Governments block YouTube over that video
Google’s YouTube service is under fire across the Muslim world after several governments blocked the site outright after the web giant refused to remove or restrict access to a video uploaded by a US filmmaker ridiculing the Prophet Muhammed. The 13 minute video, a trailer for an amateurish film called the Innocence of Muslims, …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: It's more than the film
Are you for real? Are you seriously telling me that you remember nothing from 7 years old?
As for the age issue, while you say that the reference to being 7 comes from 1 source, quite a few others put the age at 9 years old. When you look at the available evidence then it firmly points to her being between 7 and 10 so while it cannot be pinpointed precisely, she was definitely a pre-pubescent child and today he would have been strung up by an angry mob as a dirty old man and not held up as a shining example to his fellow man.
Re: Re: It's more than the film
even if you assume that the age of 7 years was correct. The problem is, people are trying to apply today's morals and laws to something to took place over a 1000 years ago! At a time when such things weren't considered a problem nor were they uncommon.
All we do know for sure is, no one at the time gave a 2nd thought to the age. Which means that at the time the age was acceptable for marriage and that people did marry at that age.
Wrong
While people 1000 years ago may not have had quite the same definition of a child as we do and girls would be promised into marriage at a very early age it was not socially to have sex with them until they 'came of age'. That means once they had started to have their periods. Now different girls develop at different rates but only in rare cases does it happen before age 10/11 and for someone to against that, while it might not have been considered as serious a crime as it is now it was still unacceptable. Surely someone claiming to be Gods messenger would want to be seen to be behaving in a way acceptable to the time.
Re: It's more than the film
>>> Other sources, including Aisha's own account, only make sense if she was older. If she were that young, she wouldn't remember the things she said she did. The issue is the subject of scholastic argument in the Islamic world.
There is a scholastic argument about what Warp Factor 10 means, too.
Personally I choose to believe that it is "infinite velocity" the achievement of which would allow me to meld with the mind of God! I mean Allah! This must be the doctrine and all who stray from it must be destroyed!
The problem with fantasy, as well discussed in a certain recent thread, is that the story tellers tend to get things inconsistent over time. I suppose it's particularly hard with a 7th century set of word processing tools and those juicy tempting 7 year old girls running around your tent just begging for it.
Re: It's more than the film
Isn't it just as bad to try and apply 1000 year old religious doctrines to modern society?
I we can't judge mo by modern pedo standards then modern society should not be measured by mo's standards either.
Re: Wrong
"While people 1000 years ago may not have had quite the same definition of a child as we do and girls would be promised into marriage at a very early age it was not socially to have sex with them until they 'came of age'. "
Not quite. Depends what you count as "sex". Ayatollah Khomenei ruled that penetrative vaginal sex was a no-no with girls younger than nine, but "thighing" (basically rubbing yourself off on a girls thighs) was OK with toddlers. Part of his justification was that this was the practice in Mohammed's time, quoting IIRC the case of Ayesha. A search for this online suggests he also included sodomy and foreplay in his ruling, although that's not what I recall from the time it was issued.
Certain bits of Islam want to keep the theological furniture exactly where it was 1300 years ago and simply ignore the inevitable reality of shifting social customs and taboos. This is always going to leave them in conflict with everyone else.
@J1
Please, point me to examples when Muslims protested honor killings, Jihad, genital mutilation, destruction of UNESCO site in Afghanistan, stoning, suicide bombings, teaching children to hate Americans and Jews, Sharia law as interpreted by Salfists - anything that through action shows that the extremists are not representative of Muslims in general.
@solidsoup
Please point me to the rule that says the obligation is on *me* to distinguish myself from some nut-job who suddenly announces that he and his insane beliefs are the same as mine.
The position of the majority of Muslims on these matters is pretty obvious from the fact that they don't do all the things you mention. The fact that they haven't publically protested on these issues actually puts them in the same position as most Christians, Buddhists, atheists and Jedi knights.
Re: @solidsoup
Good question. It's not at all obvious and very relevant to the issue at hand. There are two claims at work here (I trust you have sufficient reading comprehension to infer them from J1s post).
1. The extremists are a few bad apples who pervert Islam and should not cast a shadow over Islam as a religion.
2. Muslims are very protective of their religion and actively protest any insults.
Would it, therefore, not be logical to question the demonstrations that occurred against people who shed innocent blood (and did all those other things I listed) in the name of Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon his name) thus insulting what Islam actually stands for?
Re: @solidsoup
Apologies if I'm being dim here but are you saying that people in countries such as Libya protesting against these attacks are somehow going against the 2 statements you inferred? Can you please tell me how you draw that conclusion because I don't see how what J1 said equates to "Muslims should respond to these insults with violence"?
Re: @solidsoup
"1. The extremists are a few bad apples who pervert Islam and should not cast a shadow over Islam as a religion."
Maybe but they're the nutters we all see. Maybe if muslims bitchslapped these idiots more often then perhaps they all wouldn't get tarred with the same brush
"2. Muslims are very protective of their religion and actively protest any insults."
By burning and killing anyone remotely connected as well as plenty who had nothing to do with it just for fun.
Hint: All we see is what the media shows us and that is muslim nutters burning and killing in the name of their religion. We don't see muslims helping orphans, we see muslims making orphans. We see muslims stoning people to death for dancing, blowing up churches and other sites important to other religions. We see clerics framing disabled children so they can stone them to death. We see children with bombs strapped to them trying to blow people up because that will get them to heaven. honor killings, forced marriages, genital mutilations and so on and on.
No amount of burning, bombing,killing and looting will make the rest of the world respect you. Clean up your followers before asking for respect.
Re: @solidsoup
No one is protesting these attacks anywhere in the Muslim world. They're all protesting the movie! That's the problem. J1 claims that insults to Muhammed are extremely insulting to Muslims (seemingly justifying such reaction). He also implies (and I'm sure many posters would agree) that Islam is a respectful religion and should not be judged by actions of the minority. Is shedding innocent blood in the name of Muhhamed as insulting as the movie? Where are the protests against that or any other instances where the name of the Prophet was used not merely mockingly but to justify violence? The two claims I mentioned are incompatible with each other within the same logical argument, unless there's evidence of such protests.
@Ken Hagan
>>> The position of the majority of Muslims on these matters is pretty obvious from the fact that they don't do all the things you mention.
That's a non sequitur and untrue. Have a gander at Sam Harris on the topic for extensive references to surveys that illustrate Muslims as generally quite sympathetic with the "extremists". Such mentality is much more mainstream than people in the West like to face up to.
It is neither marginal nor extreme.
>>> The fact that they haven't publically protested on these issues actually puts them in the same position as most Christians, Buddhists, atheists and Jedi knights.
I don't see how. There have been many large scale protests in the west against things like the Iraq war and various govt. cock-ups. Where was the Middle East 'street' condemning their recently martyred faithful representatives after Sept 9 2001?
Re: @Ken Hagan
There was fairly well document shock and revulsion across the Muslim world about Sept11, but I guess that doesn't fit with your worldview.
Also: I never protested against any pIRA atrocity, that doesn't mean that I supported them.
' I never protested against any pIRA atrocity, that doesn't mean that I supported them.'
Yes it does - to paraphrase a well known quote:
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good to stand by and do nothing
Re: @Ken Hagan
>>> There was fairly well document shock and revulsion across the Muslim world about Sept11, but I guess that doesn't fit with your worldview.
There was lots of hedged "so sorry too bad" type comments, followed by "but if only the Americans hadn't [insert favorite peeve] back in the 80s/90s/etc".
There was a lot of political boot licking as the entire Islamic world hid scared while they waited to see where and at whom the Americans were about to focus their firepower.
Where were the mass street protests against Al Queda and the like? Why were the streets of Mecca, Kabul, and Damascus not filled with hundreds of thousands of good Muslims condemning the atrocious acts carried out in their name?
Re: @Ken Hagan
>>> "Also: I never protested against any pIRA atrocity, that doesn't mean that I supported them."
I'm unsure whether you mean to say you're Irish, from above or below the border, and of what religio-cultural persuasion, but to the extent that Catholic Irish and Republicans did not make their voices publicly heard against the terrorist tendencies of some of their countrymen *does* imply apathetic collaboration, support, or at least sympathy.
Re: Re: @Ken Hagan
".....Where were the mass street protests against Al Queda and the like?...." Indeed, on 9/11, whilst Arafat was quick to condemn the attack (because he was worried about losing American cash), his people were celebrating in the streets and handing out sweets (common during muslim celebrations). The Palestinian Authority even tried to cover it up, threatened camera teams that had taken pictures or filmed the celebrations, and even paid "witnesses" to come forward in attempts to discredit the news teams involved.
Re: @Ken Hagan
I don't care how "sympathetic" Muslims are when responding to surveys. In my book, if they don't do it, it is irrational to assume that they have a strong belief in it. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.
Those "large-scale" protests against the Iraq war and various govt. cock-ups have never involved more than a percent or two of the population. You would be unwise to assume that the only people who care are the ones who turn up, but guessing the strength of feeling in that remaining 99% of the population is always going to be a bit tricky.
The bottom line is: YOU DO NOT KNOW what the majority of Muslims think. You are never likely to. Stop pretending that a violent minority of *any* group are representative of the whole.
Oh, and any Middle East "street" protests back in 2001 would have fallen foul of the local police state, since even if the local dictator had been sympathetic to the terrorists, they wouldn't have been stupid enough to organise a demo of support. (And without his blessing, no demo would happen.)
Re: @Ken Hagan
"to the extent that Catholic Irish and Republicans did not make their voices publicly heard against the terrorist tendencies of some of their countrymen *does* imply apathetic collaboration, support, or at least sympathy."
Or maybe they just don't like being knee-capped.
Some folks don't, you know.
Have I goit the right website?
Because its looking like the daily mail in here.
To quote from one comment
"this so called "peaceful religion""
indeeed this is a bunch of fanatics who have decided to interpret their religion in this way, in the same way the westboro church in the USA call themselves Christians.
Seriously I fucking despair for peace, on one side you have religous fanatics who think all who dont believe in their teachings should be issued a fatwah, jihad or crusade, on the other you have a bunch of rednecks (even if you are in the UK) who want to tar one group of people all with the same brush in some form of moral indignation.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
In principal you are right, but there seems to be an awful lot of so called muslim extremists in an awful lot of countries that consistently react with fatal violence should anyone question their so 'faith'. Whats particularly concerning is that the governments in these countries also seem to back this radical view.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
Ironic troll is ironic.
Seriously....
>>> this is a bunch of fanatics who have decided to interpret their religion in this way
... this is untrue. They are interpreting it more or less correctly. This is the problem.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
I'm afraid I disagree, interpretation of religouse texts is why we have so many schisms and dfifferent sects in religion. ITs also why some things are shared such as kosher laws between jews and muslims.
One of Libyas chief muftis has issued a fatwah against the extrmists for the embassy attacks.
His interpratation is that the Hadith says that confederates (defined as non muslims living peacefully in a muslim country) are to be left in peace and that their murder will barr you from Paradise.
Interpratation of a bunch of old texts, that were probably stories and allegorys for real life situations that don't always even reflect the modern world, are the problem.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
I've got news for you. The fundamentalists, whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian, have actually read the books.
They know what they're talking about.
Have you read the books?
Re: Have I goit the right website?
Re: They've read the books.
They have rarely read the books, they've often been schooled in specific useful passages. My bible knowledge isn't that good, but I can run rings around someone who tells me that - for example - homosexuallity is wrong and the Bible says so.
Re: Have I got the right website?
No but I have worked with a trainee iman who was quite strict about the tennets of his faith, dropped out of contact from moving about but we were good friends. I have also worked with a muslim who was definetly on there way to being radicalised, and know plenty of muslims who are somewhere part time muslims. (Funnily enough like a lot of good catholic biys I worked with). There were some very different interpretation of their religion.
See my post about interpreting the texts it may make more sense for you.
Re: Have I got the right website?
I don't see your point is valid. I don't disagree that the books are interpreted differently. In some senses, they have to be, because the only sane reaction in any reasonable person's mind to a reading of them is a severe case of cognitive dissonance, which will obviously lead to problems.
My point is: the fundamentalists, the "extremists", are almost by definition the ones who have read the books the most closely, and who are most correct in their "interpretation".
"Radicalization" in the Islamist sense is simply a process of learning the true nature of the Quaran and Hadiths, accepting it as truth, and maybe mixing a convenient bit of politics in there.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
"Interpratation of a bunch of old texts, that were probably stories and allegorys for real life situations that don't always even reflect the modern world, are the problem."
Ah, just when I couldn't see the IT Angle, a reference to requirements documentation.
Re: Have I goit the right website?
"Ah, just when I couldn't see the IT Angle, a reference to requirements documentation."
Brilliant.
If you think you are becoming a bit radical, rtfm :D
"on the other you have a bunch of rednecks ... who want to tar one group of people all with the same brush"
LOL! Irony?
@solidsoup
Ok I see what you mean.
Can I change it to a disparate group that may or may not be atheists and that we have no real term for, who think that every person who disagrees with them is a perfect reason to go to war and wage what may (or may not depending on belief structure) be "holy/ completly rationally moraly justified" war upon them?
@ Chris W
"Apart from the wacky extremists of any persuasion, are they hurting you? So they believe in something, big deal, get over it, it's none of your business"
You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Re: @ Chris W
>You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin
Go on, try. I dare you.
Re: @ Chris W
Well at least you made the effort.
Wait...
Rage
Google should have stood their ground, they were right to refuse to remove it in the first place and should have stood by that.
I'd write more but i think i'd only be repeating what has been said above.
Video calls them violent, they protest by being violent, etc.
Semiotics
Perhaps the rioters were just tired of being threatened, bombed, invaded, sanctioned or destabilized repeatedly? Just a thought. The movie is then a symbol and like all signs it doesn't have to be proportional to have big effects. I hate to be the one to bring it but we don't live in a world of facts but a world of symbols and emotions. They rule the world but the ones clenching pure and pristine "facts" often regard this as confusing because it doesn't present itself as clean and virgin fact. But it's how things work nevertheless outside your back garden and computer keyboard. Travel the world and take notice.
Re: Semiotics
Right. In Libya, US ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed after a 4 hour assault in Benghazi. That happens to be the same city that was saved from an inevitable massacre by US Air Force bombing Gaddafi's tank columns 3km from the city.
Re: Semiotics
"Perhaps the rioters were just tired of being threatened, bombed, invaded, sanctioned or destabilized repeatedly?"
Yeah Sydney Australia is a crap place. oh hold on. Isn't it a western country? Why are the muslims calling for beheadings, attacking police and smashing cars in Australia?
Your an idiot!
Re: Semiotics
"Perhaps the rioters were just tired of being threatened, bombed, invaded, sanctioned or destabilized repeatedly?...." Of course, why didn't I see that! None of the problems in the muslim world or where muslims interact with non-muslims could ever be even partially the fault of muslims, right?
Disconnect, go get a clue, then try again.
Re: Semiotics
Not trying to justify the rioting, but do you expect muslims to be completely unconcerned about what happens to other muslim countries? Weren't there any anti-muslim attacks in europe after what happened in US on 9/11?
Yeah, but...
I'm old enough to remember when "The Life of Brian" was banned in most of this country for being blasphemous, there were protests outside the few cinemas that did show it.
A few years back I was working with a Christian Extremist who insisted the film was Blasphemy even though He hadn't seen any part of it!
Doesn't matter what religion you mention, some nutter will use it as an excuse for a protest/riot/war.
Re: Yeah, but...
"....A few years back I was working with a Christian Extremist who insisted the film was Blasphemy even though He hadn't seen any part of it!...." Whilst I agree with the main idea in your post, I would have to point out that your friend probably did not go and behead anyone or have enough buddies with similarly warped views to be able to go and storm a foreign embassy.
Re: Yeah, but...
>>> "Whilst I agree with the main idea in your post, I would have to point out that your friend probably did not go and behead anyone or have enough buddies with similarly warped views to be able to go and storm a foreign embassy."
They would have in the past though, when they had the power to do it.
And what an indictment of our own happy past that LoB was banned. We have made progress in the West, but it is tenuous, easily lost, and must constantly be defended against those who would take it away again. (That includes the Christians as well as the Muslims).
Re: Yeah, but...
To be completely fair and unbiased: It includes anyone religious or not.
The whole point of a tolerant society is that you don't have to like what someone else is doing any more than they have to like what you're doing but that you should resolve disagreements in a civilized manner and not like an animal.
Re: Yeah, but...
".... We have made progress in the West...." One of the reasons we have made progress is because the Bible has been changed over the years and the Church has been forced to adapt or die. Islam is structured deliberately so it cannot develop or adapt. The Koran can not be edited, indeed there are muslims that will claim even translations of it are blasphemous. Whilst there are mullahs and Islamic "scholars" arguing over their interpretations of the Koran and Sunnah, the truth is they have very little wriggle room as the key points are clearly stated - "no-one gets to leave the cult; non-mulsims are not equal to muslims and should be forced to convert or forced to live to the rules of Islam and pay extra tax for not converting; all Jews are to be killed; no-one after Mo can claim to be a prophet so Mo's word is final; criticism of Islam is not to be allowed; criticims of the Koran or old Mo is not to be tolerated and should be punished with death". As long as those core concepts remain, and they cannot be removed from Islam, then there will always be a clash between Islam and non-muslims as Islam has built-in intolerance and inability to change.
Re: Yeah, but...
>>> "One of the reasons we have made progress is because the Bible has been changed over the years and the Church has been forced to adapt or die"
Sort of. Christianity used to be very similar though to your valid points about Islam, even down to the translations of the Latin being blasphemous to keep the true interpretation controlled by the priesthood. It's only in the order of hundreds of years ago that it was equally intolerant and vicious.
Really though I think it's more a case of reduced religious knowledge (liberals/moderates) and a heavy case of cognitive dissonance in all modern western Christians, with the churches performing more and more delicate balancing acts as they attempt to keep their flock's attention, while science and literacy in reason make slow but inevitable advances against them. I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to have something similar in the Islamic world.
The danger lies in whether there's enough time before the various escaped genies find their way back to the dark ages, and medieval mentalities are empowered with 21st century weapons. The escalating crisis with Iran being the first example - we can't have a cold war with a theocratic Islamist state; at least the Soviets were rational people.
I believe humans are idiots. Things like this reinforce why.
They need to get the sand out of their manjinas.
If an idea stands on its own merit then it's going to stand up against criticism.
If it doesn't stand up to criticism then it was never a worthwhile idea in the first place.
This topic is closed for new posts.
