Message
You're missing the point. CH may be a pure issue of freedom of speech, but niqab-wearing is more complicated. The niqab debate is NOT just about freedom of speech. It is VERY relevant to bring the reasons women wear the niqab into the conversation, and whether they are in fact wearing it freely, as well as issues of national mores.
Niqab-wearing is not more complicated. It is a freedom of speech issue, if you can't see that, that is your prerogative but to restrict niqab because you don't know if people are forced to wear it or national mores is ridiculous and hypocritical when you label yourself as a free democracy.
Also, you don't get that we're talking about two sides of the same coin: You can't call for burka wearing and muzzling CH in the same breath.
Iam not muzzling CH. The niqab ban has been in place since 2010. My point remains, you can not ask Muslims to accept CH in the name of freedom of speech and in that same breath tell them they can't dress the way they choose to because it is inconsistent with the values of the republic.
Sorry, you never said what you're now claiming you said (that the idiocy involves expecting change). Here is what you actually said: " At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen." Your quote is right above, and everybody can check for themselves.
That's exactly what I said. Nowhere was it said it was referring to CH, you made that assumption on your own and I corrected you and told you that was referring to the current continuous printing of the cartoons thinking that would make a change, if you can't accept that, i can't help you.
Please, just stop with the nonsense about how the cartoons were designed to "provoke people to violence". The cartoons were a form of expression, no more, no less. But your rephrasing about how they were intended to "provoke violence" once again shifts the blame from the violent people to their victims.
Your words , not mine. Nowhere did I say that the cartoons were intended to provoke violence, maybe that is truly what you think? Interesting ~
Anonymous wrote:Muslima, I think you generally bring a useful viewpoint ( to which I disagree to varying degrees), but you have know that the pro-Palestinian demonstrations degenerated into numerous attacks to synagogues and other anti-Semitic acts. They were not anti-Israeli-policy -- they were against Jews. People chanting "death to the Jews" in the middle of Paris. People throwing stones to synagogues. You know that that's the reason some of them were banned -- for public safety. Please don't erode your credibility by portraying that banning them were a demonstration of Islamophobia. I agree that there is quite a bit of Islamophobia in France, but this is a bad example.
I doubt that every single person protesting was rioting and throwing stones at synagogues. But you prove my point that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech disingenuous! We can agree to disagree.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.
I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.
I think you're saying that we should let the police do their work, and be done with it. I also feel that this is a position of convenience for you. I feel like you'd totally change your mind if there were a hilarious cartoon involving the Trinity and homosexuals to be published. Maybe I'm wrong.
Finding and incarcerating the killers in no way stops the threat to CH. Without support from other journalists, CH is exposed again. CH is out there again as one of the few journals challenging threats involving cartoons. Unless CH caves too, which might well happen in the absense of support from other journals and journalists. Perhaps you think CH should never have published the cartoons in the first place, which is a defensible position, but now that CH went there, to me caving has become like paying ransom for hostages.
So why shouldn't people use any other non-violent means of protest that are available to them? Sure, other journalists are writing exposes about al Qaeda and ISIS, but nobody was ever killed over an expose. People are being killed over cartoons, so cartoons are point the where other journalists can lend non-violent support.
People are not being killed over cartoons, you can not look at this in a vacuum. Terrorism is always a symptom of something much bigger, the protagonists use the cartoons as their excuse. I don't know if anyone saw what Tim Wise said today but I completely agree with his point:
As we rightly condemn the senseless and barbaric murders of journalists in Paris can we still manage to have a rational conversation about free speech, without the empty platitudes about how these cartoonists were "heroes?" For instance, I believe it is possible to agree that free speech is an essential value, and that journalists should have the right to say what they want -- even to offend others -- without then proceeding to act as though every act of speech (just because people have a right to it) is therefore worth defending as to its substance, and that free speech protects one from being critiqued for the things one says. What I mean is this: I have a right, I suppose, to stand in the middle of Times Square and shout racial or religious slurs. And I surely should be able to do that without fear of being murdered for it. This last point in particular is so obvious as to be beyond debate, I would hope. But if I do this, whether in Times Square or in print, it makes me an asshole, and one who deserves to be labeled as such. Not a hero, but an asshole. And I don't become a hero just because I insulted people, some of whom might be even bigger assholes than me, and so dangerous and unstable that they decide to hurt me. People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one's speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong---always---I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of people whose job appears to have been to insult people they considered inferior to themselves. Especially because, historically, satire has always been about barbs aimed at those who are MORE powerful than oneself (the elite, royalty, the dominant social, economic, political or religious group), rather than being aimed down the power structure at those with less power. To satirize people who are the targets of institutionalized violence (whether for religious or racial or cultural or linguistic or sexual or gendered reasons) is not brave. It's sort of shitty, in fact. Should it be protected legally? Sure. Should those who do it be killed or punished in any way? Of course not. But should we hold them up as exemplars of who we want to be, all the while ignoring how the exercise of their freedom, without any sense of responsibility to the common good, actually feeds acrimony and violence on all sides? I think not. I really think we need to be talking about this.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:
I think you are confusing two separate things. The free speech case involving Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt was about a cartoon. I am not surprised that the cartoon was published in law school textbooks. But, I pretty sure it was not published by the mainstream media that is now publishing anti-Muslim cartoons. But, I was actually talking about Larry Flynt getting shot, which is separate from the lawsuit. The shooter was upset because of interracial photos in the magazine. Nobody would expect the Washington Post to publish those X-rated photos to show that Larry Flynt's free expression wouldn't be infringed upon by someone with a gun. Ironically, nobody would expect the Post to publish x-rated photos because they would offend the Post's readers. But, apparently, offending Muslims is no big deal.
Also, I would distinguish between publishing the cartoons as a means of demonstrating the type of drawings published by CH and publishing the drawings as an act of solidarity. As a news item, I think a range of drawings -- not only those about Muslims -- should be shown. A full understanding of CH requires knowing how it represents Jews and Christians. Otherwise, a distorted view of the magazine would be presented. But, again, the media wouldn't want to show a cartoon captioned "Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" that illustrates the trinity with a drawing of males engaged in anal intercourse. That would offend someone other than Muslims.
Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.
Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.
As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?
Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.
And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)
Actually, some of the CH cartoons are X-Rated, they have X-Rated pictures of the Prophet (saw) that I unfortunately stumbled upon, distasteful and Very offensive, so your point is moot.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
Not a fan of that article. You/he are talking out of both sides of your/his mouth. Let's see. Freedom of speech should allow me to wear a burka, but it's arrogant, intransigent, and hypocritical to use your freedom of speech to publish cartoons that are offensive to me. Violence is wrong, but you're as responsible for the violence as the attackers because, uh, you used free speech in a way that's offensive to me, and this diminishes accountability for the violence.
Not a fan of the New Yorker article, either. Coming up next.
I am not. I cited the niqab ban to show the hypocrisy of the freedom of speech discourse. If Muslims are expected to accept the danish cartoons in the name of Freedom, then they should be allowed to dress as they pleased in the name of that same freedom. Nowhere in what was posted was it ever said that Violence was right or should be expected because of published cartoons or personal grievances of Muslims
PP again. To be very clear about your freedom of speech double standard, you have argued that
1. Women should be allowed to wear burkas freely, but
2. The cartoonists should have shown restraint.
Just to re-emphasize, others here have not accepted that the niqab ban is purely a freedom of speech issue, instead they have brought up issues such as a society preserving its own values (like KSA does) and protecting women from having the burka imposed on them (despite your you tube video, the jury is still out on what percent of women chooses the niwab vs. has it imposed. I could bring any number of ex-Muslim feminsists to counter your Yourtube video, except that I think such anecdotes are pointless.)
Your double standard about violence goes as follows:
1. Violence is wrong, of course, but
2. The journalists should have responded to threats of violence by publishing nicer cartoons, that is, they were "idiots" to not simply cave into threats of violence and thus partly culpable.
No, that is not what I said. I said: You can not call for freedom of speech for cartoonist when you ban the freedom of a part of your population to dress and practice their religion as they see fit. The reasonings behind the niqab, the number of women forced to wear it, ex-muslim feminists are quiet frankly irrelevant since we are talking about freedom here. Why do states have the right to dictate how people dress and then come around and say we are a free open democracy, that is hypocritical. KSA and the so called "Muslim" countries you talk about do not go around labeling themselves as Free Open democracies and nobody sees them as such.
To your second point about violence, again, stop misquoting me, that is not what I said. The point was it is IDIOTIC to continue reprinting the cartoons just thinking that will make a change. You think people who are willing to kill will just say: "Oh, they are republishing the cartoons, we will stop killing people"? The West will always talk about freedom but are they objective? In the UK, an advert showing a pregnant nun having ice-cream was banned because according to The Advertising Standards Authority, “it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs”. An Australian man was charged with mooning Britain's Queen Elizabeth II . And finally, even if you / Newspapers or any one Mock Islam / Muslims , We and what Yasser has been trying to consistently repeat is that we do not respond to it with violence. So your Entire attempt to debate into violence..is like a senseless argument with yourself Not with some one else. Nobody defended it, in fact we keep trying to tell people not to be provoked, and responding with violence is a hypocrisy because its against the teachings of islam.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
Muslima, you really do not get it. there is no double standard, the people who were killed yesterday, of whom you admit you know nothing so may be you should learn a little, fought for their, and our, freedom to post satire about anything. they were sued multiple times by catholic organizations and won. the catholics who did not like their cartoons sued them and lost, did not kill them, firebomb their office, prevent them from publishing cartoons. CH did a special issue about Islam and they did an issue about the Holocaust. nothing happened after the Holocaust issue, but they were firebombed after the issue on Islam and killed yesterday by people who allegedly said they were avenging the prophet. newspapers are today re-printing many cartoons by CH, including cartoons depicting priests, politicians, jews and others. they print especially the ones about Islam not because of a double standard, but because the ones about Islam are the only ones that can cost people lives and the only ones people got serious death threats for. the person who wrote this article has no shame
Since there is no double standard, can you explain why Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for something he published because it was anti-Semitic ? why was the employee sued? I thought it was all satirical? Oh and last summer, France became the 1st country to ban pro-palestinian demonstrations . Why? Where is the freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697194/Outrage-France-country-world-ban-pro-Palestine-demos.html The larger point here was that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech is slightly disingenuous!
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.
I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.
To the PP, do not distort the words on my posts. It doesn't say anywhere that journalists should have been smart enough to cave in the threats of violence. It said:
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
This is in reference to the re-printing of the offensive pictures not the cartoonists. Satire against the powerful and mocking the oppressed, minorities, weak are two very different things. Muslims are an underclass in France, constantly ridiculed , with little to no power and these cartoons increased the racist prejudice against them. Islam and most muslims condemned the attack. Its against our doctrine and teaching of the prophet(SAW) but the failure of justice and simplicity of freedom may put peace in everlasting detention. If you call a man a bad name and he felt uncomfortable, why must you call him same name again with the impression of expressing your freedom of speech? Tolerance should recognize individual dignity. The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
Not a fan of that article. You/he are talking out of both sides of your/his mouth. Let's see. Freedom of speech should allow me to wear a burka, but it's arrogant, intransigent, and hypocritical to use your freedom of speech to publish cartoons that are offensive to me. Violence is wrong, but you're as responsible for the violence as the attackers because, uh, you used free speech in a way that's offensive to me, and this diminishes accountability for the violence.
Not a fan of the New Yorker article, either. Coming up next.
I am not. I cited the niqab ban to show the hypocrisy of the freedom of speech discourse. If Muslims are expected to accept the danish cartoons in the name of Freedom, then they should be allowed to dress as they pleased in the name of that same freedom. Nowhere in what was posted was it ever said that Violence was right or should be expected because of published cartoons or personal grievances of Muslims
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
Nope. Sorry. No. You don't get to say it's idiotic to have offensive satire about Islam. No. You don't. That same publication had satire about Catholicism, Judaism, etc. There's no special targeting of Muslims. And you don't get to say "well, if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots not to expect violence". No.
The truth isn't that people make a point of satirizing Muslims. The point is that EVERYONE gets satirized. And only Muslims seem to get violent about that.
If your God can't deal with satire, your God is too small.
Re-read what was posted ,circle the part where it says "if you satirize Muslims, you're idiots, not to expect violence" and I will eat it. Clearly, Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for anti-Semitism, why the special treatment?
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
No, MuslimsMuslima. Your friend is wrong. In the West, first, you don't kill people. You converse, or boycott.
Why are all of these Muslims immigrating and leaving their countries and moving to France, the UK, the US? It's not for the freedom to practice their religion, they had that back home. It's because their home countries are failed states, because Islam doesn't work as a form of government.
1st you are assuming that all Muslims in France, US & the UK are immigrants. 2nd, the idea that people should just go back"home" is simplistic. And, finally, the issue I was raising goes back to Freedom of Speech, Freedom oF religion. If you label yourself as a free open democracy, why are you restricting the dress/religious practices of a part of your population? Also, why did Charlie Hebdo fire the satirist who wrote that Sarkozy's son would convert to Judaism for financial reason? Why was that considered anti-Semitic and he was put to trial while other religions are not treated the same? Why the double standard?
Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.
I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.
And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:
"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.
I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).
I'm the PP you addressed. Since you're responding to me with silliness, I'll ask a question. Why did you post about the Muslim police officer who was killed yesterday, but not about the second police officer killed yesterday who had the kid, or about the police officer killed this morning? In both of these cases, somebody else noted their deaths. What is the point of emphasizing his religion by calling him out and not the other dead policement, are we sure he was actually a practicing Muslim vs. secular, and how does this contrast with your distaste for calling the culprits "Muslim terrorists"?
My guess is because some people are still blaming muslims and Islam for this? While here we have one Muslim who actually died trying to prevent this and save other people !
Ok people, let's be clear. Most women who wear niqabs in the West Choose to do so , so saying it was banned to protect them is not true.
You can clearly see from this video, how this is problematic. Whether you like the niqab/hijab or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is mandated by Islam or not is irrelevant. Mona talks about women who fled France to be refugees in the UK because they couldn't wear their hijabs at work, this is outrageous. If you support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, then you should support these women's right to wear a niqab/hijab when they choose to. Saying that you don't but that Muslims should accept danish cartoons is hypocritical.
You can clearly see from this video, how this is problematic. Whether you like the niqab/hijab or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is mandated by Islam or not is irrelevant. Mona talks about women who fled France to be refugees in the UK because they couldn't wear their hijabs at work, this is outrageous. If you support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, then you should support these women's right to wear a niqab/hijab when they choose to. Saying that you don't but that Muslims should accept danish cartoons is hypocritical.
Anonymous wrote:Seriously? Remember the riots in the muslim communities in France not too long ago because they felt stigmatized? France has always have a REAL problem with its Muslim population.. There is a reason why the extreme right-wing National Front is so popular in France.
PP above, I think you are conflating France with America when you speak about freedom of dress , religious expression , etc..
There is nothing inherent in people, who practice the Muslim faith ,that the French don't like. Look at the business they did for centuries with Sunni silk mechants in Lebanon and Syria. The French though are a people with VERY high and, a little rigid, social standards for those who come onto their soil. These are rather strict people in terms of wanting to preserve " French Culture" THey teach young children to conform, " to be French" , " this is the way you must…" And, they do not like a minority that amounts to 10% of their population not conforming to their standards in dress, in manner , in decorum.
This looking down that the French do, is not just reserved for Arabs. For example, they also hold in contempt : Americans. And for what ? For the great offense we give by showing up in the millions every summer [i]in sneakers with our fanny packs, talking loudly in halting accents from Texas butchering their language with our demonstration of cultural ignorance. They hate us too knowing that we are dropping $$$$ Millions into their economy. Enter a "non -tourist" restaurant as an American and there is a mild wave of "oh no" that comes over the room. I suppose tehy fear more of us might come and ruin their restaurant…
Its a small country with a long history that has had to fight for its survival many times. They will resist a minority going against the grain of what they hold as " the French way" ( in terms of head scarfs and Hijab)
It should not surprise you that the country where McDonalds was fire bombed, would passionately reject the head scarf. Perhaps if they had all been neatly coifed Hermes, but its too late for that now…. Its not the religion that is primarily being rejected , its the push back from a group which is viewed as not measuring up to their standards and VERY few people can anyway.
Liberal and moderate French will likely support muslim rights to soem extent, but attacks like this make it hard for them to go on doing so . Remember , its their country that they see being attacked.
I was actually talking about the Freedom of Speech that France defends and everyone is defending today in light of what happened in Paris. People have said over and over that cartoonists exercise their Freedom of Speech daily and this should be respected. My question was if France is as open and free as they say, and if we are on the topic of freedom of speech, then why does France restrict how people choose to represent their religion? It is also the country of the French Muslims who have a French heritage and have the right to live and practice their religion in France.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima, it is interesting that you cited the French law against the burka (if I understand the law prohibit the wearing in public of the full veil that totally covers the face). I am from Italy, and a law like that has been in existence for ever, well before that anybody could even think that Muslims could one day live in Italy. simply the government did not want to have people go around with faces totally covered to a point that they could not be recognized. as for the burka, I am not an expert but the Quran apparently does not say anywhere that women need to cover themselves like that. it simply says that they need to dress "modestly". "modesty" obviously changes with times and places. one hundred years ago my grandma told me that women in Italy would not weak pants because it would be considered scandalous, now they do. you can dress modestly in France as much as you want. however if you feel the need to put a blanket on your body and leave two holes for your eyes, maybe you should consider moving to Yemen, where your idea of modesty is more generally shared. decades ago women in Arab countries in North Africa (except for the Arab peninsula) did not weak the burka. now more women do it. this has nothing to do with modesty, but unfortunately with oil money that has allowed a strict interpretation of Islam by a few millions of backward uneducated desert dwellers to be shoveled down the throats of other Muslims
The issue is not whether the burqa is mandatory or not in Islam. The question is why are women, French citizens nonetheless who freely choose to wear a Burqa because they believe it is their religious right/freedom to dress that way, do not have the right under French Law to do so?And this, since 2010? So you have these Niqabis who were living in France prior to 2010 who suddenly have to change the way they dress or else be fined every single day? If we are talking about Freedom of Speech, then why aren't they allow to dress they way they choose fit? Why the double standard?
Because the wearing of a burqa endangers the rest of the public in France. It is not a mandatory part of the Muslim religion, i.e. you are free to say prayers whenever you like or practice other parts of your religion. In fact, you are free to wear the burqa as much as you like in the comfort of your own home. If a French Muslim is uncomfortable with the law, they are free to move to countries where this is embraced.
Actually no, France banned Muslim street prayers in 2011, so no Muslims can't pray wherever they like. So If a French Muslim is uncomfortable with not being able to practice their religion freely they should move to other countries? Where is the Freedom that everyone is defending, that's what I don't get, the blatant double standard. You can not use Freedom of Speech and restrict a part of your population's freedom, that is hypocritical.