Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Muslims Nations: Defame Islam, Get Sued?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:54 AM
Original message
Muslims Nations: Defame Islam, Get Sued?
Source: AP

DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots. Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group. The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_re_af/islamic...



:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. President Abdoulaye Wade and Bush**, separated at birth?
Wade: "There can be no freedom without limits."

Bush**: "There should be limits to freedom."

Just more proof that dictators posing as good men of religion are the same anywhere you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amused Musings Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. All Happy Families
Happy Dictators are all alike, every unhappy dictator is unhappy in its own way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Your atheist correspondent in Egypt pipes up...
The article says: Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out...

Well, they certainly have been, in sharia law. Consider, for example, the fine legal principle known as hisba, which allows any Muslim to drag another Muslim into court for "religious non-compliance." That one keeps the courts busy in Muslim countries. Here in Egypt, one fundamentalist sheikh is a sort of one-man Lawsuit Machine.

But the Muslims quoted in the article above aren't going to mention any of this ickiness. That might spook the Useful Idiots in the West who are currently saying it might be OK to mix a little sharia law in with Western jurisprudence.

Want to see where that might lead? A few months ago, EGPYT TODAY magazine compiled a handy if incomplete chronology of censorship under Muslim law in different countries:

1959, Egypt: (Nobel Prize winning Egyptian novelist) Naguib Mahfouz is forced to interrupt the serialization of his novel "Children of Gebelawi" when people take to the streets in protest. Al-Azhar University places a ban on the work, which is only lifted after the personal intervention of Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser.

Note: I'm pretty sure the book is still officially banned in Egypt, though available in stores. The more common English title is Children of the Alley.

1988, Egypt: "The Book of a Thousand and One Nights" is condemned as immoral and corrupting young minds.

1989, Iran: The Ayatollah Khomeini...issues a fatwa condemning Salman Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses," allowing any good Muslim to kill him as well as the editors and publishers of the book.

Since the Ayatollah has died, the fatwa cannot be reversed. It is revived in June 2007 when Rushdie is awarded a knighthood (in the U.K.).

Even before this year, the consequences of the fatwa have been dire: the author spent years in hiding, (and) there were attempts on the lives of the Italian and Japanese translators who adapted the work...

1992, Egypt: Assassination of Farag Foda, who authored a sharp satire against Islamic fundamentalism as well as attempted to demonstrate weak points in Islamic theology...Foda is declared an apostate and a foe of Islam.

The Azhari scholar Mohamed El-Ghazali, acting as witness before the courts, declares that it is not wrong to kill an enemy of Islam. Foda is shot in his office by 2 members of al-Islamiya. In December of the same year, his works are seized by Al-Azhar.

1992, Saudi Arabia: Execution of the poet Sadiq Mellalah in Qaif.

1993, Algeria: A number of intellectuals, among them writers, poets, journalists and sociologists, are executed.

1993, Bangladesh: A group of Islamists pronounce a fatwa against writer Taslima Nasri. As an apostate she can now be killed by any good Muslim. There is a price on her head. She eventually flees to Europe where she goes into hiding.

1993, Egypt: Nahguib Mahfouz is stabbed in the neck by a young Egyptian fundamentalist. He does not die but his right hand is permanently affected.

1996, Egypt: Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid is declared an apostate by a colleague at the university, according to the principle of hisba...The colleague objects to his (academic) interpretation of Islam.

A court case is brought against Abu Zeid, in which the accusation is upheld. As an atheist and apostate he can no longer remain married to a Muslim wife. (She) is therefore required by law to start divorce proceedings against her husband.

The couple flees to the Netherlands where they reside to this day.

2000, Egypt: The Ministry Of Culture decides to publish "A Banquet For Seaweeds" by Syrian writer Hayder Hayder. (The book had already been published in Cyprus in 1983.)

Al-Azhar Universtiy legitimized a campaign of incitement against the book...allowing students of the institution to demonstrate in the streets. Respected intellectuals like Ibrahim Aslan assert that Al-Azhar had completely misinterpreted the book.

With the weight of current Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mohammed Sayed Tantawi behind the ban, the Minister Of Culture hastens to withdraw the book and agrees to submit future books to the Academy of Islamic Research (the body advising Al-Azhar regarding matters of censorship) BEFORE publication.

2001, Egypt: At the annual Cairo Book Fair the "Diwan" of Abu Nawwas is on show but the public is forbidden to purchase it.

2007, Egypt: In (the newspaper) Al-Dustour, a front-page headline reads: "We are publishing the secret report of the Academy of Islamic Research, which has banned 11 books."

...Nine books have been written by little-known Egypian authors...one is penned by a Canadian writer and another by an American. They are all deemed to have offended Islamic dictates. So far there has been no public reaction.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Isn't Green Eggs and Ham offensive to Islamic dictates, too? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Well, the Barbie doll certainly is.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:38 AM by onager
She was banned by no less than the Supreme Islamic Council (SIC) in Saudi Arabia. For several reasons, including "promoting materialism" and "being a Jewish doll." (A surprise to those of us who thought Barbie was the epitome of a blond, busty shiksa. The SIC apparently threw that in because the owners of Mattel/inventors of Barbie, the Handler family, are Jewish.)

With this gap in the doll market opened up, an Arab company produced a black-haired, dark-eyed, olive-skinned doll named Fulla. She came dressed in an abaya with her own little prayer rug.

Egyptians joke that while Fulla does not have a Ken doll to keep her company, you can accessorize her with "several angry brothers."

:rofl:

Fulla originally stiffed in Egypt, because many young females here don't wear the abaya. They wear jeans and T-shirts, often but not always topped with a colorful hijab (head-scarf). The manufacturer then came out with an Egyptian Version of Fulla, which is very popular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
53. Well, I have always found Barbie offensive
Even when I was a Christian. She promotes shallow values and implies that only thin girls are sexy and get the boys. I've never had one of the dolls, and I have encouraged my nieces not to play with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
70. Cultural note for you
The Fulla doll is pretty slender too. This is somewhat at odds with the...erm, uh...cultural norms in Egypt.

An Arabic phrase you hear a lot in this country is hilwa mirabraba, which means "pretty and plump." As if "pretty" and "plump" just naturally go together.

A thin woman, on the other hand, in a group of women who are hilwa mirabraba, might be slagged as ibra misaddy--"rusty needle."

Pass that along to your nieces!

Warning: I do not speak much Arabic and absolutely cannot be trusted as a linguistic source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. Laws against blasphemy are still on the books in England
and the most recent conviction was in 1977. Yes, only 31 years ago. Conveniently, however, they only apply to *anti-Christian* blasphemy. The government is "considering" repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. More than 'considering' - repeal has already passed the House of Lords
For once, something good is happening on that front:

Peers vote to scrap blasphemy

The government has got its controversial plan to scrap the blasphemy law through the House of Lords.

Peers voted 148 to 87 in favour of the move last night - which was a government amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.

The amendment will abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/72...


With the government wanting to scrap it, and others as well (eg the Lib Dems), it should be able to get through the House of Commons without a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. Something good, indeed. Thanks for finding that.
My point in posting, of course, was only to note that that level of unreason is not unique to fundy Islamic sects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. How right you are...
some people need to look in the mirror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. How does it work over there?
Once it passes both Houses, is it law? Or does the bill now go to the President or Prime Minister, where they can sign it or veto it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Passing both houses is the practical thing that makes it law
After both houses pass a law, it goes to the monarch for the 'royal assent'. The Prime Minister doesn't get any special say over a bill - though in practice, of course, the majority of his party votes the way he tells them to, and the monarch follows his advice.

If Wikipedia is accurate on this (and this does ring a bell as being correct), no monarch has vetoed a bill since Anne, in 1708; though it says, and this again sounds believable, that Georges III and IV said they would veto a law for Catholic emancipation (ie around 1820, say), and so they didn't push it through Parliament (eventually it did get through, in 1829, under George IV).

There was a technical refusal of consent of a bill in 1999 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Ir... . But that was more a convenient way of the Labour government stopping the bill getting any further without having a debate on it in Parliament - the queen was doing what her government told her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Big difference.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:25 AM by onager
From my lengthy post: 1993, Bangladesh: A group of Islamists pronounce a fatwa against writer Taslima Nasri. As an apostate she can now be killed by any good Muslim. There is a price on her head. She eventually flees to Europe where she goes into hiding.

As far as I know, the Archbishop Of Canterbury doesn't issue religious opinions which permit any good Anglican to kill the blasphemers.

He has issued some stupid statements recently, especially the one suggesting sharia law can peacefully co-exist alongside Western legal codes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. You might do well to look at the reach of a fatwa - it's a "religious" opinion or exhortation
It's not a legal document of any kind. No one is obliged to act on one, and only real criminal psychopaths would choose to --the same group that the unibomber, abortion-clinic bombers, church bombers, doctor killers, and JDL nutcases (among others) belong to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Clearly you do not understand what a fatwa is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #19
34. No, clearly YOU do
...not understand what a fatwa is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. How do it not understand them
They are muslim religous orders which take are direction to the muslim faithful. While "extenuating circumstances" are permitted to not follow one, the expectation is that all faith Muslims will indeed follow and obey those, including those calling for the deaths of others. Its not just an option like desert after dinner that a faith muslim can accept or reject at their whim.

Fatwas are supposed to be issued only when it is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Koran and hadiths; provided the hadith was not later abrogated by Mohammed. That some modern fatwas meet this and other lesser requirements has been disputed at times.

The notional requirement by a person (or a board) is having due knowledge and sincerity of heart. There is no requried certification, but in islamic nations, (where sharia is the law) there is structure when it come to issuing fatwas. However, that structure is only national, and does not extend beyond the nations borders, but the fatwas do. In the case of conflicting fatwas, sunnis will follow the issued by sunni mujtahids, shia will follow shia mujtahids, etc. There is no single source that issues/recognizes/supports/valdiates fatwas.

Soooo...a fatwa gets issued by a mujtahid, and then any muslim should follow it. Failure to do so will be held against them at judgment, like other breaches of the sharia or hadiths. Its not just an option like desert after dinner that a faith muslim can accept or reject at their whim. It is their duty to comply.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. I don't know where you get your
information, but it is incorrect. A fatwa is the decision of a leader of a group of Muslims, of which there are 4 main ones in Sunni Islam and more in Shia Islam. A Hanafi would not follow the fatwah of a Salafi. So....a fatwah is not binding on all Muslims, anymore than the a decision of the Catholic Pope in Rome would be for a Baptist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Multiple sources
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:45 PM by MaryCeleste
A fatwa is the decision of a leader of a group of Muslims, of which there are 4 main ones in Sunni Islam and more in Shia Islam.
Being a leader of a recognized group is not a formal requirement for the issuance of a fatwa. Literally any mujtahid can issue one. According to the Usul al-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:
- The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from verses in the Koran
and hadiths; provided the hadith was not later abrogated by Prophet Mohammed.
- It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
- It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
- It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

A Hanafi would not follow the fatwah of a Salafi. So....a fatwah is not binding on all Muslims,
That is true in case of conflicts between the sects or when the issue is something that the sects differ on. However some are universally accepted, the obvious example being the one against Rushdie. There are also Fatwas issued by various Muftis, who have a geographical or national context and are not limited to a single sect. Those fatwas are also universal in context
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. You're twisting what you're reading
Here's the real deal:

Some fatwas are manifestations of Islam and its moral values, and some others are simply wrong and un-Islamic.

If the fatwa is copied verbatim from some classic book in the Islamic law, then it is quite possibly flawed because it is quite probably addressing a different world with different circumstances.

If the fatwa is based on some sort of twisted interpretations of a script, with an aim to serve the political interests of some powerful people, then it is wrong and un-Islamic.

If the fatwa is allowing people to commit an act of injustice, discrimination, harm, or immorality, even if it were to be based on some sort of 'interpretation,' then it is also wrong and un-Islamic.

If the fatwa is issued based on the Islamic authentic sources, on one hand, while keeping people's welfare and the principal values and purposes of the Islamic law in mind, on the other hand, then it is a correct and valid fatwa.


Who says so? This guy:

"Dr. Jasser Auda is the Founding Director of Al-Maqasid Research Centre in the Philosophy of Islamic Law (Markaz Dirasat Maqasid al-Shariah al-Islamiyyah ), Al-Furqan Foundation, London, U.K., since 2005; fellow of the International Institute of Advanced Systems Research, Canada; founding member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, based in Dublin; member of the Academic Council of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, UK; member of the Board of Trustees of the Global Civilizations Study Centre, UK; member of the Executive Board of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, UK; member of the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism, UK; and a visiting lecturer to a number of academic institutes in the UK, Canada, Egypt, and India."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=I...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. thanks for posting this
and for posting a source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #57
76. From your other posts its clear that you are Sufi, and arguably distant from the mainstream islamic
Sufis are treated almost as badly Bahai by many islamic sects, especially the more ardent ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
72. He is just one of many opinions out there...where did he stand on the Rushie fatwa?
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 02:57 PM by MaryCeleste
And has he denounced any of the recent "recant or death" ones coming out of Saudi Arabia?

Clue: He hasn't since
- the recant or death is well within islamic tradition
- that it is still the duty of every muslim to carry out fatwas




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Cite your sources for your claims. Without them, you're just a hot-air generator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #47
66. Please read your comment again and look clearly.
"There are also Fatwas issued by various Muftis, <who have a geographical or national context> and are not limited to a single sect.

Those fatwas are also universal in context" <---< If they have a geographical or national context they can not also have a universal context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. Look at some of the fatwas issues by various muftis...they are international in scope
The point I was rebutting was that there were only certain "approved" issuers of fatwas, based on the sect. That is not true since the various muftis (appointed within some muslin countries) have issued them and they are considered universal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. considered universal by who?
certainly not by any Muslim I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
56. absolutely right!
Nor is any MAN considered infallible. Fatwas aren't like rulings from the Pope. I have never heard my Pir issue a fatwa, and he is the only Muslim religious leader to whom I am connected. And even then, it is on a spiritual level--I have brothers in my Order who have gotten mad at the Pir and been disrespectful--yet they were welcomed back with open arms when they cooled down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
55. Not all Muslims think this is true, though
I've been in arguments with other Muslims and proved through Qur'an and Hadiths that the Beloved Prophet was not against musical instruments and singing, and yet many conservatives say otherwise. As a thinking person, I would first of all question the imam or other religious leader who issued the hadith--for they are men, and as such fallible. In my Order, even our Pir can be questioned, and often is--our salvation and how we are judged is on our own heads and we are responsible for our own actions, including disobeying fatwas that we believe are based not on Islam, but on the nafs.

But then many Muslims call Sufis heretics, and destroy their meeting places, refuse them right to worship, and arrest and torture them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. Really? In that case, neither do Muslim scholars, because I use their definition
It's a religious decree/exhortation. They are analogous to ex-cathedra pronunciamenti by the pope -- binding on the extremist faithful, but on nobody else except in a pseudo-Muslim theocracy like Saudia, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or (currently) Iran.

If you think I'm wrong, cite your sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Please don't be ridiculous. I was responding to a specific idea, namely that
faithful Muslims are obliged to kill someone because some mufti says so. The few who would do that are the criminal psychopaths, not just any observant Muslim. The key concept here is that fatawa are OPINIONS, not laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Given the number that treat them as a mandate, then you must think most muslims are psychopaths
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. Cite your sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. and what exactly is that number?
Please give me an approximation, if not an exact figure. There are BILLIONS of Muslims in the world, and from what I have seen, it is not a majority of them who are reacting in an extremist manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FalconsRule Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
68. To be precise, there are not BILLIONS of muslims
worldwide. More like 1.4-1.6 billion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #68
81. And what percentage are terrorists?
To hear the MSM talk, all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #81
86. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. So you would persecute all Muslims
firebomb their mosques, threaten their lives, because "enough" are terrorists? Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #40
58. Just out of curiosity
what branch of Islam do you belong to that you think this is so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
54. absolutely
What many folks don't realize is that the power and influence of the so-called "religious leaders" in Islam is very limited. The way I have been taught, every Muslim is responsible for their own life, their own salvation. One might not ever go to a mosque or consult an imam and yet be a good Muslim. You don't have to go to a mosque to pray, and no imam or fatwa can absolve you of your sins. Of course, as you said, the nutcases can justify anything--and believe anything other nutcases tell them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FalconsRule Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
67. When was the last time a person in
was jailed or executed for anti-Christian Blasphemy in Great Britain?

See the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
91. When was the last time a majority-Muslim country was complicit in crimes against peace
and the deaths of a million or more people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. Is the guy who came up with this named Billhamed Donahuejihad? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. THESE muslims must want a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
9. The only good religion
is no religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eib1 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
63. Amen.
And I'm not being ironic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
74. There is sort of a sliding scale about religions around here
Dumping on xtianity is welcome
Dumping on islam less so
Dumping on wicca or native american spiritualism unacceptable

If some religions are negative nonsense and not deserving or respect of accommodation, then all should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
12. What they are saying makes sense. Say anything you want
about or even against Muslims, but stay away from commenting on the religion because you don't know shit about it. You learn what it is really about then want to comment on it, knock yourself out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. So who named you the religion policeman?
I will criticize Muslims, Islam or the prophet, whoever I want. It is my right to do so, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. It's true. Everyone does have the right to play the fool on the internet and many do.
Me, I wouldn't brag about having a right to be a loud-mouthed bigot. It's not as though it's a recommendation, unless you want a job with BushCo or similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. Remember that one man's idiot is another man's prophet....
.....once you begin judging others you leave yourself opened to be judged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. DU gets dumber by the day, and posts like yours are proof of it.

Shall we all agree to post our curriculum vitae before venturing an opinion or point of view on a subject?

Or is this absurd little proclamation of yours applicable only to precious, precious religion?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. What they are saying "we want to suppress free speech and opression" becasue it offends us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eib1 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
64. Why, sir, you live in a democratic society.
Live with it or leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
89. Yeah, yeah. Just like officially-sanctioned English copies of the Quran aren't REALLY what the Quran
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 07:40 AM by WinkyDink
says, because it's SOOOOO impossible to translate Arabic into English, alone among the languages of the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
20. Free Speech and Expression, yet another basic freedom Islam finds repugnant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Is this any different from if Christians had their way?
I vote for secularism, not against Islam or any other religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bush_MUST_Go Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. So when do we start suing Muslim countries for THEIR rhethoric against us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Yes, because xtians don't kill over it and muslims do
No one died over Maplethorpes' Piss Christ and other art that clearly is offensive to xtians. Muslims rioted and people died in countries where it the Danish cartoons were never published.

Xtain nations do not boycott other nations over basic freedom of speech issues

Xtians do not demand that things offensive to them not be sold/worn/displayed/discussed/published and riot when they don't get their way.

The sharia and islam is antithetical to modern freedoms and basic human rights, let alone progressive goals

I agree that secularism is the right thing, but clearly some religions are much more of a threat than others to civilized values.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. This is how the Christians do it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Boycotts do not have the force of law behing them
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 01:36 PM by MaryCeleste
I don't have a problem with boycots. They are mostly a progressive tactic, and quite legal. You may not remember but during the Montgomery bus boycott the courts sided with the boycott (amazing for its day) A boycott also show how much strength a group really has. I do not believe that AFA is numerous to impact Ford or any other national concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eib1 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
65. Christians have had their way in the west for years,
and yet democracy and republicanism developed.
They did not develop in Islam.
They cannot.
They were rejected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
25. Allah must be the most impotent god ever.
I just don't get how these all-powerful one-true-gods can create and manage an entire universe yet need to be protected from anyone saying anything bad about them.

I mean Mohammad was a prophet, right? One think he would have seen this coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Mohamed (may pulled pork have been his last meal) was a lot of things
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 01:20 PM by MaryCeleste
How anyone could effectively deify him is unbelievable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Mohammed sawas is not deified in Islam
...He is revered as a messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Note the word "effectively"
Of course you are not allowed to make pictures of him, criticize him, question his action or intentions, or any words ascribed to him. Not even Catholics go that far with Mary, and if you profane her in expression they do not riot, issues lethal fatwas, claim discrimination, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
69. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #69
84. Like many of the royal families of Europe at the time n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. Muhammad DID see it coming...in a general sense, of course
He warned his followers that after he was dead there would be problems ranging from honest human confusion and error to vicious oppression and warmongering in the name of Islam. Which is one of the reasons why he told his disciples not to try to "sanitize" the hadith but rather write everything down, good and bad, important and not.

He was an exceptionally thoughtful and decent man for his time and place. It would be easy to see him as a prophet of God, for anyone who believes in God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. Funny How Some folks Here Scream about the Same Thing Towards Their Own Religions
yet when it's defamation of Islam it's mocked. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
31. So sue me.........DANCE MOHAMMED......DANCE!!!!!!!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
32. Here is the problem
Post number 26 (MPPHBHLM) was a funny parody of (PBUH) - but if you did that in a Muslim country you could be in serious trouble. Worse yet, if Islamists in here see that they also demand "justice". And we know what that means.

I don't understand why all those who view themselves as progressives can't see this and understand that Islamism is a real worldwide threat. Islam must reform itself just like Christianity did. The inquisition was a real threat to liberty in the 16th century, but it is not now. However, we are far from were we need to be today. You can't even talk reasonably abut the origins of the Koran without fear of death. Compare the situation to the Jesus Seminar, which has come up with some pretty controversial stuff (read "James, the brother of Jesus"). Consider if such a group of historians were to examined the historical Mohammed. What would you bet that a non-normative interpretation would come from such a group? It would set off murder and mayhem.

BTW, to all proponents of the liberal mind, keep up the good jokes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. I saw (MPPHBHLM) on a t-shirt. I wish I could take credit for it
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:45 PM by MaryCeleste
The wearer was a seriously large and fit individual. I have no doubt if he continues to wear it, a fatwa will be declared against him.

Your comments about xtianity vice islam are right on. Non-normative interpretations of islam have been fatwaed this year, with the options being recant or die.

Yep, that there islam is real progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
60. If you are a Sufi in many Muslim countries
you are persecuted and not allowed to practice your faith, and Sufis are Muslims! Kindly realize that for many of these countries, religious fanaticism is used as a way to keep the masses from revolting against oppressive governments, Saudi Arabia being chief among them.

You are right in that Islam needs to go through a reformation--but many in the West are not helping matters when they lump all Muslims together and dismiss them all as terrorist fanatics. There are groups of moderate and progressive Muslims who are starting the process of reformation--but it doesn't happen overnight. A glance at the Protestant Reformation tells one that. Let us hope that the Islamic Reformation isn't as bloody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #60
75. Try being a Bahai
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
43. They could create an alliance with Mormons.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:47 PM by Boojatta
Anyone who says polygamy ever had any connection with either Mormonism or Islam would be sued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. There are some things even the descendants of Joesph Smith won't do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
52. You don't understand Islam
First of all, there are no "leaders" that all Muslims respect like there is the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Second of all, you must understand that it is political leaders who are doing this--and why? Because drumming up the meme that Islam is slighted by the West keeps their people from questioning their authority and the political problems at home---hmmm, very much like Bush.

That aside, there is a distinct anti-Islamic undercurrent in this country. Muslims are keeping a very low profile because they have been threatened with losing their jobs (and this can be done with a small business--they don't have to follow anti-discrimination laws), threatened with the destruction of property (mosques firebombed--but don't worry, no one but local media will ever say anything about it, and only in passing), and sometimes threatened with loss of their lives.

But to hear the MSM say it, all Muslims are fanatical terrorists and you should be afraid--very afraid. Muslims are the new "N-----word"--it is safe and fine to belittle and discriminate against them in any way you see fit. This in part is the reason for the "Obama is a Muslim" email--racists can openly say they hate him because they hide behind the Muslim smokescreen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. its a group that abides by a 'mob rule' mentality
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 09:15 AM by ohio2007
they need a real charismatic anti-Mohammad to make them accountable to their loose translations of the Q'ran.

A 12th imam sort to pop out of a well and tell it like it is.
--- with the ruling governments consent of where the well he climbs out of is located of course ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #61
83. Don't you think you're generalizing a tad bit?
When I took my husband to the Arkansas Medical Teaching Hospital in Little Rock, none of the patients waiting for treatment called any of the Muslim doctors who were treating them with care and compassion a "mob". I'm sure that the priests, rabbis, and spiritual leaders of other faiths who regularly meet with my Pir don't think of my Sufi Order as a "mob" either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #52
78. Any you clearly do not understand the xtians
The Pope only matters to some Catholics. The Archbishop of Canterbury is basically irrelevant, even to most Anglicans. Outside of the Catholics and the Anglicans, neither of the above matter at all, which includes the rest of the Protestants and the evangelicals. I won't touch the Mormons other than to say most consider their relationship to xtianity about the same as Bahai to islam (however its bidirectional)

I would argue with you that there are indeed senior muslim clerics whose fatwas and other rulings are taken litteraly by wide numbers of people. Sufi is a major exception.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Since I was a Christian for 38 years
A Methodist, to be precise, I wouldn't exactly say I don't "understand" them. I was on the Official Board and preached sermons on Laity Sunday. I am very much aware of the limitations of the power of the Pope and the Archbishop--however, I do know that for many Protestants, they view Catholics as ones who view the Pope as infallible. And I think that many Christians have the notion that the Muslim clerics have the same respect and power over their fellow Muslims, which is not the case.

So you are Bahai? I have known about that beautiful religion since I was a child, as the local Bahai group had a radio program on the local radio station. I believe the world headquarters is in Wilmette, IL--sadly, because of persecution in Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. I have family that is...and have seen the persecution first hand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eib1 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
62. If the world has moved toward democracy,
these appeals will get nowhere.
Again, they figure repression as civilization.
It is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
71. Newsflash! Atheist survives Muslim wedding!
Probably a little off-topic, but last Thursday one of my Egyptian co-workers got married and I went to his wedding.

So why am I boring you with all this? Because...as I've ranted in other threads...I do not have any hard feelings about Muslim people, despite my snarking about their religion. When I joined the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, I also got a free membership in the Humanist Conspiracy and try to see everyone as a human being first.

I literally trust Muslims with my life every day over here, and I have for several years now. So I really don't like to see them all lumped in with Osama bin Laden.

Having said all that, I think they would be just as good as human beings without their religion. But I'm sure they would disagree with me.

Now, about that wedding. So what does a Muslim wedding in Egypt look like?

Pretty much like yours did, probably. The Happy Couple got hitched at a commercial/secular "wedding center," of which Egypt has thousands. (I live beside 2 of these things.) The groom wore a sharp tux. The bride wore a white dress and had her head veiled, but not her face, just like in Western weddings. She looked like all brides I've ever seen--radiant but a bit...frazzled.

The bride's little sister was the flower girl and ran around doing her best to trash her own fancy white dress. Until Mom got her by the elbow for a brief but spirited chat.

Most of the prayers were provided by the DJ, on tape. One man led a call-and-response prayer in Arabic. He wore a nice Western suit. Probably Armani or Zegna, since I happen to know a container full of those recently fell off a ship in the port of Alexandria and miraculously landed on dry land. My landlord is peddling a room full of them. Heh.

Only the timing was different from a Western wedding. The Happy Couple made their appearance at 10:30 PM. They were serenaded by a traditional Egyptian wedding band, heavy on the drums and horns. They sat on a white-and-gold couch under a canopy of white miniature lights, letting themselves be photoed and videoed etc. They gave each other a drink of fruit juice. A little later, the wedding cake was wheeled out and they gave each other a taste. (They didn't do the smoosh-in-the-face thing, though.) Then they exchanged wedding rings and left, still accompanied by the band.

Among the guests, some women wore head-scarves and some did not. Some wore gellibyahs and some wore ordinary dresses.

Dinner was served around midnight. Along with traditional Egyptian yums like kofta (barbecued lamb), the meal included two humongous roast turkeys.

I was happy they served one of my favorite desserts, a mix of milk, bread, raisins and LOTS of sugar. With all the foofaraw we hear about blasphemy in Muslim countries, that dish sure has an interesting name in Egypt: homallah--the Mother of Allah.

We left around 1 A.M. Stuffed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. I have had the pleasure of being at nuptials in many ME traditions
Its always been an astounding time. Hareidi weddings are probably the most different from the US perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
88. Can Christians sue Saudi Arabia? Or maybe we can hire the SudaneseMuslim Brotherhood.
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 07:52 AM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 26th 2014, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC