation existed at the time of the Rushdie fatwa, that was making them extra upset then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't see them a lot round these parts, what do you think?

Did find this on Salmon though..


http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200304/hitchens

We come from a tradition of free and open speech and criticism. But from what you're saying, that tradition doesn't extend to comment or criticism of people or groups likely to take offence at what we say?

Also, we should curtail our speech, if the object of our comment or criticism is likely to want to kill us as a result of what we say?

 

[vimto]

We come from a tradition of free and open speech and criticism. But from what you're saying, that tradition doesn't extend to comment or criticism of people or groups likely to take offence at what we say?

Also, we should curtail our speech, if the object of our comment or criticism is likely to want to kill us as a result of what we say?

So why have you got me on ignore Johnny boy?

Surely this must be self censorship on your behalf.

 

[spring-peeper]

I think that if this upsets them so much, then stop doing it. Simple, huh?

We do it here. There are some words that upset people to read. So we stopped using them. It's a sign of respect, imo.

 

[vimto]

It's more a case of certain people moving forward a certain agenda to inflame as many as possible in one stroke.

Transparent as fuck.

 

[rogue yam]

I think that if this upsets them so much, then stop doing it. Simple, huh?

We do it here. There are some words that upset people to read. So we stopped using them. It's a sign of respect, imo.

Simple? Yes. Intelligent? I'm not so sure. What else might we be doing that will suddenly become a source of great upset for Muslims. After all, you must have see some of the many articles published over the last few weeks concerning the history of Muslims depicting Mohammed in art, etc. At least some of the Muslims who are threatening or perpetrating violence over the cartoons want us infidels to act like dhimmis, that is to submit to Islamic rule. How much of their system are you willing to submit to? I think it might be wise to ask yourself that now, before you concede on this one issue. It certainly won't be the last time in your life that mobs of deranged, violent Muslims will demand that you change your behavior.

 

[spring-peeper]

It's more a case of certain people moving forward a certain agenda to inflame as many as possible in one stroke.

Transparent as fuck.

I guess a temporary ban would work in this case, huh?

Who is doing the flaming here, though?

 

[spring-peeper]

Simple? Yes. Intelligent? I'm not so sure. What else might we be doing that will suddenly become a source of great upset for Muslims. After all, you must have see some of the many articles published over the last few weeks concerning the history of Muslims depicting Mohammed in art, etc. At least some of the Muslims who are threatening or perpetrating violence over the cartoons want us infidels to act like dhimmis, that is to submit to Islamic rule. How much of their system are you willing to submit to? I think it might be wise to ask yourself that now, before you concede on this one issue. It certainly won't be the last time in your life that mobs of deranged, violent Muslims will demand that you change your behavior.

Ah, yes the boogie man theory again.

Can you say "religious tolerance"?

 

[nino_savatte]

So why have you got me on ignore Johnny boy?

Surely this must be self censorship on your behalf.

He doesn't like "free speech"...especially if that speech conflicts with his ego and his agenda. Johnny cannot discuss or debate anything at all. He has to win at all costs and if that means ignoring those posters who he finds difficult to beat he will do that. He's nothing but a spoilt child...and a friend of neo-nazi posters like pbman and Diesel. He's also a supporter of the idiot neo-confederalist, dilute_micro.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your point, though, is that muslims are highly upset about the cartoons at least in part because of the background world situation.

So what world situation existed at the time of the Rushdie fatwa, that was making them extra upset then?

Still trying to win by playing lawyer, Johnny? You don't know how ridiculous you look.

 

[friedaweed]

Still trying to win by playing lawyer, Johnny? You don't know how ridiculous you look.

He's not winning anything though is he. Rather than accept that the current context in which these cartoons have been produced is like throwing further fuel on an already raging fire he dreams up a scenario where we are all Islamic fundy sympathisers and carries on with the point scoring game. A game that only he's playing.


I'll ask you Johnny do you think the cartoons were a good idea?

 

[nino_savatte]

He's not winning anything though is he. Rather than accept that the current context in which these cartoons have been produced is like throwing further fuel on an already raging fire he dreams up a scenario where we are all Islamic fundy sympathisers and carries on with the point scoring game. A game that only he's playing.


I'll ask you Johnny do you think the cartoons were a good idea?

Aye, of course not but Johnny thinks he is winning because he thinks that by being a lawyer he can run rings around folk. Shame it isn't true but then he constantly labours under the delusion that he is an intellectual heavyweight because of his legal training.

He likes to rationalise and if he isn't doing that he's demonising others - some of those he demonises are here on Urban. If you keep at him, he will eventually get fed up of playing lawyer and start insulting you...after that he puts you on ignore...or if you're really lucky, he'll invite nanoespresso over to try and bully you. I know, all of this has happened to me.

 

[phildwyer]

It's more a case of certain people moving forward a certain agenda to inflame as many as possible in one stroke.

Yep. I've called Nino on his transparent agenda-serving a couple of times now, but he still denies it. Hey Nino, how far along the auld agenda are we now?

 

[nino_savatte]

Yep. I've called Nino on his transparent agenda-serving a couple of times now, but he still denies it. Hey Nino, how far along the auld agenda are we now?

Still peddling your agenda, phil?

Here's a website that should be of interest to you.
http://www.bacp.co.uk/

Oh but you *live* in the States - don't you?

This is a good diagnosis and it's all here: the bullying, the narcisstic behavoiur but no delusions of grandeur. I suspect that you have more than one mental health condition as is often the case with those who have a personality disorder.

The serial bully displays behaviour congruent with many of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Characterised by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity and self-importance, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, people with narcissistic personality disorder overestimate their abilities and inflate their accomplishments, often appearing boastful and pretentious, whilst correspondingly underestimating and devaluing the achievements and accomplishments of others.

Often the narcissist will fraudulently claim to have qualifications or experience or affiliations or associations which they don't have or aren't entitled to. Belief in superiority, inflating their self-esteem to match that of senior or important people with whom they associate or identify, insisting on having the "top" professionals or being affiliated with the "best" institutions, but criticising the same people who disappoint them are also common features of narcissistic personality disorder.
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm

That's you to a tee!