7 ms·

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every st

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.

q4814 12y ago
> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?
- mobiplayer 12y ago
  Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?
  - codewritinfool 12y ago
    I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment This guy had the right idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.
      - Killah911 12y ago
        Seriously jacquesm? I'm truly shocked at this coming from you. I have a lot of respect you & love reading your stuff, but really? "Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not"? Surely you're not so ignorant as to dismiss the thousand years where the Islamic world was the abode of knowledge, science and civilization while Europe was in the dark ages. Yes, shit sucks for them now. But to say they never experienced enlightenment (btw, the effects of the Islamic world on the "enlightenment" is well known). Part of the problem is that we're not over our colonial instincts. Just look down on the other cultures, we're obviously the best. Our country, our people, our skin color, right? I've read about outwardly atheist and vocal scientists and philosophers from the 1100's in the Islamic world. And he was pretty revered (although today they wouldn't be able to walk down the streets of most Muslim countries with their head intact). Many of our principles are borrowed from Islamic civilization that preceded us. It's the equivalent of dismissing Egyptians and saying their problem is that they never achieved civilization like us. I still can't express how shocked I am at the shallowness of your comment. I really hope it is because you're upset. EDIT: btilly was kind enough to point out where I misinterpreted what jacquesm was stating. I took his comment as a slight, whereas it was far better thought out observation.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        'Killah911' ? Right... As for what the enlightenment was all about, maybe you should read up on that first before starting a rant like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment So no, Islam did not experience enlightenment. The closest they came to that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk and his attempt to reduce the influence of religion on politics but it mostly failed outside of Turkey and recent events there should make you worried about whether or not his legacy will last. The fact that there are anecdotes about atheists in the 1100's does nothing to contradict what I said.
        Killah911 12y ago
        Nice, if you look at my profile, you'd see there's a reason I still stick on my hacker handle form the 90's. Sorry for the ranty nature of my comment. I saw your comment and was and was about to breeze past until I saw your handle. I can appreciate your view on Kemal Ataturk. But I humbly differ in my views of him. What I was saying weren't just some anecdotes. May I humbly suggest you read up on the subject a little more before making such pronouncements. I don't care if some random person says something. But I think hope in the future rests in someone like you being informed and balanced in your views. The internet is an amazing thing. It can help melt away prejudices and connect people who think from around the world. People who have the power to shape the future. We must be more sensible and informed. (It may sound elitist, but lets face it, this place in some way is a cafe that anyone from the US or Afghanistan can join in and discuss). I'd argue that Ataturk was the wrong kind of leader. What the Muslim world needs is a Gandhi. Someone who doesn't force them to be this way or that way. All freedom need not look the same. I may be naive in thinking this, but maybe the world just needs better internet. There are people who destroy and people who build. If we could get the builders in the same community globally and get them communicating, there may be hope for a better yet. (Advance apologies for the second rant)
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century.
    - easytiger 12y ago
      Indeed. It is almost like it is a political tool used to mould and shape the actions of people to the whim of those who have the ability to control the message
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ilitirit 12y ago
  Why would you do that? Don't misinterpret me - regardless of whether you post 10000 Mohammed cartoons or 10, Islamists are not going to change their attitudes overnight.
dragontamer 12y ago
If you're gonna denounce a religion, can you at least get the sects done correctly? Wahhabism / Salafist Islam, which is a very small minority of Muslims, is the one preaching the extremist reaction. The majority of mainstream Shia / Shiite Muslims are actually peaceful. They kinda don't like the cartoons, but I don't know of any attack from "mainstream" Muslims. They all come from the Al Quaeda-inspired Salafist sect preached by Osama Bin Laden.
- waps 12y ago
  Let's see ... Freedom of speech ... the answer is "No". Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Just on page two of the newspaper in front of me is a depiction of green party voters as idiots. Apparently they're all women, ugly, fat and insane. This depiction is done to denounce what boils down to the actions of a city official. Should I write the paper complaining that there are multiple branches, men, and a great variety of ideas while complaining of racism ? An attitude like this will kill all humor. Btw what do you make of the primary source material ? Like that list of people muhammad had executed ? Is that somehow excluded from "mainstream" islam ? It seems to me a very well established point that islamic literature is not exactly peaceful, and "the prophet" is at best a warlord ... At worst ...
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    As far as Freedom of speech... yeah, he can have it. As can I, and I'm using my freedom of speech to call out ignorance. Denouncing all Muslims is utterly Bigoted, especially when you consider how much in the minority the violent Wahhabist are in the great scheme of Islam. Denounce Muslims all you want... I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, you have freedom of speech. But instead, I'll use _my_ freedom of speech to counter-argue a point. >>> Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. What do the Irish Catholic IRA have to do with Mormans? Nothing. Or Protestants? I'm asking you to understand basic Islam here. There are many Muslims. The violent sect is called Wahhabism, and most mainstream Muslims denounce that sect (Shiite and Shia are mainstream IIRC). And much like how Irish Catholics don't represent Catholics as a whole (IRA violence was not condoned by the Pope), Osama Bin Laden's specific philosophy on extremely violent Wahhabism is only a minority opinion of that minority sect.

q4814 12y ago

> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?

mobiplayer 12y ago
Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?
- codewritinfool 12y ago
  I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment This guy had the right idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.
    - Killah911 12y ago
      Seriously jacquesm? I'm truly shocked at this coming from you. I have a lot of respect you & love reading your stuff, but really? "Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not"? Surely you're not so ignorant as to dismiss the thousand years where the Islamic world was the abode of knowledge, science and civilization while Europe was in the dark ages. Yes, shit sucks for them now. But to say they never experienced enlightenment (btw, the effects of the Islamic world on the "enlightenment" is well known). Part of the problem is that we're not over our colonial instincts. Just look down on the other cultures, we're obviously the best. Our country, our people, our skin color, right? I've read about outwardly atheist and vocal scientists and philosophers from the 1100's in the Islamic world. And he was pretty revered (although today they wouldn't be able to walk down the streets of most Muslim countries with their head intact). Many of our principles are borrowed from Islamic civilization that preceded us. It's the equivalent of dismissing Egyptians and saying their problem is that they never achieved civilization like us. I still can't express how shocked I am at the shallowness of your comment. I really hope it is because you're upset. EDIT: btilly was kind enough to point out where I misinterpreted what jacquesm was stating. I took his comment as a slight, whereas it was far better thought out observation.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        'Killah911' ? Right... As for what the enlightenment was all about, maybe you should read up on that first before starting a rant like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment So no, Islam did not experience enlightenment. The closest they came to that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk and his attempt to reduce the influence of religion on politics but it mostly failed outside of Turkey and recent events there should make you worried about whether or not his legacy will last. The fact that there are anecdotes about atheists in the 1100's does nothing to contradict what I said.
        Killah911 12y ago
        Nice, if you look at my profile, you'd see there's a reason I still stick on my hacker handle form the 90's. Sorry for the ranty nature of my comment. I saw your comment and was and was about to breeze past until I saw your handle. I can appreciate your view on Kemal Ataturk. But I humbly differ in my views of him. What I was saying weren't just some anecdotes. May I humbly suggest you read up on the subject a little more before making such pronouncements. I don't care if some random person says something. But I think hope in the future rests in someone like you being informed and balanced in your views. The internet is an amazing thing. It can help melt away prejudices and connect people who think from around the world. People who have the power to shape the future. We must be more sensible and informed. (It may sound elitist, but lets face it, this place in some way is a cafe that anyone from the US or Afghanistan can join in and discuss). I'd argue that Ataturk was the wrong kind of leader. What the Muslim world needs is a Gandhi. Someone who doesn't force them to be this way or that way. All freedom need not look the same. I may be naive in thinking this, but maybe the world just needs better internet. There are people who destroy and people who build. If we could get the builders in the same community globally and get them communicating, there may be hope for a better yet. (Advance apologies for the second rant)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century.
  - easytiger 12y ago
    Indeed. It is almost like it is a political tool used to mould and shape the actions of people to the whim of those who have the ability to control the message
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ilitirit 12y ago
Why would you do that? Don't misinterpret me - regardless of whether you post 10000 Mohammed cartoons or 10, Islamists are not going to change their attitudes overnight.

dragontamer 12y ago

If you're gonna denounce a religion, can you at least get the sects done correctly? Wahhabism / Salafist Islam, which is a very small minority of Muslims, is the one preaching the extremist reaction. The majority of mainstream Shia / Shiite Muslims are actually peaceful. They kinda don't like the cartoons, but I don't know of any attack from "mainstream" Muslims. They all come from the Al Quaeda-inspired Salafist sect preached by Osama Bin Laden.

waps 12y ago
Let's see ... Freedom of speech ... the answer is "No". Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Just on page two of the newspaper in front of me is a depiction of green party voters as idiots. Apparently they're all women, ugly, fat and insane. This depiction is done to denounce what boils down to the actions of a city official. Should I write the paper complaining that there are multiple branches, men, and a great variety of ideas while complaining of racism ? An attitude like this will kill all humor. Btw what do you make of the primary source material ? Like that list of people muhammad had executed ? Is that somehow excluded from "mainstream" islam ? It seems to me a very well established point that islamic literature is not exactly peaceful, and "the prophet" is at best a warlord ... At worst ...
- dragontamer 12y ago
  As far as Freedom of speech... yeah, he can have it. As can I, and I'm using my freedom of speech to call out ignorance. Denouncing all Muslims is utterly Bigoted, especially when you consider how much in the minority the violent Wahhabist are in the great scheme of Islam. Denounce Muslims all you want... I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, you have freedom of speech. But instead, I'll use _my_ freedom of speech to counter-argue a point. >>> Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. What do the Irish Catholic IRA have to do with Mormans? Nothing. Or Protestants? I'm asking you to understand basic Islam here. There are many Muslims. The violent sect is called Wahhabism, and most mainstream Muslims denounce that sect (Shiite and Shia are mainstream IIRC). And much like how Irish Catholics don't represent Catholics as a whole (IRA violence was not condoned by the Pope), Osama Bin Laden's specific philosophy on extremely violent Wahhabism is only a minority opinion of that minority sect.