Draw Mohammad Day

[yurell]

When I first heard of DMD, I was rather against it — my family always put strong emphasis on politeness, and to go out of your way to offend someone's religion struck me as incredibly rude and vulgar (although nowhere near as much as 'Burn A Koran Day'). However, since then I've been listening to a lot of people's reasoning and have come to (tentatively) support the idea. I realise the idea isn't to offend, but to demonstrate that no religion is immune to free speech, and so long as Mohammed isn't being drawn respectfully (e.g. not in a porno), it's clear that your goal is to protest restrictions on free speech rather than to simply upset Muslims. My main concern is that it could be usurped by a racist ideal, hence the 'tentative' in my support — the supporters are drawing Mohammed for no reason other than to demonstrate their support, as opposed to being in a circumstance where they were drawing him anyway (e.g. Moses, Jesus and Mohammed at a table to show all Abrahamic religions together).
However, just as religions rely on free speech to spread their lies, they shouldn't be immune to free speech, and there's no reason that drawing Mohammed shouldn't be allowed. What it does do is show the fundamentalists they can't intimidate the West, and if they take offence to seeing their Prophet drawn they should reflect how much offence we take to being told we deserve eternal torture.

So while I won't participate myself in the next DMD, I support those who do so in the spirit of free speech, and oppose those whose entire reasoning is 'fuck the Muslims'.

[Jonesthe Spy]

Perhaps the real name of this event should be "Well Off Europeans [that includes European-descended Americans] Make Fun of the Religion of Folks Who Don't Have Much Besides Their Faith Because Europeans Have Been Fucking Them Over For Decades Day".

BTW, if folks actually knew much about Islamic culture aside from sensationalist headlines, they'd know that Muhammed is portrayed in lots of places in the Islamic countires and it's fine. Gee, maybe the context of Islamaphobes portraying their prophet as a terrorist while tens of thousands of innocent Muslims were being killed by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually relevant?

[yurell]

BTW, if folks actually knew much about Islamic culture aside from sensationalist headlines, they'd know that Muhammed is portrayed in lots of places in the Islamic countires and it's fine. Gee, maybe the context of Islamaphobes portraying their prophet as a terrorist while tens of thousands of innocent Muslims were being killed by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually relevant?

I know about as much of Islamic religion as I do of Christian and Jewish — I've read the holy books that each claim to believe in, and they are foul pieces of hateful literature.

And if you really believe that's what the day is about, I suggest re-reading this thread, as most of the people here are doing it to illustrate that no one is above freedom of speech, rather than merely to insult Muslims.

[Steax]

Yeah, I think the whole issue with DMD in general to me is that it's a mix of two issues:
- there being 2 kinds of participants; people fighting for free speech and non-violence, which is great, and people who just want to fuck with others
- the statement they're trying to make isn't being carried along well enough, so to the vast majority of Muslims who had no idea about South Park and who the Danes are and what censorship means, it's just a big "fuck your faith" hate message

Which is why, earlier on in the thread, I agreed that DMD would be fine if it wasn't hateful (the original event was casual, humorous and non-offensive) and they clearly make a point that it isn't intended as a hate message.

Which, is stated before, would be pretty hard once the islamophobes jump aboard. And then you have western sensationalism, coupled with islamic countries' sensationalism and warmongering, and it's pretty easy to see how this shitstorm brew up.

[Lucrece]

Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Judge Dismisses Case

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim, before you die you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you can not because you are too ill too elderly, whatever but you must make the attempt. Their greetings wa-laikum as-Salâm (is answered by voice) may god be with you. Whenever, it’s very common when speaking to each other it’s very common for them to say uh this will happen it’s it they are so immersed in it.

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”

And,

“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “

And,

“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”

The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs. Instead, the judge gives Mr. Perce a lesson in Sharia law and drones on about the Muslim faith, inform everyone in the court room how strongly he embraces Islam, that the first amendment does not allow anyone ” to piss off other people and other cultures” and he was also insulted by Mr. Perce’s portrayal of Mohammed and the sign he carried.

This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight.

[yurell]

I hope Perce has some legal recourse.

[Xeio]

What the... fuck? I don't... even...

[Steax]

I really hope your legal system has a way to escalate the case and expose that judge for the nitwit he is.

Regardless of the whole faith thing, someone with that way of thinking probably shouldn't even be a judge.

[Ghostbear]

This was the case that got the thread bumped originally in the first place (though this is a much better source for the story than we had previously). I'm sticking with my original reaction: this is the worst judicial reasoning I have ever seen.

I also honestly doubt there's much that can be done for recourse- I'm pretty sure the concept of double jeopardy would prevent the assaulter from getting tried again, unless the DA was able to find a different charge to level against them and try with that (I don't know the ease of such). I'm also not certain that there's anything that can be done against the judge either, though it seems to me that he is a state judge, and not a federal one. There might be some recourse on a federal level if so.

[yurell]

This was the case that got the thread bumped originally in the first place

I knew I had seen it before! Now I feel silly

[Elliot]

Based on a recording of the trial that Pearce uploaded here, that article is very misleading. The decision (aside from the lecture) seems pretty solid. Complainant says the defendant grabbed him and tried to take his sign and false beard. The defendant said he didn't.
A police officer did give evidence generally consistent with Pearce's account, but the officer was not there at the time of the alleged assault. He seems to have just been repeating what Pearce told him had happened.
The video to which the article refers, as far as I can tell, is this one. If so, it is definitely misleading to say 'the assault was caught on video'. I can't make out any assault, nor can I identify anyone. There's nothing in Pearce's trial recording to explain why the judge refused to receive the tape as evidence, but it seems like a fair call.
Then in his closing statement, the officer concedes that it may not have been the defendant's intent to 'accost this individual'. The crime of harassment requires 'intent to harass, annoy or alarm another'. No intent, no crime. The judge refers to this requirement, and the failure to prove it, in his reasoning.
The decision had nothing to do with the defendant being ignorant of the law; the judge just didn't think that the elements of the crime had been established.
The lecture that followed the decision was certainly inappropriate, but the decision itself seems sound to me.

[Steax]

Then in his closing statement, the officer concedes that it may not have been the defendant's intent to 'accost this individual'. The crime of harassment requires 'intent to harass, annoy or alarm another'. No intent, no crime. The judge refers to this requirement, and the failure to prove it, in his reasoning.

I don't really understand how this bit of the system works - is an assault not enough to prove "intent to harass"?

[Elliot]

Then in his closing statement, the officer concedes that it may not have been the defendant's intent to 'accost this individual'. The crime of harassment requires 'intent to harass, annoy or alarm another'. No intent, no crime. The judge refers to this requirement, and the failure to prove it, in his reasoning.

I don't really understand how this bit of the system works - is an assault not enough to prove "intent to harass"?

It could be, depending on the circumstances. But it wasn't established that anyone was assaulted in this case. I guess the important thing is that this harassment offence can be committed with any 'physical contact', and clearly there are instances of physical contact that are not intended to harass anyone.

[Jave D]

BTW, if folks actually knew much about Islamic culture aside from sensationalist headlines, they'd know that Muhammed is portrayed in lots of places in the Islamic countires and it's fine. Gee, maybe the context of Islamaphobes portraying their prophet as a terrorist while tens of thousands of innocent Muslims were being killed by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually relevant?

I know about as much of Islamic religion as I do of Christian and Jewish — I've read the holy books that each claim to believe in, and they are foul pieces of hateful literature.

Then you know absolutely nothing about any of those religions. You only read to confirm your own bigotry, and so all you saw was what you wanted to see - a big circular reasoning mental masturbation.

And if you really believe that's what the day is about, I suggest re-reading this thread, as most of the people here are doing it to illustrate that no one is above freedom of speech, rather than merely to insult Muslims.

And yet, many, like you, are here not to express some sort of support of freedom of speech, but to talk shit about Muslims. Yes, you have the right - to be an asshole, to express your own foul pieces of hatred. But that doesn't mean people are buying into your "oh it's just about freedom of speech" sugar-coating, especially not when folks like you cannot resist any opportunity to bash religions and are using this whole fiasco as an excuse to do so.

[Ghostbear]

And yet, many, like you, are here not to express some sort of support of freedom of speech, but to talk shit about Muslims. Yes, you have the right - to be an asshole, to express your own foul pieces of hatred. But that doesn't mean people are buying into your "oh it's just about freedom of speech" sugar-coating, especially not when folks like you cannot resist any opportunity to bash religions and are using this whole fiasco as an excuse to do so.

There are always going to be people in something like DMD that are there solely for the sake of being a jerk, but their presence does not invalidate the ideals or goals of the others. It hasn't been about nor is it about being an asshole, it's about showing people that they can't use their beliefs to silence others. People don't think they should be able to say "This offends me, and I'll threaten to kill you for it". The method of stating that happens to be offensive to those people, but that isn't out of hate for their belief, but hate for their application of their beliefs to other people; besides, it'd be nearly impossible to get their point across at all without offending anyone. You can call that "foul hatred" if you wish, but I'd rather call it perfectly reasonable and actually fulfilling the stated purpose.

[Jave D]

And yet, many, like you, are here not to express some sort of support of freedom of speech, but to talk shit about Muslims. Yes, you have the right - to be an asshole, to express your own foul pieces of hatred. But that doesn't mean people are buying into your "oh it's just about freedom of speech" sugar-coating, especially not when folks like you cannot resist any opportunity to bash religions and are using this whole fiasco as an excuse to do so.

There are always going to be people in something like DMD that are there solely for the sake of being a jerk, but their presence does not invalidate the ideals or goals of the others. It hasn't been about nor is it about being an asshole, it's about showing people that they can't use their beliefs to silence others. People don't think they should be able to say "This offends me, and I'll threaten to kill you for it". The method of stating that happens to be offensive to those people, but that isn't out of hate for their belief, but hate for their application of their beliefs to other people; besides, it'd be nearly impossible to get their point across at all without offending anyone. You can call that "foul hatred" if you wish, but I'd rather call it perfectly reasonable and actually fulfilling the stated purpose.

Yeah, I'm going to call it "foul hatred" when someone dismisses the holy books of three religions as "foul hatred." Or as another delightful poster said of the religions as "barbaric mythology" they couldn't wait to see eradicated. You could call that perfectly reasonable if you wish though. I'm not going to participate in your sugar-coating however.

The people who make threats are not going to be reading any of this in the first place, and are a minority of believers. So mostly this whole enterprise carries the message of [often intense] disrespect towards the faith of people who simply have that faith and don't actually threaten to kill anyone at all.

Of course I'm sure that if someone were the type to threaten to kill others, they won't do that anymore as long as a lot of people on the internet are assholes to their belief system. Let's congratulate ourselves for a mission accomplished. And for being so perfectly reasonable.

[Xeio]

Of course I'm sure that if someone were the type to threaten to kill others, they won't do that anymore as long as a lot of people on the internet are assholes to their belief system. Let's congratulate ourselves for a mission accomplished. And for being so perfectly reasonable.

See, you're still equating "not following your belief system" with "being an asshole to your belief system". Non-muslims are under no obligations not to draw Muhammad. Muhammad doesn't get some magical protection above all the other prophets/dieties/whatever.

[Ghostbear]

Yeah, I'm going to call it "foul hatred" when someone dismisses the holy books of three religions as "foul hatred." Or as another delightful poster said of the religions as "barbaric mythology" they couldn't wait to see eradicated. You could call that perfectly reasonable if you wish though. I'm not going to participate in your sugar-coating however.

The people who make threats are not going to be reading any of this in the first place, and are a minority of believers. So mostly this whole enterprise carries the message of [often intense] disrespect towards the faith of people who simply have that faith and don't actually threaten to kill anyone at all.

Of course I'm sure that if someone were the type to threaten to kill others, they won't do that anymore as long as a lot of people on the internet are assholes to their belief system. Let's congratulate ourselves for a mission accomplished. And for being so perfectly reasonable.

You weren't calling just their statement "foul hatred"- you were calling all who participate in or support or agree with DMD as expressing "foul hatred". You can easily find reprehensible ("barbaric") ideas within the holy books of those abrahamic religions- perhaps individual practitioners aren't party to those specific beliefs, but those religions are built upon, at least in part, and hold sacred the teachings of those books. I don't think it'd at all require "mental masturbation" to reach a negative conclusion for those books. You can say that the statement of such was overly harsh perhaps, but definitely not "mental masturbation"- an equally loaded and needlessly rude term itself.

What does it matter that the people who make threats aren't reading this topic? None of the republican candidates read the republican primary thread, no one from the tea party leadership is reading the tea party thread, the Virginia government doesn't read the thread about their proposed abortion law... Are we not allowed to discuss a subject if the worst offenders related to it are not participatory to that discussions? This thread isn't about reaching out to those people at all. This thread is discussing the validity of DMD, it's about discussing the reasoning behind it, the history of it, the events and people around it- in short, it's about discussing DMD itself (hence the topic title). I do not agree with your opinions, but these posts are exactly what the thread is about.

If I may ask, how are people sugar coating DMD? If you truly think it's all about pure hatred, can you give any further evidence or reasoning behind it being disrespectful? I can't attempt to refute your reasoning until I see it, and I would like to give a serious chance such. As for the disrespect itself: someones views are backwards, wrong, or otherwise unacceptable to a group of people- telling them that they're wrong with that idea is always going to be disrespectful by default. I don't think I could attempt to reason to a muslim that would threaten (or wish to threaten) to kill someone for drawing Mohammad that their beliefs do not trump those of others without eventually having to express something that they saw as disrespectful (unless they were an inhumanely reasonable and calm person- which, obviously through the use of "inhumanely", very few people are- I know I'm not- and someone who responds to being offended with threats of violence certainly isn't either).

I am under no obligation to learn enough about a belief system that I am not party to in order to avoid insulting it when I wish to- there are more religions out there than I care to count, and abrahamic beliefs don't deserve to be on a special pedestal for special treatment. Yet, they are under an obligation to understand that not everyone shares their religious beliefs and should not be forced to follow the teachings thereof, and certainly not that individual's interpretations of those teachings.

[Lucrece]

And yet, many, like you, are here not to express some sort of support of freedom of speech, but to talk shit about Muslims. Yes, you have the right - to be an asshole, to express your own foul pieces of hatred. But that doesn't mean people are buying into your "oh it's just about freedom of speech" sugar-coating, especially not when folks like you cannot resist any opportunity to bash religions and are using this whole fiasco as an excuse to do so.

There are always going to be people in something like DMD that are there solely for the sake of being a jerk, but their presence does not invalidate the ideals or goals of the others. It hasn't been about nor is it about being an asshole, it's about showing people that they can't use their beliefs to silence others. People don't think they should be able to say "This offends me, and I'll threaten to kill you for it". The method of stating that happens to be offensive to those people, but that isn't out of hate for their belief, but hate for their application of their beliefs to other people; besides, it'd be nearly impossible to get their point across at all without offending anyone. You can call that "foul hatred" if you wish, but I'd rather call it perfectly reasonable and actually fulfilling the stated purpose.

Yeah, I'm going to call it "foul hatred" when someone dismisses the holy books of three religions as "foul hatred." Or as another delightful poster said of the religions as "barbaric mythology" they couldn't wait to see eradicated. You could call that perfectly reasonable if you wish though. I'm not going to participate in your sugar-coating however.

The people who make threats are not going to be reading any of this in the first place, and are a minority of believers. So mostly this whole enterprise carries the message of [often intense] disrespect towards the faith of people who simply have that faith and don't actually threaten to kill anyone at all.

Of course I'm sure that if someone were the type to threaten to kill others, they won't do that anymore as long as a lot of people on the internet are assholes to their belief system. Let's congratulate ourselves for a mission accomplished. And for being so perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, nothing barbaric about prescribing the death penalty to non-violent offenders and calling menstruation unclean. Or the way that the deity allegedly inspiring those writing the text chose and allowed for his son to die to "absolve" people on their supposed innate wickedness (that he cursed them with to begin with, him being their Creator and all), i.e. human sacrifice.

But, "it's metaphorical!"

[mike-l]

You only read to confirm your own bigotry, and so all you saw was what you wanted to see - a big circular reasoning mental masturbation.

Sounds a lot like how most Christians I've met read the bible.

Also, I'll fully admit that the Bible says plenty of good things, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc etc. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain PLENTY of foul hatred, eg rape victims must marry their attackers. Unless of course she's married, in which case we just kill her.

[yurell]

I know about as much of Islamic religion as I do of Christian and Jewish — I've read the holy books that each claim to believe in, and they are foul pieces of hateful literature.

Then you know absolutely nothing about any of those religions. You only read to confirm your own bigotry, and so all you saw was what you wanted to see - a big circular reasoning mental masturbation.

Oh bugger off, suggesting that they claim to worship a God who is vile in almost every respect is not bigotry. The reason I read the Bible and the Quran, oh omniscient mind-reader, was not to confirm my bigotry but to find out what the fuck we're meant to be worshipping I was raised Catholic, you liar, and so reading the Bible was an exercise to find out more, just as reading the Quran was an exercise in finding out what the Muslims believe. They may not act on this belief, as most Christians don', but they still claim they do. Would you say it's fine for me to publicly worship Hitler as a loving God, and ignore the backstory?

And yet, many, like you, are here not to express some sort of support of freedom of speech, but to talk shit about Muslims. Yes, you have the right - to be an asshole, to express your own foul pieces of hatred. But that doesn't mean people are buying into your "oh it's just about freedom of speech" sugar-coating, especially not when folks like you cannot resist any opportunity to bash religions and are using this whole fiasco as an excuse to do so.

Where the hell do you get off with that bullshit?! No, you are absolutely wrong — I said their holy book is vile and so is the God they claim to worship, and I specifically said I am against drawing Muhammed as a deliberate attack against Muslims. If you're going to accuse me of being racist because I have an opinion about a character in a Fantasy story, you better not start talking shit about Sauron.
Or perhaps you want some source as to why I think that their holy book is vile?

Spoiler:

How about Quran 9:30: "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" Oh, so Jews and Christians are perverse? That's not racist at all! How dare I not support that!

How about Quran 2:178-179: "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom. And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)." I'm sure he means for you to nicely murder an innocent slave in retaliation for your own being killed, and that eye-for-an-eye justice is a very nice talisman to ward off evil. How could I possibly read that as unjust?!

How about Quran 6:70: "And forsake those who take their religion for a pastime and a jest, and whom the life of the world beguileth. Remind (mankind) hereby lest a soul be destroyed by what it earneth. It hath beside Allah no protecting ally nor intercessor, and though it offer every compensation it will not be accepted from it. Those are they who perish by their own deserts. For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they disbelieved." I'm sure he means unbelievers will be forced to drink cool, refreshing, mineral boiling water. I can't imagine how I read that as cruel and intolerant to begin with!

How about Quran 67:5-7: And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame. And for those who disbelieve in their Lord there is the doom of hell, a hapless journey's end! When they are flung therein they hear its roaring as it boileth up". Of course! Stars are missiles to be hurled at devils, not giant balls of roiling gas light years away, how foolish of me to question the Quran on science!

How about Quran 4:176: "They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things. " So we're only worth half of what men are? Wow, and to think I first read that as a sexist statement!

How about Quran 9:83-85: "If Allah bring thee back (from the campaign) unto a party of them and they ask of thee leave to go out (to fight), then say unto them: Ye shall never more go out with me nor fight with me against a foe. Ye were content with sitting still the first time. So sit still, with the useless. And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers. Let not their wealth nor their children please thee! Allah purposeth only to punish them thereby in the world, and that their souls shall pass away while they are disbelievers." Did the Quran just call all moderate Muslims who refuse to fight 'unbelievers'? Well, how could I have read that as a violent text?!

I feel fully vindicated in my description of how foul this book is, and I hold the same true for both the New and Old Testaments. And while you go off saying that I'm using this situation to bash Muslims, I'm not — I'm using it to bash that story book they claim to believe, just like that of the Christians and the Jews, or do Muslims deserve a precious place above criticisms for their favourite story? Of course, you can't take anything I say at face value, because of Quran 29:12: "Those who disbelieve say unto those who believe: Follow our way (of religion) and we verily will bear your sins (for you). They cannot bear aught of their sins. Lo! they verily are liars. " You see, I'm a liar because I'm a non-believer.

Nearly everyone else can get their point across without your level of spiteful invective. Try to do the same. -Hawk

[Jonesthe Spy]

So aside from the fact that things like this naturally attract haters like yurell there, there's alos the "What the heck is your point?" aspect. Who, exactly, in this group of well-fed westerners is in danger of having their free speech suppressed by fundamentalist Muslims? Hmm, that would be...no one. If you're that concerned about free speech, why not figure out some way to, for instance, protest in favor of Julian Assange and Wikileaks? Or instead of attacking the religion of folks far away, why not actually do something that would create some controversy right where you are and THEN expalin to everyone it's because demonstrating the importance of free speech. You could proclaim "ANNE FRANK WAS A LITTLE BITCH Day", that will provoke some thoughtful comments on the need for freedom of expression, I'm sure.

[curtis95112]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammed_cartoons
More than a hundred people died, and there were assassination attempts against the well-fed western cartoonists.

[yurell]

So aside from the fact that things like this naturally attract haters like yurell there

'Haters'? Oh, I'm sorry, I don't think of myself as a hater so much as 'someone who thinks we deserve the same rights as men', and 'someone who thinks stoning to death is morally reprehensible'. Believe it or not, believing that women are worth half as much as men is called 'misogyny', and the antonym of 'misogynist' isn't 'hater'. If you're going to insult me, show that I'm wrong. Show that it's not a vile book, or stop trying to pretend that my dislike for the Quran & Bible is based on irrational hate and not rational analysis.

[Dauric]

DMD wouldn't be a 'thing' if Muslims in the middle east didn't -Kill- -People- over these drawings.

Evangelical Christians routinely portray atheists as chaotic psychotics without a moral rudder to prevent them from slaughtering an entire mall on a whim, and practitioners of modern Wicca or other new-age spiritualist movements are clearly being led by Satan himself to brew evil potions in smoking cauldrons. Yet no highway billboard or church-signboard expressing these beliefs either inspires the broad communities of atheists or spiritualists to riot in front of churches, or firebomb them while in session. Yet this thing happens regularly in the Middle East, often resulting in fatalities.

I have half-a-dozen computer games (at least) that re-interpret christian theology, and not always in flattering terms, yet the Vatican has yet to put a bounty on the game designers at Squaresoft for Xenogears or Vagrant Story the way a bounty was put on the head of Salman Rushdie for "The Satanic Verses".

Mideast practice of Islam is an outlier in the astoundingly low value that it places on human life -in it's practice-. Sure, the texts of the Koran, properly interpreted (by some arguments) don't support the cheap view of life espoused by the (so-called) 'Islamic Fundamentalists' in the Middle East, and sure the mosque leaders calling for people to be killed over various insults to their faith are cases of "Doing It Wrong", but there's so many there doing it wrong!

Sure there would be individuals drawing Muhammad with a bomb-turban the way that Pope Benedict gets compared to Emperor Palpatine, and of course they'd be widely repeated memes , but there's no "Draw the Pope as a Movie Villain Day. "

The existence of DMD comes directly as a response to the leaders of Islam in the Middle East having such disproportionate responses that devalue human life to a degree that other cultures find abhorrent. Responses that are far in excess of any other religious organization, including practitioners of Islam elsewhere in the world.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I'm not making a moral judgement whether DMD is a good way to react to Mideast Islamic death threats or not, just making the observation that the way Islam in the Mideast interacts with slights from other cultures is 1) completely out of whack with every other significant religion elsewhere in the world and 2) because of it's unique behavior it gets unique treatment.

[mike-l]

So aside from the fact that things like this naturally attract haters like yurell there, there's alos the "What the heck is your point?" aspect. Who, exactly, in this group of well-fed westerners is in danger of having their free speech suppressed by fundamentalist Muslims? Hmm, that would be...no one. If you're that concerned about free speech, why not figure out some way to, for instance, protest in favor of Julian Assange and Wikileaks? Or instead of attacking the religion of folks far away, why not actually do something that would create some controversy right where you are and THEN expalin to everyone it's because demonstrating the importance of free speech. You could proclaim "ANNE FRANK WAS A LITTLE BITCH Day", that will provoke some thoughtful comments on the need for freedom of expression, I'm sure.

The point is not the importance of free speech/expression, the point is pointing out the ridiculousness and wrongness of responding to speech/expression with threats or actual violence. (Especially when the expression you are upset about is that you are violent!)

Now, you've got a 'this doesn't directly affect you, so why bother', 'why do this when you could do that instead', 'you're wrong because you're well off', 'you're a hater because you don't like rape', and you top the whole thing off with Godwin. Aside from the fact that those are all logical fallacies, most are not even applicable, as the other posters have already pointed out.

[Lucrece]

It was pretty funny when he started talking about haters when he could barely contain his contempt for "well-fed Westerners". He really hasn't taken a trip to some parts of Latin America, let alone the U.S.

[BeerBottle]

Ouch! Well let me try and respond to some of these comments

Yeah, nothing barbaric about prescribing the death penalty to non-violent offenders

Are you american? If so then (depending on the state where you live) you can be executed for the non-violent crimes of espionage or treason - and if you're in the military you can be killed for desertion (surely the opposite of violence!) and several other non-violent crimes. Barbaric?

and calling menstruation unclean.

You're taking a pejorative meaning of 'unclean' which isn't warranted. As a result of their status, menstruating women are excused from the 5 daily prayers (i.e. they get a week-ish off every month). To me that sounds like a pro-women policy?

And now some response to yurell.

How about Quran 9:30: "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" Oh, so Jews and Christians are perverse? That's not racist at all! How dare I not support that!

Perverse: turned away from what is right or good : corrupt : improper, incorrect. Islamic theology is clear that there is no god but God. So claiming Jesus is (some kind of) god is improper, incorrect, and Jesus' message has been corrupted in this way. In general there are differences between Islam, Christianity, Judaism and other religions - but what is in common is much greater - see Quran 2:62 "Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and do good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
So Islam is explicitly accepting of other faiths - all these faiths come from the same root and we all worship the same God. And Islam is also explicity anti-racist. In the Prophet Muhammed's last sermon (which you should read in it's entirety, it's not very long) he said:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white; except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood.

How about Quran 2:178-179: "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom. And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)." I'm sure he means for you to nicely murder an innocent slave in retaliation for your own being killed, and that eye-for-an-eye justice is a very nice talisman to ward off evil. How could I possibly read that as unjust?!

That's not the correct interpretation. These verses limit the previous practice of ongoing blood feuds, where one murder would lead to continuing killing, and many many people would end up dying. The verse also states that it is much better to accept lesser punishment than insist on capital punishment.

How about Quran 6:70: "And forsake those who take their religion for a pastime and a jest, and whom the life of the world beguileth. Remind (mankind) hereby lest a soul be destroyed by what it earneth. It hath beside Allah no protecting ally nor intercessor, and though it offer every compensation it will not be accepted from it. Those are they who perish by their own deserts. For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they disbelieved." I'm sure he means unbelievers will be forced to drink cool, refreshing, mineral boiling water. I can't imagine how I read that as cruel and intolerant to begin with!

Yep, Islam has judgement and punishment, and if you do evil deeds then you get punished. What's the alternative, do evil deeds and not get punished?

How about Quran 67:5-7: And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame. And for those who disbelieve in their Lord there is the doom of hell, a hapless journey's end! When they are flung therein they hear its roaring as it boileth up". Of course! Stars are missiles to be hurled at devils, not giant balls of roiling gas light years away, how foolish of me to question the Quran on science!

The Quran isn't a science textbook, because man can figure out science for himself. The Quran tells us things (about God, Judegment, the transience of this world) that we couldn't figure out ourselves. In fact the Quran is staunchly pro science:

[Quran 3:190-191] Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day - there are indeed signs for men of understanding; Men who remember Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the creation of the heavens and the earth
[Quran 41:53] Soon will We show them Our Signs in the farthest horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes manifest to them that it is the Truth

This second verse describes how mankind will extend knowledge to the furthest horizons (the very large - astronomy/cosmology) and the very small (within themselves) biology, chemistry, particle physics, and all of this will point to the presence of God.

How about Quran 4:176: "They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things. " So we're only worth half of what men are? Wow, and to think I first read that as a sexist statement!

If you define worth of a person in terms of money! Islam has no such view. Men are given more inheritance as they must pay for the upkeep of their families (wives and children, parents and wives parents) while women keep the money for themselves.

How about Quran 9:83-85: "If Allah bring thee back (from the campaign) unto a party of them and they ask of thee leave to go out (to fight), then say unto them: Ye shall never more go out with me nor fight with me against a foe. Ye were content with sitting still the first time. So sit still, with the useless. And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave. Lo! they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and they died while they were evil-doers. Let not their wealth nor their children please thee! Allah purposeth only to punish them thereby in the world, and that their souls shall pass away while they are disbelievers." Did the Quran just call all moderate Muslims who refuse to fight 'unbelievers'? Well, how could I have read that as a violent text?!

The specific 'fight' referred to here was an existential struggle where the whole of Islam could easily have been wiped out. In that situation, doing nothing really was aiding the enemy. Today, no such threat exists, and the fight that all muslims must partake in is not a physical one but against desires, temptations, base instincts, the fleeting pleasures of this world, taking the easy way leading to injustice, oppression and hatred. Again, in this fight, doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.

Here is Muhammed's last sermon:

Spoiler:

O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore, listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and take these words to those who could not be present here today.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed reckon your deeds. God has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. God has Judged that there shall be no interest, and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn Abd’al Muttalib shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under a trust from God and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship God, perform your five daily prayers, fast during the month of Ramadan, and offer Zakat. Perform Hajj if you have the means.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over white; [none have superiority over another] except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, no prophet or apostle will come after me, and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and it may be that the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O God, that I have conveyed your message to your people.

[Ghostbear]

Are you american? If so then (depending on the state where you live) you can be executed for the non-violent crimes of espionage or treason - and if you're in the military you can be killed for desertion (surely the opposite of violence!) and several other non-violent crimes. Barbaric?

That such a law exists with someone's own culture does not prevent them from seeing it as barbaric- as an example, I think the death penalty (regardless of offense) is such (others may disagree), but the fact that capital punishment is permitted in my nation does not prevent me from criticizing it. It merely means that I see some of the laws of my own nation as also barbaric.

That's not the correct interpretation. These verses limit the previous practice of ongoing blood feuds, where one murder would lead to continuing killing, and many many people would end up dying. The verse also states that it is much better to accept lesser punishment than insist on capital punishment.

And if someone deems the limits that are placed on those retributions to be so high as to remain barbaric? For an extreme case to illustrate the point- if I place a limit on the punishment for jaywalking, but I make that limit "torture then execution", that would have two issues. The first being that "limited" retribution is unjustified, such as to be wrong. The second problem is that by placing the limit at that point, it would stand as a tacit tolerance of a retribution of that magnitude.

Yep, Islam has judgement and punishment, and if you do evil deeds then you get punished. What's the alternative, do evil deeds and not get punished?

The issue here is not that it prescribes punishment on "evil deeds", but that "non-believer" is of such evilness that such people must be punished with death (and a rather unpleasant death by the sounds of it). I would classify killing people solely because they do not share your exact belief system to be perhaps one of the best examples of barbarism.

If you define worth of a person in terms of money! Islam has no such view. Men are given more inheritance as they must pay for the upkeep of their families (wives and children, parents and wives parents) while women keep the money for themselves.

Isn't such rigid codification of gender roles, such that they must create a specific inheritance law around it (as per your explanation), a good fit for barbaric? Beyond that, the complaint seems to be that men are deemed more deserving- merely by being male- of inheritance than women, not the monetary "worth" of a person.

The specific 'fight' referred to here was an existential struggle where the whole of Islam could easily have been wiped out. In that situation, doing nothing really was aiding the enemy. Today, no such threat exists, and the fight that all muslims must partake in is not a physical one but against desires, temptations, base instincts, the fleeting pleasures of this world, taking the easy way leading to injustice, oppression and hatred. Again, in this fight, doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.

Here you are making a logical error- that because the passage has been "re-purposed" by modern islamic theology does not prevent the passage as written from being barbaric. Yurell was very specific about the book being the object of vileness, not necessarily the modern practice thereof. That they are able to find a better interpretation, perhaps more fitting to their present lives, does not invalidate the criticism that the passage as written is barbaric.

[yurell]

Yep, Islam has judgement and punishment, and if you do evil deeds then you get punished. What's the alternative, do evil deeds and not get punished?

False dichotomy — there's a big difference between 'not getting punished for a crime' and 'being forced to drink boiling water for a crime'. Added to that, I do not believe what is written there to be a crime, since it refers entirely to apostasy (which you call an 'evil deed'). So do you support forcing apostates to drink boiling water as a just punishment? Or do you believe it to be immoral?

The Quran isn't a science textbook, because man can figure out science for himself.

Truer words have never been spoken.

The Quran tells us things (about God, Judegment, the transience of this world) that we couldn't figure out ourselves.

The Lord of the Rings tells us things (about Sauron, orcs, the inevitable end of elven culture in Middle Earth) that we couldn't figure out ourselves. I'm sorry, if you don't want a comparison to a fantasy book, you need to come up with independent evidence and an agreed upon method to figure out which parts of the Quran are true, and which parts are metaphors.

In fact the Quran is staunchly pro science: [two passages omitted for space]

Even ignoring the insane amount of scientifically incorrect statements in the Quran (which is odd for something supposedly divinely inspired), that isn't the only thing the Quran says about science, such as
[Quran 2:13] "And when it is said unto them: believe as the people believe, they say: shall we believe as the foolish believe ? are not they indeed the foolish ? But they know not." So the wise must believe as the foolish believe?
That said, its scientific inaccuracies, although numerous, aren't at all part of why I call it vile.

If you define worth of a person in terms of money! Islam has no such view. Men are given more inheritance as they must pay for the upkeep of their families (wives and children, parents and wives parents) while women keep the money for themselves.

In terms of money? How about in terms of value of testimony (Quran 2:282)? That said, why does a man have to pay for the upkeep of his wife by himself? What if there are only two people to inherit: an unwed woman and an unwed man? Does the Quran say that should there be no difference in economic situation both should get equal amounts? No, it doesn't. It's just enforcing a social structure in which women are dependent on men, rather than condemning inequality and advocating equality among the sexes. I was using that to illustrate that the book is sexist.

But how about the other sexist sections in the Quran, such as 2:187, which instructs men to have intercourse with their wives (with no regard as to what their wives want)? How about 2:223 "Your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as ye will ..."? Or how about where it explicitly states "men are a degree above" women, in 2:228? Or "Men are in charge of women" in 4:34? Or earlier in 2:228 where it states women aren't allowed to have sex three months after a divorce, but makes no such rule for men (further restrictions in 2:234 for if the man dies)? 4:3 clearly states polygamy is okay — if the Quran isn't sexist, where's the passage that says polyandry is acceptable?

I think I'll stop there for sexism, although there is much more.

The specific 'fight' referred to here was an existential struggle where the whole of Islam could easily have been wiped out. In that situation, doing nothing really was aiding the enemy.

And what did the children do to deserve to be ostracised?

[Quoting Mohammed] If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

[Emphasis mine, edited for space]I see he was sexist too.

Remember, one day you will appear before God and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

Threatens them should they leave the religion, funny how that's also popular with the mob.


And there are so many more examples of how the Quran is vile, such as condoning slavery (e.g. 4:3), condemning homosexuality (7:80, 26:165, 27:54 & 29:28), condoning forced mass starvation (7:130), ensuring that non-believers won't believe so that they can be doomed (2:6) which will be horrible (2:114), warfare is ordained (2:216), encouraging terrorising people (3:151), religious wars shall be rewarded (4:74), encourages war-crimes (2:194), fight until all other religions are destroyed (2:193), forbids intermarriage (2:221) and many more.

[Zamfir]

Just to be clear, I'm not making a moral judgement whether DMD is a good way to react to Mideast Islamic death threats or not, just making the observation that the way Islam in the Mideast interacts with slights from other cultures is 1) completely out of whack with every other significant religion elsewhere in the world and 2) because of it's unique behavior it gets unique treatment.

I am a bit uncomfortable with statements like this. It only works if you shove a billion muslims in a bin, and take everything that comes out as typical for the bin. And then carefully make separate bins for the likes of Ian Paisley or Anders Breivik, instead of accepting them as an integral part of western or christian culture.

Or take this:

A decade after he was indicted for the "ethnic cleansing" of at least 90,000 Serbs from Croatia in 1995, Ante Gotovina, a commander in the storming of Serbian strongholds that changed the course of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, is to learn his fate at the international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The verdict is keenly awaited in the Balkans, and with great nervousness in nowhere more so than Zagreb. The influential Roman Catholic church has been calling for prayers and fasting in the hope of an acquittal.

Marches and "pilgrimages" have been organised. The Croatian prime minister, Jadranka Kosor, is urging "calm and dignity" as thousands of former fighters prepare to vent their spleen if Gotovina and two former fellow ex-commanders are found guilty.

Is this a sign that Christianity in the west shows a unique penchant to commit and apologize ethnic cleansing? Or does it only tell us something about Catholics, or only about Croatian catholics, or only about a specific nationalist subset of Croatian catholics?

The closer people get to you, the easier it gets to see how they are different from you, and to distuingish subtleties. Imagine yourself half a globe and a language barrier away. Then think about Rick Santorum, apparently in the race for president of the US. From that point of view, how much confidence could you muster that Americans are a religiously tolerant people, whose military will always treat muslims with the same care and respect as they would treat christians?

[Роберт]

So aside from the fact that things like this naturally attract haters like yurell there, there's alos the "What the heck is your point?" aspect. Who, exactly, in this group of well-fed westerners is in danger of having their free speech suppressed by fundamentalist Muslims? Hmm, that would be...no one.

Incorrect. Learn to read.

@BeerBottle and @Yurell: if you want to discuss Islamic theology, that's fine, but you might find another thread to do it in.

[Jave D]

You weren't calling just their statement "foul hatred"- you were calling all who participate in or support or agree with DMD as expressing "foul hatred".

Sorry, no I wasn't. I was responding to a specific post and not painting with so large a brush as all that.

You can easily find reprehensible ("barbaric") ideas within the holy books of those abrahamic religions- perhaps individual practitioners aren't party to those specific beliefs, but those religions are built upon, at least in part, and hold sacred the teachings of those books. I don't think it'd at all require "mental masturbation" to reach a negative conclusion for those books. You can say that the statement of such was overly harsh perhaps, but definitely not "mental masturbation"- an equally loaded and needlessly rude term itself.

It's mental masturbation in the sense that one starts with a belief, (i.e., "Abrahamic religions are fairy tales/fictions and barbaric"), reads a book or looks at some 'representatives' (i.e., Islamic terrorists) and "concludes" that same belief through the virtue of concentrating on any evidence that supports the bias and completely ignoring and dismissing all evidence that contradicts it. However that negative conclusion is reached initially, it is definitely being sustained by mental masturbation, because that is essentially the process one undergoes to maintain any prejudice or bigotry. Especially those involving some huge generalizations, like the ones we're talking about.

See, you're still equating "not following your belief system" with "being an asshole to your belief system".

I have not.

Yeah, nothing barbaric about prescribing the death penalty to non-violent offenders and calling menstruation unclean. Or the way that the deity allegedly inspiring those writing the text chose and allowed for his son to die to "absolve" people on their supposed innate wickedness (that he cursed them with to begin with, him being their Creator and all), i.e. human sacrifice.

But, "it's metaphorical!"

Now see here, Ghostbear. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The above sentiments are sweeping hatred, in support of the "religion is barbaric" idea, and based entirely on cherry-picking some ideas which are allegedly in support of that idea while ignoring and dismissing any and all ideas which are contrary. This isn't about freedom of speech, this is about taking a piss all over two world religions, with DMD as a mere excuse.

There's no arguing with bigotry. Someone has a problem with the idea of God. Not my problem, and that is supposedly not what this topic is about. Or is it?

Also, I'll fully admit that the Bible says plenty of good things, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc etc. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain PLENTY of foul hatred, eg rape victims must marry their attackers. Unless of course she's married, in which case we just kill her.

If one reads these things in context instead of putting them all on the same page, one can find that this "foul hatred" isn't meant for you or I to follow. Context is crucial in reading comprehension, and never more so with scripture. Simply isolating certain things like laws in Leviticus, assuming they are telling us to kill rape victims, and then using that to dismiss the entire Bible is like banning Of Mice and Men because of the foul, foul language used and completely ignoring any other worth it might have.

Oh bugger off, suggesting that they claim to worship a God who is vile in almost every respect is not bigotry. The reason I read the Bible and the Quran, oh omniscient mind-reader, was not to confirm my bigotry but to find out what the fuck we're meant to be worshipping I was raised Catholic, you liar, and so reading the Bible was an exercise to find out more, just as reading the Quran was an exercise in finding out what the Muslims believe. They may not act on this belief, as most Christians don', but they still claim they do. Would you say it's fine for me to publicly worship Hitler as a loving God, and ignore the backstory?

Suggesting that God is "vile" not only displays your total lack of understanding about God, but is indeed rather vile and bigoted. The Bible and Quran do not describe a God who is "vile in almost every respect." I haven't lied once yet, either. As for you worshiping Hitler, well, who am I to say that Hitler is not your god? You certainly have that whole "religion sucks" idea down pat, which was kind of a big thing with him.

Where the hell do you get off with that bullshit?! No, you are absolutely wrong — I said their holy book is vile and so is the God they claim to worship, and I specifically said I am against drawing Muhammed as a deliberate attack against Muslims. If you're going to accuse me of being racist because I have an opinion about a character in a Fantasy story, you better not start talking shit about Sauron.

This is nonsense. I didn't accuse you of being racist. So what, you're against DMD, and drawing Muhammed as a deliberate attack.... but you're in favor of using any opportunity (like this thread) to attack Islamic beliefs, books, God? So it's just sort of a bonus or accidental attack?

Or perhaps you want some source as to why I think that their holy book is vile?

Where did you get the idea that I wanted more bigoted, hateful bullshit? Was I just not criticizing you at all, and was really just saying "Yes, please, bashing Islam and religions and God is good, let's do that a lot more please!"?

Your "source for why you think" the way you do is nothing but the standard Islam-bashing citations, combined with your biased and bigoted interpretation. It doesn't actually suggest why you're frothing-at-the-mouth angry. Especially since you think it's "a Fantasy story." Have you ever gotten this worked up over Tolkein?

Ah, but what am I thinking? - you were raised Catholic, so you can't be biased against Islam. Silly me.

[Xeio]

See, you're still equating "not following your belief system" with "being an asshole to your belief system".

I have not.

So you weren't referring to Draw Mohammad Day just then...?

[Ghostbear]

Sorry, no I wasn't. I was responding to a specific post and not painting with so large a brush as all that.

So then you do not believe that DMD is about hatred? Your statements (specifically around "sugar coating", and "taking a piss on two world religions") seemed to indicate a very broad brush for all those that partake in or support the idea of such. Are you OK with the idea of the day, or do you think that people (or, more usefully for discussion: a sufficient majority) only participate in or support it because they hate islam? Or in short: would you state that it is about freedom of speech or hatred? If "hatred" then you did do exactly what I said.

It's mental masturbation in the sense that one starts with a belief, (i.e., "Abrahamic religions are fairy tales/fictions and barbaric"), reads a book or looks at some 'representatives' (i.e., Islamic terrorists) and "concludes" that same belief through the virtue of concentrating on any evidence that supports the bias and completely ignoring and dismissing all evidence that contradicts it. However that negative conclusion is reached initially, it is definitely being sustained by mental masturbation, because that is essentially the process one undergoes to maintain any prejudice or bigotry. Especially those involving some huge generalizations, like the ones we're talking about.

Only if that is the exact scenario taking place. What about people such as Yurell, who state that they read the writings before drawing their conclusion? Either you believe them to be a liar (which is a very insulting claim without specific evidence- in this case, no evidence can plausibly be provided by any party), or you should very strongly reconsider your description of "mental masturbation". With respect to evidence and focusing on or ignoring others based on it, when you are dealing with a complete work- especially one that, from my understanding, its adherents claim to be divinely inspired (and thus, presumably protected from corruption)- then you should be focusing on just those "vile" statements. You don't get to make a single bad claim and cancel it out with five good ones, and I don't believe anyone here claimed the books consisted solely of reprehensible beliefs, merely that they contained them in sufficient quantity for that person to find the overall work unacceptable.

If I write a piece about the wonder of caring for animals and treating them with love and respect (which, even if you aren't an animal person, I suspect most would see as a "good" act- though some might say overly naive. If you don't think it is, then replace it with something else you do consider "good".), and add to it the occasional statement of calls for genocide, then it would be wholly illogical to state that the work was not reprehensible because of the presence of the "good" statements. You might say that a wise person would ignore the bad statements and only adhere to the good, but the work, as written, would still be unacceptable.

Yeah, nothing barbaric about prescribing the death penalty to non-violent offenders and calling menstruation unclean. Or the way that the deity allegedly inspiring those writing the text chose and allowed for his son to die to "absolve" people on their supposed innate wickedness (that he cursed them with to begin with, him being their Creator and all), i.e. human sacrifice.

But, "it's metaphorical!"

Now see here, Ghostbear. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The above sentiments are sweeping hatred, in support of the "religion is barbaric" idea, and based entirely on cherry-picking some ideas which are allegedly in support of that idea while ignoring and dismissing any and all ideas which are contrary. This isn't about freedom of speech, this is about taking a piss all over two world religions, with DMD as a mere excuse.

There's no arguing with bigotry. Someone has a problem with the idea of God. Not my problem, and that is supposedly not what this topic is about. Or is it?

As said above, cherry picking doesn't really apply when dealing with such a work when trying to draw such a conclusion. I do not see that statement as "sweeping hatred" in the least- overly aggressive perhaps, but if you'll excuse me, I think your own statements in this thread are guilty of similar. Nor do I see how it counts as bigotry? They are not specifically attacking the beliefs of the practitioners of the religion, but statements and beliefs found within the books of those religions. Yes, those are close acts, but they are not the same. I have similar issues with the abrahamic religions- does that make me a bigot? If I have an issue with deities in general, am I a bigot? It's a belief, just like islam is a belief- I would not call someone a bigot solely for not sharing my atheism, and I would expect them to not see me as a bigot solely for not sharing their theism. It's what you make of that belief, and I still do not think I have seen anyone here attack muslims for being muslim.

(Also, why is it "two" world religions? Wouldn't it be three in the context of those that share this same deity?)

If one reads these things in context instead of putting them all on the same page, one can find that this "foul hatred" isn't meant for you or I to follow. Context is crucial in reading comprehension, and never more so with scripture. Simply isolating certain things like laws in Leviticus, assuming they are telling us to kill rape victims, and then using that to dismiss the entire Bible is like banning Of Mice and Men because of the foul, foul language used and completely ignoring any other worth it might have.

Context can change the meaning of something, but sometimes, a statement is sufficiently clear and unambiguous on it's own that you can not rely on "contexting" it into something else. Taking a part already used in this argument- the passage aboutunbelievers seems rather clear to me, and I don't see any possible way for context to realistically change the meaning.

Suggesting that God is "vile" not only displays your total lack of understanding about God, but is indeed rather vile and bigoted. The Bible and Quran do not describe a God who is "vile in almost every respect." I haven't lied once yet, either. As for you worshiping Hitler, well, who am I to say that Hitler is not your god? You certainly have that whole "religion sucks" idea down pat, which was kind of a big thing with him.

See, this is an example of you applying vitriol against those you disagree with- suggesting that an opponent might actually worship Hitler due to not liking religion is hugely insulting- not just to them, but to other people attempting to discuss with you. As for the first sentence here- it does not show a "total" lack of understanding of that god, but a personal belief based on their own life experiences and rationalization- just like a statement of that god being great. Judging by your post, I presume you would agree with the later- but just because you agree with a statement does not make it less a belief. Both "god is great" and "god is vile" are beliefs- you will find one of them a more acceptable belief, but it will be a belief nonetheless.

I believe the liar part was referencing your inaccurate assumptions on why Yurell read from those books.

[mike-l]

Also, I'll fully admit that the Bible says plenty of good things, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc etc. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain PLENTY of foul hatred, eg rape victims must marry their attackers. Unless of course she's married, in which case we just kill her.

If one reads these things in context instead of putting them all on the same page, one can find that this "foul hatred" isn't meant for you or I to follow. Context is crucial in reading comprehension, and never more so with scripture. Simply isolating certain things like laws in Leviticus, assuming they are telling us to kill rape victims, and then using that to dismiss the entire Bible is like banning Of Mice and Men because of the foul, foul language used and completely ignoring any other worth it might have.

I was referring to Deuteronomy, not Leviticus. "There's good stuff and bad stuff in there" is hardly dismissing the entire thing. You're the one dismissing the bad stuff because it suits you. That's basically what your context argument is. "There's terrible stuff in here, but we're not meant to follow it so it's ok". How do you know which verses to follow? Just in Deuteronomy 22, verses 1-4 certainly fall under the 'good stuff' category, that if you see your neighbor in need somehow you should help them. Many Christians seem to be ok with verse 5

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Then there's some stuff about caring for birds, building safe houses, good again. Then there's some fashion stuff which I couldn't really care less about (though many Jews still observe). And then it goes off the deep end, whereby a man, not being satisfied with his wife, can claim she wasn't a virgin, and then have her stoned to death. I'd really like to know in what context it's even remotely acceptable to say

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

At least if she's raped out in the country she is spared (which makes it evident that the crime is indeed not crying out), and then for the unwed women, the forced marriage to their attackers. Oh, and my favorite line in the chapter, especially given verse 5

22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

Ok, so I follow verses 1-4, 6-8, and 25-28, but ignore the rest right? What about the context makes those verses ok but the others not?

[Dauric]

Ok, so I follow verses 1-4, 6-8, and 25-28, but ignore the rest right?

Sure, holy books are like "Simon Says" right?

Simon Says "help your neighbor". Simon Says "don't build rickety sheds to live in." "Dress in your wife's clothes."

HA! Gotcha, you go to hell until the great battle between heaven and hell when we start the next round.

[Роберт]

Is it just me or are we getting pretty far off topic?

[Zamfir]

Indeed. There are more than enough 'how evil is religion' threads elsewhere on this forum

[BeerBottle]

A lot to respond to - below I've highlighted some points where you've materially misunderstood the verses:

False dichotomy — there's a big difference between 'not getting punished for a crime' and 'being forced to drink boiling water for a crime'. Added to that, I do not believe what is written there to be a crime, since it refers entirely to apostasy (which you call an 'evil deed'). So do you support forcing apostates to drink boiling water as a just punishment? Or do you believe it to be immoral?

Whoops - didn't make this clear, but the whole drinking boiling water thing is a punishment in the afterlife - hell is often described this way in the Quran. So no live people are to be fed boiling water! And since God has perfect justice, if that is a punishment he decrees, we can't argue.

BeerBottle wrote:
The specific 'fight' referred to here was an existential struggle where the whole of Islam could easily have been wiped out. In that situation, doing nothing really was aiding the enemy.

And what did the children do to deserve to be ostracised?

Again, a slight misunderstanding. The phrase 'Let not their wealth nor their children please thee!' is addressed to God (God is the thee) and is referring to the day of judgement, where another common theme in the Quran is that those who have great wealth and many children, while they could use them in this world to bargain for whatever they wanted, will find them of no use and will be judged on their deeds. So the verse means basically 'Judge them, God'

Isn't such rigid codification of gender roles, such that they must create a specific inheritance law around it (as per your explanation), a good fit for barbaric?

A strange definition of barbaric, but if you like, then yes. In which case pretty much every real society ever is barbaric, I would say.

Here you are making a logical error- that because the passage has been "re-purposed" by modern islamic theology does not prevent the passage as written from being barbaric. Yurell was very specific about the book being the object of vileness, not necessarily the modern practice thereof. That they are able to find a better interpretation, perhaps more fitting to their present lives, does not invalidate the criticism that the passage as written is barbaric.

No, I'm not making a logical error. The Quran isn't a 7th century text. It is an eternal text that is relevant to ALL times in history. So it is as relevant now as it ever was, and modern interpretations are just as valid as ancient ones (whatever some might say)

And there are so many more examples of how the Quran is vile,
1 such as condoning slavery (e.g. 4:3),
2 condemning homosexuality (7:80, 26:165, 27:54 & 29:28),
3 condoning forced mass starvation (7:130),
4 ensuring that non-believers won't believe so that they can be doomed (2:6) which will be horrible (2:114),
5 warfare is ordained (2:216),
6 encouraging terrorising people (3:151),
7 religious wars shall be rewarded (4:74),
8 encourages war-crimes (2:194),
9 fight until all other religions are destroyed (2:193),
10 forbids intermarriage (2:221) and many more.

Wow quite a list! Here goes:

1.Slavery is not outlawed but discouraged. At some times and places in human history slavery was necessary and acceptable. Modern attitudes to slavery stem from the excesses for American slavery, which was totally contrary to islamic principles.

2. No 'punishment' is defined for homosexuality. It is not outlawed.

3. No, this is an action of God. God is outside human morality, having perfect knowledge and unlimited action - this is a vital point to understand in Islamic theology and is expounded upon at length in the Quran (Surah 18 contain the parable). The verse does not condone humans carrying out this action, as evidenced in many places where collective punishment is outlawed.

4. Again, an action of God. In islam all things are predetermined. God is outside time so can see all things. All actions are known to him, so he knows who will be rewarded and who punished.

5. War is allowed, but peace must be sought at every opportunity. Aggressive war is outlawed. Killing of non combatants is outlawed. Pillage and destruction of property is outlawed. Unreasonable?

6. Wrong wrong wrong. The Quran does NOT CONDONE TERRORISM. This verse clearly states that GOD will make terror in the hearts of disbelievers, again referring to the day of judgement.

7. See 5.

8. Don't know where you're getting war crimes from. This verse is about the timing of war. Bascially don't fight in the sacred months, unless others attack you, then it's ok to fight back.

9. Read the verse,

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Did you read the second half?

10. Yep, don't marry non-muslims. Islam is a whole way of life. Most vegan animal lovers wouldn't marry a keen sports hunter. Is that vile?

EDIT: Sorry was ninja'd but the mod ruling. Do with me what you will.......

EDIT2: yurell I hope you can see that at least in some places you've misread the scripture. It is not easy to understand without some study - that's not a slight on you as there's no reason you should study it. But mistakes can easily be made when looking at small quotes and not understanding the context or the overall themes of the book. If you'd like to discuss more feel free to PM since this thread seems not to be the place....