Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[S.A.M.]

a great nation.

The native Americans, Australians, Africans, Arabs and New Zealanders would disagree. The 30 million Indians who died of starvation in British India would disagree.

 

[iceaura]

Whose perception? The newspaper that refuses a cartoon mocking Jesus and commands those mocking Muhammed?

No reason to leave those out, if they come in.

Now, about the question - - - -

The native Americans, Australians, Africans, Arabs and New Zealanders would disagree

No, they wouldn't. Necessarily. They don't, in fact.

 

[S.A.M.]

No reason to leave those out, if they come in.

Now, about the question - - - -

You'll have to ask those whose perceptions you are interested in.Seeing as self defined theists and atheists are not to be trusted.

No, they wouldn't. Necessarily. They don't, in fact.

Maybe mockery not being a part of their culture, you'd not be privy to their feelings. Do you believe any of them celebrate the greatness of teh British Empire?

 

[iceaura]

You'll have to ask those whose perceptions you are interested in.Seeing as self defined theists and atheists are not to be trusted.

Some self defined atheists and theists are to be trusted, SAM.( Said now for the third or fourth time. )

You are spiraling into bad faith, in this discussion. Why ? It looks like simple avoidance of what I admit is a not so simple question - whether theistic reactions to other discomforts are relevant in a discussion of theistic reactions to mockery.

Do you believe any of them celebrate the greatness of teh British Empire?

Celebrate, some few. Recognize, a great many.

As Mideastern Muslims recognize the greatness of the Ottoman empire, despite its slavery, intellectual stagnation, and certain unfortunate aspects of its decline.

Maybe mockery not being a part of their culture, you'd not be privy to their feelings.

You'll find mockery is a part of a great many cultures, SAM. Including at least a few of the Red's cultures in NA.

 

[s0meguy]

It's funny that this only goes one way - others can't bash muhammed but muslims can bash homosexuals, western women, culture

There is a uproar when some guy decides to make an image of muhammed but when there is vandalism or people get blown up - nothing

 

[S.A.M.]

Some self defined atheists and theists are to be trusted, SAM.( Said now for the third or fourth time. )

By whom? Why?

You are spiraling into bad faith, in this discussion. Why ? It looks like simple avoidance of what I admit is a not so simple question - whether theistic reactions to other discomforts are relevant in a discussion of theistic reactions to mockery.

Not bad faith. You're setting the tone of the discussion, I'm merely following it.

When its unsure who is theistic, who decides what discomforts are theistic?

Celebrate, some few. Recognize, a great many.

Strange, I've never heard of it recognized as anything but a time of racism and slavery and the plunder of native peoples.

As Mideastern Muslims recognize the greatness of the Ottoman empire, despite its slavery, intellectual stagnation, and certain unfortunate aspects of its decline.

No one recognised the Ottomans for slavery or intellectual stagnation, unless its the British. The Ottomans are recognised for their mutlicultural soceity, where even slaves could hold posts in the empire.

You'll find mockery is a part of a great many cultures, SAM. Including at least a few of the Red's cultures in NA.

As you said, all mockery is not equal.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's funny that this only goes one way - others can't bash muhammed but muslims can bash homosexuals, western women, culture

There is a uproar when some guy decides to make an image of muhammed but when there is vandalism or people get blown up - nothing

As Gandhi said when asked about western civilization: it would be a very good idea.

 

[s0meguy]

As Gandhi said when asked about western civilization: it would be a very good idea.

What was the question?

 

[S.A.M.]

What was the question?

Q:what do you think about western civilization?

Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea.

 

[s0meguy]

I fail to see how this relates to my post, #1065, can you explain? also, with that answer he meant that western civilization is good? I don't get it....

 

[S.A.M.]

It means that the same people who whine every year about 9/11 are occupying two countries have secret prisons where they torture people to death and are still talking about attacking other countries. Then they complain about the people whose countries they occupy. To top all that, they mock the people, call them terrorists and draw cartoons of their prophet with a bomb turban. And they wonder why the people get mad.

And with that answer Gandhi meant that there is no civilized western nation. But it would be a good idea to have one. As an object of British mockery, he would have seen through the shenanigans of the Danes.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

 

[s0meguy]

It means that the same people who whine every year about 9/11 are occupying two countries have secret prisons where they torture people to death and are still talking about attacking other countries.
Then they complain about the people whose countries they occupy. To top all that, they mock the people, call them terrorists and draw cartoons of their prophet with a bomb turban. And they wonder why the people get mad.

First of all, most of the muslims in western countries do not originate from those countries. Second, so wouldn't that give muslims incentive to show us how its done? no, they resort to petty, in reality, insignificant, assaults, that give the western public more incentive to allow their politicians to attack the countries.

So you were saying, that the hipocrisy I pointed out in #1065 is somehow justified by that?

And with that answer Gandhi meant that there is no civilized western nation. But it would be a good idea to have one. He wrote a lot of good stuff about Mohammed too. As an object of British mockery, he would have seen through the shenanigans of the Danes.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Sounds like the definition of the word civilization there is pretty subjective. And there it all falls apart.....

 

[S.A.M.]

First of all, most of the muslims in western countries do not originate from those countries. Second, so wouldn't that give muslims incentive to show us how its done? no, they resort to petty, in reality, insignificant, assaults, that give the western public more incentive to allow their politicians to attack the countries.

So you were saying, that the hipocrisy I pointed out in #1065 is somehow justified by that?



Sounds like the definition of the word civilization is pretty subjective.

Yeah, apparently, colonialism, occupation, slavery and racism is civilisation. Demonising people on the basis of religion is civilisation. Air strikes from 40,000 feet on "militants" and "insurgents" is civilisation. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is civlisation. Plundering native peoples and throwing them into reservations is civlisation. Not.

 

[s0meguy]

Yeah, apparently, colonialism slavery and racism is civilisation. Demonising people on the basis of religion is civilisation. Air strikes from 40,000 feet on "militants" and "insurgents" is civilisation. Not.

Excuse me, muslims never enslaved people? also to my knowledge, we do not directly enslave people anymore, much like the muslims.

The muslims demonise themselves by their actions, and failure to suppress the actions of others made in the name of their religion. Granted they are goaded into their actions to create more incentive for the people to allow exploitation of countries in the middle east, but that doesn't justify it.

Dictionary.com civilization definition: 1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

doesn't have much to do with bombing (irony) other people

 

[S.A.M.]

Excuse me, muslims never enslaved people? also to my knowledge, we do not directly enslave people anymore, much like the muslims.

The muslims demonise themselves by their actions, and failure to suppress the actions of others made in the name of their religion.

Dictionary.com civilization definition: 1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

doesn't have much to do with bombing (irony) other people

The difference between the western civilisation and say, the Ottoman or Mughal civilisation is that in western civilisation, only the westerners benefit. Every one else is a nonentity [or collateral damages]. They do not exist.

Westerners demonise themselves too. What do you think the world thinks of American hegemony? The WTO, IMF and UN, under the colonial vetos?

 

[s0meguy]

The difference between the western civilisation and say, the Ottoman or Mughal civilisation is that in western civilisation, only the westerners benefit. Every one else is a nonentity [or collateral damages]. They do not exist.

Westerners demonise themselves too. What do you think the world thinks of American hegemony? The WTO, IMF and UN, under the colonial vetos?

The world doesn't like American hegemony, because they all want it for themselves.

But lets go back to the original point, you were arguing that the hipocrisy is justified.

 

[S.A.M.]

The world doesn't like American hegemony, because they all want it for themselves.

But lets go back to the original point, you were arguing that the hipocrisy is justified.

Hypocrisy is justified? Where do you get that? The western opinion of all non western people and their treatment of them can be expressed by this comment:

The Indian (was thought) as less than human and worthy only of extermination. We did shoot down defenseless men, and women and children at places like Camp Grant, Sand Creek, and Wounded Knee. We did feed strychnine to red warriors. We did set whole villages of people out naked to freeze in the iron cold of Montana winters. And we did confine thousands in what amounted to concentration camps. ”

— Wellman- The Indian Wars of the West, 1934

Its how the British treated Indians and native Americans, Australians New Zealanders, etc. Its how the Americans view Arabs today. "We don't do body counts" they bleat, as with one swoop they deny the humanity of the thousands who die under them.

After 800 years, the Ottomans were speaking Arabic and the Mughals Urdu.

 

[iceaura]

Q:what do you think about western civilization?

Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea.

So the occasional mockery of what other people value is not so bad, eh ?

Some self defined atheists and theists are to be trusted, SAM.( Said now for the third or fourth time. )
”
By whom? Why?

By adults, using their judgment and evidence and defending their reasoning, in discussion. Try it, you might like it.

Not bad faith. You're setting the tone of the discussion, I'm merely following it.

You are responding dishonestly. Reread, if in doubt.

When its unsure who is theistic, who decides what discomforts are theistic?

Reasonable adults, using their judgment and evidence and defending their reasoning, in discussion.

Celebrate, some few. Recognize, a great many.
”
Strange, I've never heard of it recognized as anything but a time of racism and slavery and the plunder of native peoples.

You have never heard a subject of the British Empire recognize it as a great achievement, of its kind ? You need to get out more.

All empires to date have involved slavery and the plunder of native peoples - the Ottoman, for example. Are no empires recognizably "great", then ?

As Mideastern Muslims recognize the greatness of the Ottoman empire, despite its slavery, intellectual stagnation, and certain unfortunate aspects of its decline.
”
No one recognised the Ottomans for slavery or intellectual stagnation, unless its the British.

You really need to get out more. The "Sick Old Man" of common contemporary reference did have a vibrant youth, but a relatively short-lived one.

You'll find mockery is a part of a great many cultures, SAM. Including at least a few of the Red's cultures in NA.
”
As you said, all mockery is not equal.

So we're back to the question, and the OP.

With a small new angle: is all Western mockery of the Prophet created equal ?

 

[S.A.M.]

So the occasional mockery of what other people value is not so bad, eh ?

All mockery is not equal.

Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, (Kenya, Decolonising the Mind), displaying anger toward the isolationist feelings colonial education causes, asserted that the process "...annihilates a peoples belief in their names, in their languages, in their environment, in their heritage of struggle, in their unity, in their capacities and ultimately in themselves. It makes them see their past as one wasteland of non-achievement and it makes them want to distance themselves from that wasteland. It makes them want to identify with that which is furthest removed from themselves".

 

[s0meguy]

So the occasional mockery of what other people value is not so bad, eh ?

With muslims apparently, the word insult, mockery, can only be used when muslims are the receivers.

SAM so the muslims never committed acts of genocide in the past?

The fact remains that western countries participating in wars in the middle east wouldn't be possible without muslims giving the western public reason to allow it.