back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Shagbag

    Jesus-H-Christ

    The facts are:

    1. More wars have been fought over religion that any other form of dispute;

    2. God/Allah/whatever is mankind's greatest invention.

    3. The Catholic Church is a safe haven for peados.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This religion

      Is a way of controlling the masses.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: This religion

        ALL religions are ways of controlling the masses, and when you mess with that control you become the anti-religion for whichever group you upset.

      2. ravenviz
        Mushroom

        Re: This religion

        The masses seem to be rather out of control at the moment...

        1. joejack
          Megaphone

          Re: This religion

          "Out of control"? No, heads of state and local media are lying to their citizens, saying things like the US was behind the vid. Distracts the constituents from the real issues, much like we're being lied to over here, never more so than during the lead-up to an election.

      3. MIc

        Re: This religion

        more so than you know.

        http://www.amazon.com/On-The-Origin-Religion-ebook/dp/B008F8R25K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348080003&sr=8-1&keywords=on+the+origins+of+religion

    2. DanceMan

      Re: fought over religion than any other form of dispute

      Didn't you mean "disrepute'?

    3. RISC OS

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      "The Catholic Church is a safe haven for peados."

      It's the oldest peado ring

    4. John Deeb
      Angel

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      Shagbag: "More wars have been fought over religion that any other form of dispute;"

      Yeah, like most recently and massively WW1 and WW2, right?

      Ignorance is a more likely cause and wears many hats and miters. Take off yours!

      1. badmonkey
        Mushroom

        Re: Jesus-H-Christ

        1) Go away,

        2) research Serbian/Russian Orthodoxy, Austrian-German Catholicism, Turkish/Ottoman Islamist expansionism, the pan-Arab cause, the Catholic Right involvement in fascism, the explicit backing of the Nazis by the Vatican, antisemitism here there and everywhere, and Japanese militant Buddhism and Shintoism to start with,

        3) come back and THEN we'll talk about religious factors in WW 1 & 2.

        Okay?

        1. Keith Williams

          Re: Jesus-H-Christ

          you forgot Muslim expansionism and the Crusades.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. Scott Wheeler
      Thumb Down

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      You say more wars have been fought over religion than any other form of dispute. Prove it.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      And in other news, latest research shows that GRAVITY is the leading cause of injuries due to falls.

      What's your point?

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      Wars are fought over money in one form or another, usually. Religion is just used to recruit the cannon-fodder.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Pea DOS"

        That's taking down a web site by overloading it with lots of small round green vegetables, I suppose?

      2. Vic

        Re: Jesus-H-Christ

        > Wars are fought over money in one form or another

        ITYF it's power, rather than money. Money is merely one of the trappings of power...

        Vic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Big Brother

          Re: Jesus-H-Christ

          > ITYF it's power, rather than money. Money is merely one of the trappings of power...

          Truly it is power.

          Money, religion, politics: it is all one. Control what people think and you control them.

          The original poster was partially right about religion being *one* of the greatest causes of war. It is by no means the only one however.

          The thing about these "Mohammed" issues is that no-one bats an eye about these videos until some mullah somewhere speaks out about it. Then all hell breaks loose.

          Honestly, some of these religious nutters appear to have no rational minds of their own.

          Personnally, I think we should have a ton more of these videos. We should put pictures of the "prophet" all over the Internet, walls, books, wherever we can. Desensitise them. They would get fed up of blowing themselves up eventually, and get on with their sorry lives.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jesus-H-Christ

          "ITYF it's power, rather than money."

          Once you're past barter it's the same thing. Probably even before that.

    8. Scott 1

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      The largest mass-murders in modern history killed innocents in the pursuit of atheistic social philosophies (Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho-Chi-Minh, etc).

      1. Keith Williams
        Thumb Down

        Re: Jesus-H-Christ

        Communism is a religion

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jesus-H-Christ

        "The largest mass-murders in modern history killed innocents in the pursuit of atheistic social philosophies"

        You might want to have a re-think about that. Mostly around what an "atheistic social philosophy" is and why its a meaningless phrase.

    9. Keith Williams

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      and dont forget the 30 years war either. (catholicism vs protestantism/lutherism

    10. Blitterbug
      Headmaster

      Re: Jesus-H-Christ

      ...paedos

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And so it begins.....

    I know the video inflames the sensitivities of some, but instead of running around killing people and rioting just see it for what it is, a crap film made by an idiot who doesn't know better.

    Banning it plays into the hands of the extremists who can now hold there hands up and claim how right they are.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No, they wont

      see it "for what it is".

      There is NO tolerance when you insult their deity...

      I assume you are a westerner? In that case this so called peaceful religion would have you publicly beheaded.

      They have a mindset that we, as westerners, do not understand.

      For a so called modern religion, based on peace (they say) i dont remember any recent cases of the mary whitehouse bridage on the war path demending executions, rioting, basically behaving in a un godly manner because someone called jesus a c***.....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No, they wont

        "here is NO tolerance when you insult their deity..."

        Nor even when you insult some bloke who had a chat with Allah once, apparently, since Mohammed isn't a deity as far as I'm aware.

        Oh I'm gonna burn now.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          He's not a deity...

          ... he is a pedo. "Marrying" a 6 yr old and then having the decency to wait till she is 9 before raping her...

          You can see that islam is not a peacful religion.... how many suicde tibetans do you see? How many of them kill diplomats and blow up tourist becuase of abuse by china. None. It has nothing to do with blasphemy and everything to do with eductaion - or in this case the lack of it.

          And by there own actions they are showing the civilised world that what was in the film is true.

          Blowing people up and killing people while shouting that islam is a peacful religion - what a double bind - like those parents who scream at their children to shutup in supermarkets because they are running around screaming.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Islam is a peaceful religion*

            *As long as you are Muslim**

            **The right kind of Muslim

          2. Graham Marsden
            Boffin

            Re: He's not a deity...

            Oh dear, and so we see the usuall trollish comments about Mohammed and Islam from ignorant idiots who believe what they read in the Tabloid Media without bothering to open their eyes (or minds) to any other point of view.

            Can you not get it through your heads that a few fanatics are *NOT* representative of the whole religion of Islam any more than the idiots who made this film are representative of Christianity?

            I have a Muslim family living next to me and I've not had problems with them diving over the wall wearing a Semtex waist coat and yelling "Allahu Akbar!" it's usually just their kids saying "can we get our ball back"...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Re: He's not a deity...

              Troll - a word used on the internet to make any comment that you don't aggree with look bad - like islamophobia.

              Oh dear, please open your ideas to other points of view, you are obviously close minded and can't accept any other view point, other than your own.

              So you have a muslim family living next to you? Can you not get it through your head that one family is *NOT* representative of the whole religion of Islam? Going by your logic, my smoking doesn't cause cancer because my nextdoor neighbor has been smoking since he was 12 and he hasn't got it, so obviously it's bollocks put about by the tabloid media.

              I live in "klein istanbul" in berlin and am surrounded by muslims... if only they behaved as you claimed your neighbors behave, there would be a few less problems in the world. Sadly the majority of muslims do behave like the person who killed the US diplomat

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: He's not a deity...

              http://www.examiner.com/article/man-cuts-wife-s-head-off-throws-it-off-apartment-rooftop

              That guy was soemone's neighbor too... or his wife did was tell him she wanted a divorce because of his affair.

              Last week a woman got dragged by her hair down the street in berlin becuase she wanted to see a boy, and on saturday a muslim was wondering around with a butchers knife looking for his girlfriend because his girlfriend looked at another man.

              1. Graham Marsden
                Boffin

                @AC Re: He's not a deity...

                "Sadly the majority of muslims do behave like the person who killed the US diplomat"

                Really?

                Islam is estimated to have something over one and a half *BILLION* followers world wide, around a fifth of the world's population.

                If the "majority" (defined as > 50%) of Muslims behaved the way you claim, I think we'd have noticed it a bit by now.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                  Yeah... when 50% of this one and a half billion come out and condem what is happening around the world then I'd agree with you... they don't because they agree with it and think it is good, or they are too scared of what other practioners of this religion of peace would do to them if they did.

                  When 50% of this one and a half billion come out and condem women being stoned to death because of sleeping with someone else then I would agree with you... I shant hold my breath...

                  ... and dude, we have noticed it, just read the news, look at all the muslim countries are endorsing attacks on americans, these countries together make up a sizable proportion of this 1.5 billion. I never saw many muslims condeming teh burning of the us flag... yet at the same time they are moaning that the koran gets burned, or that this film gets made. Show me where the tibetian sucicde bomers are, go on where are they?

                  1. Graham Marsden

                    Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                    If you'd try doing a bit more research and looking beyond the headlines you might find the answers you demand I present you (but do you *really* want to find them...?)

                    In any case, it's clear there's no point in carrying on trying to have a reasonable discussion with you on this, so feel free to declare victory and keep on enjoying your prejudices.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Graham Marsden

                      > If you'd try doing a bit more research and looking beyond the headlines

                      I have done the research. I've read the Koran and I've read parts of a translation of Sahih al-Bukhari. I've also read several books about Islam, both those that criticise and those that praise it.

                      The more a read about Islam the more I realise that Islam is many things, but, without a doubt, the one thing it is not, is a religion of peace.

                  2. Cucumber C Face
                    Alert

                    Re: Show me where the tibetian suicide bombers are

                    I can't - but don't stand too close to them when they set themselves on fire

                    https://www.google.co.uk/images?q=tibet+self+immolation

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Stop

                      Re: Show me where the tibetian suicide bombers are

                      "I can't - but don't stand too close to them when they set themselves on fire...." Self-immolation, i.e. burning ONLY yourself to death, is a far different activity to deliberately murdering as many (Jewish) civillians as you can with a bomb in a pizza resteraunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_restaurant_suicide_bombing), or as many (muslim) civillians as possible with a truckbomb in a market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_February_2007_Baghdad_market_bombing), or thousands od American civillians of many different religions with aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11).

                  3. Psyx
                    Flame

                    Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                    "they don't because they agree with it and think it is good"

                    So: You're speaking for 1.5 Billion people?

                    Let me ask you this: Last time a Christian extremist group did something horrific, did you come out and condemn what was happening? Stand in a street and protest, did you?

                    No: I didn't think so. So don't judge 1.5 Billion people for not doing the same thing that you didn't do.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                      Actually yes I did... maybe you should wait for my answer before assuming it, or did allah tell you what I do? I go on demos and protests all the time.

                      Show me where I said I spoke for 1.5 billion?

                      Idiot.

                      1. Psyx
                        Facepalm

                        Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                        "Show me where I said I spoke for 1.5 billion?"

                        Because you're judging an entire religion based on extremists.

                        "did allah tell you what I do? I go on demos and protests all the time."

                        Rofl. I don't agree with you, so you assume I'm a Muslim? I might as well assume that you protest in 16 hole Doc. Martins, by your chain of 'logic'.

                        You're the idiot, anonymous Coward.

                    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                      "..... Last time a Christian extremist group did something horrific, did you come out and condemn what was happening?...." Nope, but I'm an aethiest, so instead I just muttered to others about what nutters them religious lot are. By the way, I'm struggling to remember the last time a Christian mob got upset by a film and broke into an embassy and killed four people, would you care to provide an example? Didn't think so.

                      In fact, even looking back at such examples as "The Last Temptation of Christ", all I can find is a firebombing of a cinema in France which injured thirteen people. And no Western politician stood up and said "well, they were provoked, none of it is their fault".

                2. badmonkey

                  Re: @AC He's not a deity...

                  >>> "If the "majority" (defined as > 50%) of Muslims behaved the way you claim, I think we'd have noticed it a bit by now."

                  Haven't you noticed? Some of us have.

              2. Psyx
                FAIL

                Re: He's not a deity...

                "Last week a woman got dragged by her hair down the street in berlin becuase she wanted to see a boy, and on saturday a muslim was wondering around with a butchers knife looking for his girlfriend because his girlfriend looked at another man."

                Last week a Christian tried to mug me. And the week before that I saw a couple of Christians kicking the shit out of a drunk guy for a laugh. And don't tell me that Christians don't beat/maim/kill their wife for no good reason, either. I've had an angry boyfriend looking for me with a knife because his girlfriend bought me a drink, too.

                If you think that it's someone's religion that makes them a wanker, you're mistaken. And if you think that someone being a brutal fuck-head means they are a good representation of the doctrine of their religion, you're also mistaken.

                1. magnetik
                  FAIL

                  Re: He's not a deity...

                  "Last week a Christian tried to mug me. And the week before that I saw a couple of Christians kicking the shit out of a drunk guy for a laugh."

                  And you knew they were Christians because, what, you went up to them and said "S'cuse me, I notice you kicking the shit out of that guy, could I just ask what religion you practice before I walk away?"

                  And I guess you asked your would-be mugger too, or was he wearing a beanie with a fish symbol on it?

                  1. Psyx
                    FAIL

                    Re: He's not a deity...

                    "And I guess you asked your would-be mugger too, or was he wearing a beanie with a fish symbol on it?"

                    No; it was the St. Christopher around his neck.

                    double-fail for you, matey.

                2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: He's not a deity...

                  "....Last week a Christian tried to mug me...." Yeah, and you knew he was a Christian because he tried to beat you with a bible maybe? Or was it just 'cos he was white and you made the automatic assumption he was a Christian? Get a clue - he could have been an aethiest, a Scientologist, or even a muslim.

                  "....And the week before that I saw a couple of Christians kicking the shit out of a drunk guy for a laugh...." You're sounding very implausible there, did they stand there shouting "and take that from Christianity" at their victim? Were they dressed up as vicars? Don't tell me the finished their beating and then wandered over to calmly tell you their faith. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

                3. Tom 13

                  Re: Last week...

                  Last time I checked, there wasn't a single Christian Pastor/Minister/Bishop etc. who would publicly proclaim a Christian had a RELIGIOUS right to do those things. In fact, they'd pretty much tell the heathen he was going straight to Hell if he didn't repent.

                4. LarsG

                  Re: He's not a deity...

                  Yes but religion helps them to focus their anger.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: He's not a deity...

              "Can you not get it through your heads that a few fanatics are *NOT* representative of the whole religion of Islam any more than the idiots who made this film are representative of Christianity?

              ...

              I have a Muslim family living next to me and I've not had problems with them diving over the wall wearing a Semtex waist coat and yelling "Allahu Akbar!" it's usually just their kids saying "can we get our ball back"...

              So you are basing your opinion of all Muslims based on a single family that lives next door to you?

            4. This post has been deleted by its author

            5. Psyx
              Facepalm

              Re: He's not a deity...

              "Can you not get it through your heads that a few fanatics are *NOT* representative of the whole religion of Islam any more than the idiots who made this film are representative of Christianity?"

              Mate; it's fucking depressing that you got pretty much as many down-votes as up.

              I like to think that I live in a tolerant country with well-educated people, but clearly I'm being overly optimistic.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Re: He's not a deity...

                ".....I like to think that I live in a tolerant country with well-educated people....." If it's the UK then we're very tolerant. We accept Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, even Catholics! Mainly because they don't cause as much trouble as muslims. You only have to look around to see that the majority of the fighting in the World today is where muslims of one type or another are fighting either with one another or trying to force their views on others. Once again, you need to seriously consider that maybe there is a problem with Islam and it's not just everybody else's fault.

            6. Tom 13
              Flame

              Re: a few fanatics

              IF it was only a FEW fanatics it wouldn't be a problem, just like the IRA wouldn't have been a problem for the police if THEY had only been a FEW fanatics.

              IF it were only a FEW fanatics, the list of governments asking for it to be pulled wouldn't be EVERY self-identified Muslim country on the planet.

              And continuing appeasement by claiming "it's only a FEW fanatics" won't help because they'll keep thinking they can get away with it.

            7. Anonymous Coward
              FAIL

              Re: He's not a deity...

              > Can you not get it through your heads that a few fanatics are *NOT* representative of the whole religion of Islam any more than the idiots who made this film are representative of Christianity?

              If you are a Muslim, you believe all this stuff. Yes, only a relatively small number of people actually go out and do the violence, kill the people, burn down the buildings.

              But according to the leaders of their religion, if you are a Muslim, it is your religious duty to seek out the guy that made this film and spray the walls with his blood. There is still a death sentence hanging over Salman Rushdie as far as I'm aware. Do you understand? According to the leaders of this religion, *not* baying for their blood and actively tracking down these people and laying about them with knives means you're a *bad* Muslim.

              There is nothing remotely "peaceful" about Islam. If you don't believe me, read the Quo'ran for yourself. The whole of its history is littered with war, murder, under-age sex, incest, brutal, senseless violence. (Yes, the Bible is no better)

              Thank ${DEITY} that there are so many bad Muslims, I say.

          3. Crisp Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: He's not a deity...

            He's a very naughty boy?

          4. Alfred
            Boffin

            Re: He's not a deity...

            "how many suicde tibetans do you see?"

            Well, lots. http://www.savetibet.org/resource-center/maps-data-fact-sheets/self-immolation-fact-sheet

            Did you mean suicide-bomber tibetans?

          5. Psyx
            Stop

            Re: He's not a deity...

            "He's not a deity..."

            Nobody said he was.

            "... he is a pedo. "Marrying" a 6 yr old and then having the decency to wait till she is 9 before raping her..."

            Juliet was what... thirteen, wasn't it? And our country is fine with children of 5 drinking. Not too many years ago we were fine with 9 year-olds working in dangerous factories and up chimneys.

            So let's not get too much on our moral high ground, eh?

            Islam *is* a peaceful religion, on the whole. It's just you're swallowing the anti-Islamic propaganda, in the same way that unthinking Muslims are swallowing the anti-Western propaganda.

            How about actually hanging out with some normal Muslims for a while and discussing their religion with them like an adult, instead of just repeating what people who clearly hate the religion have told you?

            1. Adam T

              Re: He's not a deity...

              He's just a very naughty boy.

              On a more serious note, while I'm all for free speech and all that, when people are dying over a stupid pile of shit movie, I'm more for just removing the pile of shit movie trailer.

              Liberties you say? Try arguing your point to a corpse.

            2. RISC OS

              Re: He's not a deity...

              Juliet, yeah she was a teenager, but so was Romeo... Muhammed was over 50 when he raped that child

              1. Psyx
                Stop

                Re: He's not a deity...

                "Juliet, yeah she was a teenager, but so was Romeo... Muhammed was over 50 when he raped that child"

                And plenty of our royals were over 50 when they committed similar atrocities. And a flick through the bible will find twenty crimes to our own eyes.

                Stop simply reciting propaganda. Judge a religion by it's core messages and the actions of the reasonable majority of its followers; not by cherry-picked pieces of bile and the actions of total fuck-wits.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: He's not a deity...

                  "Juliet, yeah she was a teenager, but so was Romeo... Muhammed was over 50 when he raped that child"

                  > And plenty of our royals were over 50 when they committed similar atrocities.

                  So lets see what one of the recent Muslim leaders had to say on the matter:

                  "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

                  From Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom, 1990

                  1. Psyx

                    Re: He's not a deity...

                    "So lets see what one of the recent Muslim leaders had to say on the matter:"

                    There's a problem with that though:

                    1) Ayatollah Khomeini is a nutjob, by the admission of most decent Muslims.

                    2) Islam has no centralised "Leadership". It has Imans / Muftis / whatever who are influential, but there is no single message. Which means that there are a lot of nut-case extremists "Speaking for Islam"

                    3) Let's not get too cocky about Muslims saying horrific things when some branches of Christianity covers up kiddy-fiddling, is nearly as misogynistic, opposes contraception, et al.

                    I don't think any decent Muslim would claim that shagging a nine year old is fine.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: He's not a deity...

                      1. Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader of Iran. He may well have been a nutjob but he was still the leader of one of the major muslim states.

                      2. True. But they all follow the koran (which is supposedly the literal word of God). The early suras of the koran (Meccan) are more peaceful than the later suras (Medinan). But if there is any conflicting views between the suras then the later one takes precedence. (a sura is a chapter). Because it is supposed to be the literal word of God it isn't open for re-interpretation in the same way the new or old testaments are.

                      3. Some branches might well do that, but that is completely different than promoting it.

                      Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh (Saudi Arabia's top Mufti): "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.". This was in response to a Mother trying to get a divorce for her 10 year old daughter from the daughter's 49 year old husband. Perhaps the sheikh is a nutjob as well?

                      One problem is that Muhammad is considered by muslims to be the perfect man and therefore anything he did can not be wrong, ever. This includes his marriage to Aisha when she was 6 and its consummation when she was 9. A second problem is that the koran does not specify any specific age for marriage, but it does specify how to divorce girls who are not yet menstruating. Because of these factors most muslim scholars believe that marriage to pre-pubescent girls is ok.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: He's not a deity...

              You going to give your daughter to a 50 year old man?

              When you do, then you can make such stupid comments.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: No, they wont

          "....some bloke who had a chat with Allah...." That's where it gets fun - apparently, old Mo only talked to "angels" such as Gabriel, and the rest of the time he had (convenient) "visions/revelations" during his sleep. So, it could just have been Gabe and his buddies having a laugh, messing with the "talking monkeys", maybe because they were bored after a few millenia of smiting and holy stuff.... Kinda suggests Gabriel was the first BOFHeaven.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No, they wont

          Deity, god like figure, prophet, messenger, whatever....You knew what i meant....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: No, they wont

        As a westerner living in the middle east, I can say it isn't 'their deity' or their religion which is the problem. It is the fact that their culture is largely still back in the middle ages - feudal rulers, strict morality, poor education and understanding of science and so on.

        Christian countries in the middle ages were exactly the same, for the same reasons. They were feudal monarchies with uneducated people who they brutally repressed, they executed Gallileo, persecuted religious minorities, executed people for what we'd consider minor crimes - including blasphemy.

        We in the west are better not because we are 'christian' but because we are secular. Go back 500 years, and we were far more christian... and we had all the same things you accuse 'them' of.

    2. Psyx
      Stop

      "Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"

      "Banning it plays into the hands of the extremists who can now hold there hands up and claim how right they are."

      If some spoiled wanker is sitting safely in his First World home, making shit films which incite violence, why should his 'free speech' be defended when it's costing the lives of innocent people?

      Free speech is one thing. Thirty people getting killed because Google don't want to take it down is another.

      I don't think that anyone can take seriously someone claiming they are right after organising a quick terrorist bombing, or the decapitation of innocent parties who just happened to be from the country the film was from. Taking it down in no way legitimises the actions of murdering fuck-heads.

      I like Free Speech. I don't like rule by mob or extremist violence towards bystanders. I think the people perpetrating the violence are arse-holes of the highest order for attempting to silence free speech through random violence.

      But if simple actions can be taken to help insure the safety of those innocent bystanders, then so be it.

      Again: Thirty dead people so some prick can get his rocks off by inciting violence. It's not worth it.

      1. fajensen Silver badge

        Re: "Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"

        "But if simple actions can be taken to help insure the safety of those innocent bystanders, then so be it."

        It is not so simple when one considers the implications of letting the actions and/or sensibilities of a bunch of crazies, who has a mindset so far away from the mainstream culture in My Country that they might as well be Martians, dictate what *I* can and cannot - or even should - do!?

        It.would.never.end!

        Everything and Nothing will be offensive to someone, somewhere, who will/might then hurt someone else or lie about their sadism and narcissim. Where does it stop? It does not even help to "not base our economies on ressources supplied by unstable people" - because these people are Everywhere, in every country.

        The very best one could hope for would be "the media" filming demonstrations using a wider angle,to show the 300 people, including the busses they were collected on, the organisers handing out pre-fabricated signs and the free US flags and molotovs provided. Sadly "relevance" and "good reporting" today means "the reader will have lots of emotional response from this news item". Then the politicians might get there noodle-like spine together and stop caring about freaks and "outliers". Which would be better for everybody!!

        1. Psyx
          Thumb Up

          Re: "Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"

          "It is not so simple when one considers the implications of letting the actions and/or sensibilities of a bunch of crazies, who has a mindset so far away from the mainstream culture in My Country that they might as well be Martians, dictate what *I* can and cannot - or even should - do!?"

          Wow: And actual reasonable answer that adds to debate instead of idiot mindless down-votes. Kudos.

          In principle, I agree. Free speech is important. Mobs should not rule. I'm with you, buddy.

          But it's easy for us to sit here and defend the free speech rights of fuck-wits in the comfort of our offices. It's easy for us to say that we shouldn't bow to those mobs. But we're not amongst the innocent bystanders who are trying living on the literal front lines, trying to make a difference and trying to *improve* these places. Then some hate-filled arsehole of epic proportions, hiding behind a false name releases a piece of hate-spewing propaganda and suddenly someone puts a petrol bomb through your window and the whole process is back three years. That's not helping: It's harming the process of improvement.

          Having actually lived in a shit-hole of a religiously run country and tried to make a difference when some fascist arse-wipe decided to prod the hornet's nest from a nice safe distance away, I have to say that I support and respect the safety of the thousands of people who are still there more than I do the arse-wipes right to incite hatred.

          If people want to stir up a pile of shit, they should man the fuck up and go stand in Baghdad handing out their hate-filled propaganda, instead of letting others pay the price.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"

        So, any violent shithead can dictate what you can or cannot see. So much for peaceful protesting then, violence obviously works and is the way to go.

        You'd obviously ban displays like "piss christ" if the catholics have exploded a few bombs around in protest and threatened to do more. But if they just act peacefully, why, rark them up as much as you like ! Nice philosphy you have there !

  3. Thorne
    FAIL

    These fanatics are their own worse enemy.

    If they just ignored it, nobody would even know it existed, let alone watch it. Now thanks to their murdering, raping and pillaging over their anger about it, everybody knows what it is and where it is.

    Kinda hard to claim to be peaceful when four year olds are waving placards about cutting the heads off anyone who mock their silly religion.

    What is it about religion that attracts such morons?

    1. My Alter Ego
      Mushroom

      Re: If they just ignored it

      Exacty, the Onion parodied the current reaction perfectly:

      No One Murdered Because Of This Image (NSFW). As an atheist, even I found the image uncomfortable, but the text is the important part.

      An amusing solution I heard was to release daily cartoons of Mohammed* - all this rioting has to be pretty tiring - so having to riot continuously would really wear everyone down until they have no energy left.

      * Not that I support doing this, as you are specifically targeting peoples' personal beliefs, regardless of whether you do or don't agree with them

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @My Alter Ego - Re: If they just ignored it

        I think the Onion article just about says it all. Thanks for providing the link.

        I'm not so sure about your suggested 'amusing solution'. If we were dealing with the western mindset, then maybe it would work. But I think the more likely result from continually battering the Muslim world with such 'insults' would be serious harm visited on the west via terrorist acts and destruction of western interests in the sensitive countries.

        So no, I'd hold back on that idea for a while.

      2. Piro
        Thumb Up

        Re: If they just ignored it

        Haha, I love the link. Thank you, and thank The Onion, they've put it in crude and completely comparable terms.

      3. King Jack
        Thumb Down

        Re: If they just ignored it

        "Not that I support doing this, as you are specifically targeting peoples' personal beliefs, regardless of whether you do or don't agree with them"

        Why should anyone care if someone disagrees with their personal beliefs? That is what is wrong, the premise that personal beliefs must be protected over and above anything else.

        Believing in the supernatural is nonsense, that is MY personal belief. Why is my special protection?

        1. Psyx
          Thumb Up

          Re: If they just ignored it

          "Why should anyone care if someone disagrees with their personal beliefs? That is what is wrong, the premise that personal beliefs must be protected over and above anything else.

          Believing in the supernatural is nonsense, that is MY personal belief. Why is my special protection?"

          Yes: To the educated and liberal mind, you're right on the money. And I totally agree that anyone's religion is no other fucker's business (Although by the same measure, their religion is THEIR business, and not for me to deliberately mock, provoke or attack, as was clearly the aim of the film).

          But we are talking about people who have not had the luxury of being brought up to understand the concept of free speech.

          These poor bastards don't even understand the separation between an individual (the wanker who made the film), a company (Google) and a host Government (The US), as evidenced by the chain of actions: A Wanker in A Country uses A Company to post his propaganda, so they take it out on innocents from A Country.

          The problem is one of education and human rights, not specifically one specific religion.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Up

            Re: If they just ignored it

            > The problem is one of education and human rights, not specifically one specific religion.

            You've hit the nail on the head there, albeit by accident.

            Religion the world over is by its very nature a tool used to subdue and control the masses. As I said previously, these deist religions (and I leave out the purely philosophical ones here) are all about power of the priesthood encouraged by tribalism and bigotry. Practically all deist religions encorporate exclusion and the threat of retaliation for those that recant (either eternity in hell or stoning/hanging).

            To "believe" you have to suspend intellectual thought. To question is the antithesis of religious belief.

            Reason goes out the window, and dogma comes in the front door. You must literally be ignorant to belief in these things. If you looked at the provable evidence of history you really cannot continue to believe in the fairy tales in these holy books.

            The two (religion and ignorance) are not as inseparable as you might imagine.

            It is not a coincidence that enlightened (and more successful) societies see religious decline, and unenlightened societies see a massive increase of dogmatic religious belief. Enlightenment and deist religion are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

            In the West, for large swathes of the "religious" population, religion has largely become a quaint pastime.

            They go to church/mosque/whatever on the holy day as a community bonding event. There's kinda nothing wrong with that apart from the obvious hypocracy of it. Christianity is at the vanguard of this. Islam will ultimately follow.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: If they just ignored it

            > (Although by the same measure, their religion is THEIR business, and not for me to deliberately mock, provoke or attack, as was clearly the aim of the film).

            Where I used to live, I had a lady living next door to me. She was nice and kind, but at some point she had a car accident which left her with brain damage that caused her to have hallucinations. She told me one day that she could "see" strange people wandering around in her back yard.

            I had a look and there was nobody there. It was quite frightening for her because the hallucinations were so real, how could she tell the difference between what was real and what was not.

            She was ill. She realised it and she needed help and she got it. She isn't cured, but she leads a better life because she got help.

            ==

            If you believe something that is patently untrue and you believe it to the very core of your being, you are ill.

            If you continue to believe something that is directly contradicted by other things that you also believe, then you are ill.

            You need treatment. To let these people alone, infecting and indoctrinating others (including their children) with those beliefs with threats such as hell and death, is nothing short of abdication of your responsibility as a human being.

            Would you walk past someone in the street that was obviously in physical distress? Would you look the other way or would you try to help them? It really is an almighty cop-out to say that deist religion is someone else's business. It is society's business.

            These people are members of a cult, for fuck's sake. The cult has gained "respectability" because it is so large. Its size matters not. The only way to deal with it is to challenge it at every opportunity. Expose it for the harm it does both to intellectual enlightnment and to the peace of our society.

            Only when we can honestly look at the universe as it actually is, rather than in the context of some fairy tale, and treat everyone with the same respect can we ever develop as a forward looking race.

            1. Psyx
              Go

              Re: If they just ignored it

              "If you believe something that is patently untrue and you believe it to the very core of your being, you are ill.

              If you continue to believe something that is directly contradicted by other things that you also believe, then you are ill."

              But we all *do*.

              Every one of us believes in contradictory and untrue things. We then support them with perception bias and selective intake of information. Our political views are skewed. Even our physical perception can be skewed by preconception. Are we *all* ill?

              Put it like this: If God dropped down on a pillar of flame in the middle of London and was filmed by a thousand people, there would still be millions of people (including some direct bystanders) who would claim it hadn't happened. Hell: Look at Holocaust deniers.

              Do we medicate the entire human race?

              "To let these people alone, infecting and indoctrinating others (including their children) with those beliefs with threats such as hell and death, is nothing short of abdication of your responsibility as a human being."

              That's your opinion. And their opinion otherwise is just as valid. What makes your morals any "better" than theirs? That's the problem. It's easy for us to say what others should and shouldn't do, but then we're the dictators and brain-washers.

              I don't have answers. I'm agnostic and Liberal, but I still don't believe that it's right to stop people being taught religion "for their own good", because MY viewpoint is skewed as well and then I'd be just as bad as them.

              Ultimately my own feeling is that people should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they like, so long it doesn't dick on other people. They should be educated well and taught to understand and respect the beliefs of others, but ultimately our own minds and morals must remain ours.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: If they just ignored it

                ".....Ultimately my own feeling is that people should be allowed to believe whatever the hell they like, so long it doesn't dick on other people....." Burnign down an embassy and killing four foreign nationals which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the film, plus the thrity-odd other people killed in other riots, could just be taken as a bit of "dicking".

                1. Psyx
                  Stop

                  Re: If they just ignored it

                  "Burnign down an embassy and killing four foreign nationals which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the film, plus the thrity-odd other people killed in other riots, could just be taken as a bit of "dicking"".

                  Yes, it is.

                  I'm not disagreeing.

                  Why is that a 'fail', exactly?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If they just ignored it

        ...doesn't the Onion cartoon demonstrate another point though? I.e. threats of violence do work better than peaceful protest when it comes to not having your imaginary deity ridiculed? Or are the Onion going to disprove this by doing an equivalent Islam cartoon?

      5. badmonkey
        Angel

        Re: If they just ignored it

        >>> "* Not that I support doing this, as you are specifically targeting peoples' personal beliefs, regardless of whether you do or don't agree with them"

        And what is wrong with that? If you tell me that you are a flying pig from Mars, I will explicitly target your belief and laugh at you. Stupidity and ignorance should not be acceptable in the name of tolerance.

        I "believe" that Mohammed did not fly to heaven on a winged horse. I "believe" that blind faith without evidence should not be considered a virtue, and that submission before a fake deity is neither advisable nor moral. I "believe" that Islam, similar to but worse than most other religions, is a fascist authoritarian cult of hate, ignorance, and bigotry. If you tell me I am wrong, fuck you - now I am offended by your deep stupidity. See how that works?

        Rational and reasonable people have the right to be offended too. The difference is, you will find the evidence is on their side.

      6. Thorne

        Re: If they just ignored it

        All religions should be forced to read the Oatmeal's "How to tell if you suck at your religion"

        http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: If they just ignored it

          "......http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion"

          They should have put a PS at the bottom that if you accept your insignificance in the big picture, ditch the religion and its usually restrictive rules, then you can have lots more FUN before you DIE!

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If they just ignored it

        "An amusing solution I heard was to release daily cartoons of Mohammed* - all this rioting has to be pretty tiring - so having to riot continuously would really wear everyone down until they have no energy left."

        Would be a cheap way of ending the war in Afghanistan. Best leaflet the remoter areas the 3G signal doesn't reach to be safe. Upshot would be that everyone left alive is of a moderate disposition. (Just clear out the NATO troops first and send the diplomatic and NGO workers on a nice long leave.)

      8. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If they just ignored it

        "Not that I support doing this, as you are specifically targeting peoples' personal beliefs, regardless of whether you do or don't agree with them"

        Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's how we make progress. We don't put up with the sort of personal beliefs that, for example, considered black people subhumans. Challenging stupid, dangerous, irrational beliefs is #1 tripple-A Good in my book. I don't give a damn if they're "personal"; if that's the case then you need to become a better person.

      9. Paul_Murphy

        Re: If they just ignored it

        >An amusing solution I heard was to release daily cartoons of Mohammed

        A better idea would be to do a daily 'know your deity/ prophet' (maybe as a cut out and keep series?) so that everyone gets some exposure to other religions.

        I also wonder how certain people are that an image purporting to be of someone actually counts? Jesus is very unlikely to be a white male for instance, and a purported portrait of M* that looked more like, say, Alice in Wonderland, might take some wind from peoples sails when they see how ridiculous they are being.

        ttfn

    2. badmonkey
      Angel

      Fanatics

      >>> "These fanatics are their own worse enemy."

      They are not fanatics, they are simply good Muslims obeying the explicit instructions of the Quran and backed up by the various authority figures today.

      Mainstream Islam is explicitly sympathetic and collaborative with these actions. In fact much of the liberal west is sympathetic too.

      >>> "What is it about religion that attracts such morons?"

      They are not really morons. This is a simplistic argument along the lines of labeling the Nazis "evil". If you believed half of Islamic doctrine, you would find their actions to be perfectly reasonable and rational in the same way that a billion Muslims do, right now as you read this. (Scary isn't it?)

      If you really believe in the Quran and the Hadiths, if you - the clot of dried blood, the filth, that you are - accept the unquestioned and unquestionable Word of Allah, and submit to His will, and thereby believe that nothing would please him more, and result in more reward for yourself in heaven, than cutting the throats of infidel hostesses and flying jetliners into buildings, then guess what? - You would find such a course of action to be entirely rational, reasonable, and indeed no act could be considered more brave or heroic.

      These people are not mad, or seriously victimized by the west. They are not fanatics or morons, just the righteous faithful convinced of their cause, conceptually no different to the ostensibly harmless sheep who waddle off to the local parish in Englandshire on Sunday mornings.

      1. Mike Smith
        Devil

        Re: Fanatics

        Indeed. That's the real problem. It's nothing to do with Islam per se - it's the nasty little vermin who corrupt the faithful into believing that cold-blooded murder is justified, simply to further their own political ends. Those are the real enemies, not the poor sods who regard killing Westerners as their sacred duty because that's the claptrap their heads have been filled with since birth. The vast majority of ordinary people, irrespective of their colour or religion, don't cause wars or foment hate.

        Put it another way - if the West was mainly Islamic and the Muslim world was mainly Christian, we'd be seeing howling mobs burning the American flag while chanting, "Praise the Lord!" It's a product of history, culture and politics, and is nothing to do with what the religious teachings say.

        1. badmonkey
          WTF?

          Re: Fanatics

          >>> "It's nothing to do with Islam per se - it's the nasty little vermin who corrupt the faithful into believing that cold-blooded murder is justified, simply to further their own political ends. Those are the real enemies, not the poor sods who regard killing Westerners as their sacred duty because that's the claptrap their heads have been filled with since birth."

          Said corruption is only enabled by Islam, which explicitly instructs the sort of violence that is being lamented here. Religion is always a vehicle for politics, so much so that it's almost redundant to say it.

          >>> "Put it another way - if the West was mainly Islamic and the Muslim world was mainly Christian..."

          A rather strange idea, since I cannot see how the Americas or the Pacific could ever have been reached or developed by the scientifically illiterate and backward people that Muslims became while Christendom struggled ever so slowly free of its mental shackles.

          I suspect that the colonies would still be "Christian" in origin, with friendly and longstanding relations with the old world.

          Conversely one would assume that the EU, or rather MEU (Middle East Union) would be a comparatively peaceful and prosperous place, having worked out their issues for the most part, achieved a pan-Arabia and settled matters with the Persians, while Europe struggled in hate, ignorance, and destitution whilst launching terrorist campaigns against the MEU for not giving away all that oil (and for occasionally daring to suggest that maybe they'd like to come out of the dark ages and join the rest of the civilized world).

          To counter this, MEU and American forces get drawn into occasional regrettable military adventures into the wilds of deepest darkest Belgium, Sweden, and even a recent disastrous intervention in East Anglia.

          Turkey, the old secular Christian nation, continues on a path to modernization whilst dealing with extremist Christians on its northern European borders.

          The Jews of course would still be fucked.

          Marks by upvote/downvote for reimagined history?

          1. Greg J Preece

            Re: Fanatics

            Said corruption is only enabled by Islam

            O-ho, I'd love to see how you get to that. I know some people in Africa that might disagree with you.

            1. badmonkey

              Re: Fanatics

              >>> O-ho, I'd love to see how you get to that. I know some people in Africa that might disagree with you.

              I said *said* corruption, it wasn't meant as an exclusive.

          2. Greg J Preece

            Re: Fanatics

            A rather strange idea, since I cannot see how the Americas or the Pacific could ever have been reached or developed by the scientifically illiterate and backward people that Muslims became while Christendom struggled ever so slowly free of its mental shackles.

            You really need to learn some history before saying such stunningly misinformed things. Ignoring the Christian-inspired dark ages completely (though I don't get how you could), you might want to look into the history of, oooh, let's say, Baghdad? The Islamic middle-eastern world was, at one time, a centre of learning.

            1. badmonkey
              Devil

              Re: Fanatics

              >>> Ignoring the Christian-inspired dark ages completely (though I don't get how you could)

              The period of interest is the Enlightenment onward, as this is the distinction if you like.

              >>> The Islamic middle-eastern world was, at one time, a centre of learning.

              Only relatively speaking.

              Notice how it hasn't been in a long long time?

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: Re: Fanatics

              ".... The Islamic middle-eastern world was, at one time, a centre of learning." Built on the back of mainly Persian, Greek and Roman but also possibly Indian and Chinese discoveries and theorems. Indeed, the Caliph of Baghdad had to employ Jews to work in his civil service as there weren't enough educated Arabs or Persians.

              1. Psyx

                Re: Fanatics

                "Built on the back of mainly Persian, Greek and Roman but also possibly Indian and Chinese discoveries and theorems. Indeed, the Caliph of Baghdad had to employ Jews to work in his civil service as there weren't enough educated Arabs or Persians."

                And we've built a ton of ours on the back of Arabic ones.

                Anyway... Greeks: Weren't they Paedos because they had sex with children? Why praise them? After all, the same thing is being used to condemn Islam...

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Fanatics

                  "....And we've built a ton of ours on the back of Arabic ones..." No we haven't, because by the time the Arabs were copying the Greeks we'd laready started copying the same Greek writings in Europe. Whilst Arabic science stood still, Europe developed eventually into the powers that carved up the Middle East.

                  ".....Greeks: Weren't they Paedos....." Get it right! They had a habit of sexually molesting boys. They seem to have exported it to Afghanistan as part of Alexander's expansion seeing as it is a habit continued by the Taleban. Oh, sorry, did you not want me to include that fact about the "brave fighters for Islam"?

                  1. Psyx
                    WTF?

                    Re: Fanatics

                    "Whilst Arabic science stood still, Europe developed eventually into the powers that carved up the Middle East."

                    I don't think it's fair to say that it stood still. It developed and then lost its impetus.

                    "They had a habit of sexually molesting boys. They seem to have exported it to Afghanistan as part of Alexander's expansion seeing as it is a habit continued by the Taleban. Oh, sorry, did you not want me to include that fact about the "brave fighters for Islam"?"

                    WFT? Seriously?

                    Matt, if you think that for one moment I view the Taliban in a positive light, you've got your head up your arse.

                    Truth is, the Taliban are just the nom de jour of the same warlord fuck-heads who have been running the country and enslaving the people for hundreds of years. Religion is just their handy weapon of choice at present for keeping the locals in line and uneducated so that they can't get the hell out of there, instead of growing drugs for guys with bigger guns.

            3. Tom 13

              Re: Fanatics

              Or maybe he already knows it and its you who have your head stuck so far up your arse you can't see it.

              By your own definitions, there was a point at which Europe was woefully behind the Muslim world in technology. The only advantage Europe had over the rest of the world was Christianity. In fact, existing trade, knowledge, and political alliances were advantages for the Muslim world over the Christian one. Yet now we are light years ahead, plus we seem to have settled down into at least non-violent if not peaceful coexistence.

              1. Greg J Preece

                Re: Fanatics

                The only advantage Europe had over the rest of the world was Christianity.

                *Splutter*

                ADVANTAGE??? What the hell?? You know who Galileo is, right?

            4. Anonymous Coward
              Headmaster

              Re: Fanatics

              > The Islamic middle-eastern world was, at one time, a centre of learning.

              ...in an environment of tolerance and liberallism.

              Now we have religious extremism, the brutalisation of women (who were scholars and learned people at the time) and an almost rabid hatred of anything Western and see what we have now: the destruction of learning (particularly for women), the rise of ignorance and a total domination of intolerance.

              Go back and think about it some more.

          3. Psyx
            Meh

            Re: Fanatics

            "Said corruption is only enabled by Islam, which explicitly instructs the sort of violence that is being lamented here."

            Mate; have you actually read the bible? I could easily use it to justify wiping out half of humanity.

            "A rather strange idea, since I cannot see how the Americas or the Pacific could ever have been reached or developed by the scientifically illiterate and backward people that Muslims became while Christendom struggled ever so slowly free of its mental shackles."

            Would these be the same Muslims who were happily publishing books on optics and science while we were running around with axes raping and looting in the name of Christianity?

            "Conversely one would assume that the EU, or rather MEU (Middle East Union) would be a comparatively peaceful and prosperous place, having worked out their issues for the most part..."

            You forget the bit where Islam would have wandered into Europe, drawn some fucking lines on a map, played king-maker in order to grab natural resources, while handing out consolatory cash to those who pandered to them. The problem with Persia was because WE made it a problem.

            If the Middle East was sitting on Ikea sofas lording it over us and occasionally bombing the shit out of us, propping up non-democratic European monarchies while the average Joe sat in a house made of breeze blocks, you can bet we'd be pissed off. Religion would just be a convenient excuse and a rallying cry, but that's not a reflection on the religion itself.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Re: Fanatics

              ".....Would these be the same Muslims who were happily publishing books on optics and science...." Sorry, but that was COPYING into Arabic the works of Persian, Greek and other scholars. Science in the Middle East just about ground to a halt under the yoke of Islam.

              ".....The problem with Persia was because WE made it a problem....." Complete male bovine manure! The locals in the Middle East have been happilly slaughtering each other for years before the West got involved. How do you think the Persians built an empire, by handing out candy? In Saudi Arabia the Hashemites were continually fighting with the Umayyags even before old Mo turned up with his fairytale (eventually, the Saud family stuffed them both and stole the Saudi crown, leaving the Brits to give the Hashemites the consolation prize of 74% of the Palestine Mandate as Jordan). Mo formed his Islamic empire by slaughtering Jews and other Arabic tribes that got in his way. And then the biggest schism in Islam, the split between Shias and Sunnis, started over a spat as to who got to be the leader when old Mo had died. Please take your "it's-all-the-Whiteman's-fault" apologist claptrap and shove it as it simply does not stand up to historic examination.

  4. solidsoup
    Stop

    This is not about the video.

    This media-created theory is complete nonsense. Do you expect me to believe that Muslims in all these countries were hanging out on YouTube and happened to stumble upon a video uploaded 8 months ago? And that it just happened to be on September 11? Right. And I have a bridge to sell.

    It's about time to start calling these things what they are - September 11 anniversary celebrations that happen every year and got out of control this time. It's not surprising either. Back when Egypt and Libya were run by dictators, there was a check on religious extremism. The "democratic" Arab Spring governments don't have that ability, desire, or both. In fact, it suits their interests to stoke fire against "external enemies" to deflect focus from their own failings.

    This movie theory has been pushed forward as it suits all the big players involved. Obama administration doesn't want to admit that its approach to the Arab Spring was naive and misguided - governments in countries he championed democracy in (against American interests) turn a blind eye to violent 9/11 celebrations, media doesn't want to appear politically incorrect and racist, moderate Muslim leaders don't want Islam to appear savage. "It's all in reaction to a movie" theory suits everyone. Doesn't make it true though.

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: This is not about the video.

      Meh. Doing it to celebrate the deaths of thousands of innocent people is at least as daft as doing it because you saw a crap film.

      I see no reason for in-depth analysis. It's just extremist religious idiocy.

      1. solidsoup
        FAIL

        Re: This is not about the video.

        Then you're clearly missing the point. Instead of having a debate about how we approach Muslim extremism, both in our own countries and as a foreign policy towards countries that tolerate it, we're having one about the limits of free speech.

        1. badmonkey
          Angel

          Re: This is not about the video.

          >>> Instead of having a debate about how we approach Muslim extremism, both in our own countries and as a foreign policy towards countries that tolerate it, we're having one about the limits of free speech.

          I think his point is precisely that we should be doing the former but the media are being led by the nose right up the garden path.

          1. AndrueC Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: This is not about the video.

            Thank you, and yes although I agree it wasn't clear.

            To put it another way: All sorts of things annoy me but I never let them drive me beyond foul language (and even then I'm mindful of the audience). Knowing what triggered this incident has value but there are so many potential triggers with these nutters(*) that you can't legislate against each one and I don't think we should have to curb ourselves just because they are daft. Life is full of irritations and triggers - a sane rational human ought to be able to shrug them off.

            (*)By which I mean the small percentage of extremists, not Muslims in general.

            1. solidsoup
              Megaphone

              Re: This is not about the video.

              @AndrueC

              I completely agree with your sentiment, but can't shake the sense that you're looking at it the wrong way. Triggers imply that there was something that we've done that caused the reaction and if we did those things less, we could control it. Already there are people saying in this thread that the movie is not worth it. I'm curious where they draw the line.

              Again, this was a routine annual protest. The difference this year is that US ambassador was killed. The fact that most people don't know it's a routine 9/11 protest (imagine that combination of words!) is the disturbing thing. There's an uncomfortable dance being done by the media, our governments, Muslim leaders, liberal apologists, and the public at large. They are all dancing around the elephant in the room - Islam as a religion as practiced by most Muslims (yes, Muslims in general) is incompatible with our modern values. The Islamists recognize that incompatibility and we pretend it doesn't exist. The only reason we do it is because we whored our ideals out for oil.

    2. badmonkey
      Angel

      Re: This is not about the video.

      This is very true and I'm unsure why all the down votes.

      One of the guests on BBC World's Dateline London this weekend pointed out the same thing. Particularly with regard to the killing of the US consulate people in Libya.

      It happened on the September 11 anniversary, involved serious arms, and obviously took some serious organization and planning. Why the media continues to buy the line that it was a knee-jerk reaction to this film is beyond me. It was quite obviously an Islamist strike planned to have maximum impact and for no reason beyond their normal motives.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: This is not about the video.

      Minor nit: not a media created theory. This one comes straight from the loser in the White House on my side of the pond. The media are just enablers and supporters of the theory.

  5. jake Silver badge

    During the meanwhile ...

    ... ignorant sheeple are ignorant sheeple.

    I mean, honestly, pooh-poohing an internally irrational belief system is worth KILLING someone over? Why? What are the Catholics Jews Islamic folks afraid of, anyway? It's all a power trip, and has more to do with herding sheep to market than it does anything that resembles "scripture".

    Humans, as a species, need to grow up and eschew irrational thinking.

    Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, alas :-/

    1. Thorne
      Angel

      Re: During the meanwhile ...

      Personally I find the Christians funny

      "The Lord is my shepherd"

      AKA

      "I am a sheep"

      1. Graham Dawson

        Re: During the meanwhile ...

        Just for that I'm going to chop your head off!

        Or would you prefer cake? I have cake too.

        1. Justice

          Re: During the meanwhile ...

          Cake or death?

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. JimmyPage Silver badge
            WTF?

            re: Cake or death

            A downvote ? Seriously ? Can someone explain why this delicious echo of Lord Izzard of Cheam is downvoted ?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re: Cake or death @Jimmy Page

              And you get at least one automatic downvote for questioning a downvote.

              And WTF is Lord Izzard of Cheam and why should we be expected to understand any reference to him or (from time to time) her, it's not as if it's a Monty Python reference.

            2. HMB

              Re: re: Cake or death - Downvotes

              "A downvote ? Seriously ? Can someone explain why this delicious echo of Lord Izzard of Cheam is downvoted ?"

              It doesn't matter if what you say is funny or what you say is true. What matters is: "Do the readers like it?".

              When you get a downvote, it could be anything from a carefully considered, intelligent and rational decision to an immature teen who thinks he knows about computers, smoking pot at his parents, wearing a soviet Hammer & Sickle t-shirt.

              If downvotes bother you too much, it's time to spend more time with good friends in the real world ;)

          3. ian 22

            Re: During the meanwhile ...

            Death by cake?

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: During the meanwhile ...

            ...and we're out of cake...

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: During the meanwhile ...

              Cake is fattening. Have some fruit instead.

        2. Thorne

          Re: During the meanwhile ...

          "Or would you prefer cake? I have cake too."

          The cake is a lie

      2. AndrueC Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: During the meanwhile ...

        On a related note I was watching a documentary last night. The latest series of 'Air Crash Investigation'. A 737 suffered double engine failure while approaching New Orleans. The pilot amazingly managed to land it on a levee (one just outside a NASA installation as happened). Anyway the documentary showed a news clip and one official said "Thank God" - to which several others said "Oh yes". Then almost as an afterthought he added "And the pilot".

        As an atheist and humanist I found that offensive. I wouldn't have chopped anyone's head off over it though but it does sadden me that some people think it appropriate to thank God ahead of the pilot who's skill got the plane down safely. As far as I can see all God might have done was put a severe hailstorm in front of the plane and put a lot of lives at risk.

        As a boot note - you know how they got the 737 out? They flew it out.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

        1. PatientOne

          Re: During the meanwhile ...

          @AndrueC

          Terms like 'Thank God' are so common now that people don't think about their use, they just use it. I am sure you use the same term without thinking or even realising, just as you inevitably use 'Jesus' as an indication of surprise. It is not a belief in God (of any flavour) or Jesus or any religion, but rather a use of an expression you have been exposed to since childhood and so associate with expressing emotion.

          I suspect you similarly use Fuck, Cunt, Shit, Hell and many other swear words if you're not consciously trying to avoid them. You might even feel embarrassed when you realise you have. You might try to train yourself not to use such terms, but you are constantly exposed to them and so will revert on occasion. A lot of people don't even hear the words, they just accept the sentiment. Indeed, some people DO hear the words even if they were not actually spoken, because they are expecting them and associate them with an emotive outburst. This is how people get accused of racist comments when actually no such comment was made: A person simply said 'You idiot' while annoyed and the listener adjusted the comment to fit what they expected. It's quite fascinating to watch it happen here in the office: And it happens quite frequently...

          Yes, the pilot should be praised, but the reporter just expressed their relief that the plane was landed safely and no one was killed. Thank God/the Maker/The stars/Heavens/the fates/what ever expressive term you prefer to show relief, indeed.

      3. badmonkey
        Angel

        Re: During the meanwhile ...

        >>> "The Lord is my shepherd"

        AKA

        "I am a sheep"

        Suggest anyone who is interested look up the debate between the Hitchens brothers. Watch for Christopher H's demanding of the audience who would stand up and call themselves a sheep. A few are brave enough to do it; I am sure many more are there but are not.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: During the meanwhile ...

      ".....Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime...." Islam is very interesting in that it was obviously structured for longevity. Simple rules that if you leave the faith you should die kinda keep the herd in place. Whilst in the herd you can't blaspheme or your die. If you utter any form of doubts you get harangued back into line or tried for blasphemy and you die. Herd members can marry outside the religion only if the partner converts. If the partner subsequently tries to leave the religion they die, whether they stay married to the herd member or not. In short, if you are born into the religion or join it then you are not allowed to leave and are encouraged to ensure no-one else does either. Punishments for the leaving, blaspheming, etc, are usually group punishments such as stonings, to weld the herd together in joint responsibility.

      There is some hope in what is called "convenience muslims". These are muslims that "adapt" their lifestyle to suit Western practices, dropping many of the strict Islamic rules (no drinking, no uncovered women, etc) whilst maintianing the "core beliefs". Hilariously, I have met muslims that will drink till they pass out, shag around with non-muslims, and generally act quite Western, but will then "not eat pork as it is the greatest sin" - like what did the poor pigs do to deserve that!?!? When they are with stricter muslims they will act all pious, and when they are out mixing with Westerners they will relax and not behead anyone. Hopefully, with time, the number of convenience muslims will grow to massively outnumber the strict ones, and then maybe they'll start shrugging at movies like this. After all, that's what happened with Christianity.

      1. badmonkey
        Angel

        Re: During the meanwhile ...

        >>> ".....Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime...." Islam is very interesting in that it was obviously structured for longevity...

        Thought you were talking about Scientology there for a minute.

        Good post. The thing is all religions are like that. They are perfectly tuned and adapted to take advantage of the little evolutionary flaws or side effects in the human brain that make us all susceptible to them.

        The only solution is a long hard slog to fight off the indoctrination of the young and let the old generations die off. In the meantime, although no politician would admit it, the civilized world is at war with Islam, and will be for a long time yet.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Re: During the meanwhile ...

          ".... The thing is all religions are like that...." Actually, I'd have to say Islam takes it a bit further. In Christianity you can be excommunicated, i.e., they kick you out of the herd. In the old days this was a dire punishment as Western society was setup around and controlled by the Church. If you were excommunictaed you couldn't marry and would be ostracised. But nowadays there is no such threat. It really does look like old Mo trook a hard look at where the cults of Judaism and Christianity had "flaws" (i.e., exits) and carefully built his cult without them.

          "....Thought you were talking about Scientology there for a minute...." Well, we can take the Mick out of them for now because they don't control countries or influence "1.5 billion people", but would you be as comfortable with the idea of being unable to criticise Scientology or other cults in the same way as we're told we mustn't criticise Islam?

          1. badmonkey
            Devil

            Re: During the meanwhile ...

            >>> "Well, we can take the Mick out of them for now because they don't control countries"

            You mistake me, I will happily take the mick out of all. I am an equal-opportunities anti-theist.

            1. Nigel 11

              Re: During the meanwhile ...

              "not eat pork as it is the greatest sin" - like what did the poor pigs do to deserve that!?!?

              in the Middle East, in centuries past, pigs carried a parasite that can infect humans with dire consequences.

              Declaring pork to be unclean was a very sensible public-health measure at the time. The reason why it was so was at that time unknown. The unfortunate thing about religion is that now the reason IS known, the true believers nevertheless adhere to a commandment that makes absolutely no sense if you are living in 21st-Century England.

              In other words, "Don't think. Just do what you are told".

              Almost all mainstream religion has this fundamental flaw. As do many well-known secular cults: communism, fascism, managerialism, and many lesser ones.

              IBM got it's first commandment right: "Think!"

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Re: During the meanwhile ...

                ".....in the Middle East, in centuries past, pigs carried a parasite that can infect humans with dire consequences....." Yes, thanks, but I already knew that. The point I was trying to make was that muslims often stick to the "no pork" rule because it is the easiest to stick with. Giving up pork is easy, there are alternatives like beef and chicken, and pork is not so amazingly good that you just can't do without it. But giving up alcohol, or shagging around? Well, that could seriously dent a guy's fun!

                1. Thorne
                  Mushroom

                  Re: During the meanwhile ...

                  "Giving up pork is easy, there are alternatives like beef and chicken, and pork is not so amazingly good that you just can't do without it. But giving up alcohol, or shagging around? Well, that could seriously dent a guy's fun!"

                  How dare you say that about bacon. Kill the infidel!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Live and let live

    Why is there so much bile spouted over other peoples beliefs mainly from those who don't have any. Every time there is an article with a hint of religion in it people feel the need to belittle the followers. 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.

    As for wars, it may just be coincidence that different regions have differing beliefs so tying wars to religion is tenuous apart from maybe the Crusades. When compared to the really big wars religious ones a mere squirmishes. Was the British empire built on the back of religion, ore even the Roman empire.

    Murdering, raping and pillaging - Some of the things attributed to the Vikings when they landed on our own shores though recent research claims to disprove this, but was it born from religion. They are also the acts of many victors of battles.

    Irrational belief. Most people have irrational beliefs of one sort or another. A lucky pair of underpants or always doing something in a particular order, always feeling the need to diminish religion.

    1. auburnman
      Stop

      Re: Live and let live

      I don't worship my lucky underpants.

      You speak of irrational belief - if you admit that religious beliefs are irrational (or at least can understand that agnostics and atheists find them irrational) surely you can understand the concern around people living their lives according to those beliefs? There is widely tolerated stuff that concerns me - circumcision of newborns and children being brought up in religious schools to name but a few.

      As for it being "none of your business" I disagree. It's my business for as long as people knock on my door or try to stop me in the street to talk about Jesus. It's my business while I'm 'going to hell' because I don't shun gay people. Oh, and it's my business while people want me dead because I don't believe in their god.

      Live and let live? You first.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Live and let live @auburnman

        >Live and let live? You first.

        I will, while you lot have heart attacks.

        1. HMB

          Re: Live and let live @auburnman

          ">Live and let live? You first.

          I will, while you lot have heart attacks."

          Remember what I said earlier JimmyPage :)

    2. AndrueC Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Live and let live

      I don't think many people are saying that all wars are attributable to religion. However religion has certainly been at the heart of a lot of conflict. I think a lot of us would also add that although conflict is always to be avoided of all the possible reasons to engage in conflict an unprovable belief has to be the most pitiful.

      Yes we all have unprovable beliefs. Personally I believe in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe(*). I'd like to think it wasn't irrational but it's unprovable. The difference is that I don't use it as an excuse for abusing other people or their property and I don't try and impose that belief on other people.

      (*)Even here on Earth, sometimes :)

    3. badmonkey
      Angel

      Re: Live and let live

      >>> Apart from the wacky extremists of any persuasion, are they hurting you?

      Yes. Moderates enable the true faithfuls. Even the most harmless of well intentioned Christians are inadvertently making it impossible to deal with serious problems. Then there is that little business of them constantly seeking and striving to destroy the minds of the young.

      >>> So they believe in something, big deal, get over it, it's none of your business.

      If it was none of my business, I would be happy to, but they all consistently do their best to *make* it my business so I really have very little choice.

    4. Thorne

      Re: Live and let live

      "Irrational belief. Most people have irrational beliefs of one sort or another. A lucky pair of underpants or always doing something in a particular order, always feeling the need to diminish religion."

      I haven't strapped a bomb to my ass and tried to kill you because you laughed at my lucky underpants.

      There's a point of difference

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Live and let live @Thorne

        >I haven't strapped a bomb to my ass and tried to kill you because you laughed at my lucky underpants.

        But you're not a wacky lucky underpant extremist so I woudn't expect you to. Hence your comment is, to say the least, mind-numbingly inconsequential.

        1. Thorne

          Re: Live and let live @Thorne

          "But you're not a wacky lucky underpant extremist so I woudn't expect you to. Hence your comment is, to say the least, mind-numbingly inconsequential."

          I don't think there are any underpant extremists but draw a picture of Big Mo and millions of muslim whackjobs will come out howlng for blood so either whackjobs are attracted to islam or islam teaches them to be whackjobs.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Live and let live @Thorne

            >millions of muslim whackjobs

            Methinks you exaggerate. Honestly how many people have you actually seen howling for blood? I'd bet you could watch re-runs of the news all day long and even counting the people each time as unique protesters still not reach a million.

            And once you've found the true number what percentage are they of the total number of Muslims?

          2. Psyx
            Pint

            Re: Live and let live @Thorne

            "I don't think there are any underpant extremists but draw a picture of Big Mo and millions of muslim whackjobs will come out howlng for blood so either whackjobs are attracted to islam or islam teaches them to be whackjobs."

            When there's baying crowds, mob mentality is in place. And that's never rational.

            People yelling "You fucking scum" and kicking the crap out of people because they are wearing a blue shirt instead of a yellow one in the vicinity of football games springs to mind.

            I don't think it's reasonable to confuse base judgement of an entire religion on a whipped up mob, no more it is of me to judge a game of ball-kicking on Millwall fans.

    5. TheUglyAmerican
      Angel

      Re: Live and let live

      Religion still matters. It stirs in the hearts of non-believers and shines a light on their estrangement from God. So they resort to shallow rhetoric and vain attempts at elitism. I'm glad to see it.

  7. Julian Bond
    Trollface

    And the UK?

    The UK has laws making it an offence to incite religious or racial hatred. Why doesn't Google censor the video there?

    Oh, wait, it doesn't involve copyright. As you were.

    1. HMB

      Re: And the UK?

      Those laws have already been used against people using Islam as an excuse for hate.

      There were plenty of government reassurances that satire and parody would be fine.

      Admittedly I'm waiting for the temporary motorway speed limit of 70 mph to be over after it was set temporarily in 1967.

    2. Psyx
      Thumb Up

      Re: And the UK?

      "The UK has laws making it an offence to incite religious or racial hatred. Why doesn't Google censor the video there?"

      I agree. I guess because nobody in the UK has been suicide bombed over it, yet.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: And the UK?

        ".......Why doesn't Google censor the video there?....." We also have laws against inciting violence, and your apparent encouragement to commit suicide bombings in order to "get the meesage across" would be construed to being just that. Maybe you should be a bit more careful of your choice of words.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    how do we draw the line as to what is a "hate speech" and what isn't?

    For example, if a video was created by the KKK that shows the nature of African Americans, and the video followed this video's example, it made fun of the African Americans. Would such a video be considered hate speech? if "yes", then why is a video making fun of the Muslims Prophet isn't?

    Another example, in the game Medial of Honor you play the role of a multiple American soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan. The argument here is that the game is based on an actual battle that is taking place and therefore it is no a "hate" game. If this argument can hold, then the question is: Can a developer make a game where a white police officer hunt down crime syndicates (been waiting for a chance to use this), it is just that those syndicates happened to reside in black and/or Asian neighborhoods. Would such a game be as acceptable as MoH was?

    Will someone please clarify why is it not considered to hate speech when a certain group of people are attacked and not another?

    (please do forgive my ignorance in this subject)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes they can

      I have played a game, can't remember the name of it as it was a long time ago but you played a white police officer who was going up against the triads - cue lots of shooting of Asians

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Bunker_Monkey
        Coat

        Re: Yes they can

        Ermm I thought it was 'Soldier of Fortune'? But another comment reads like GTA: San Andreas..... But then your a gang member!

        Mines the one with the molotov cocktail in the pocket

      3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Yes they can

        "....you played a white police officer who was going up against the triads - cue lots of shooting of Asians." So what? The basis of the game was not massacare Asians it was investigate/stop a criminal gang. The fact the gang was a Triad one may just have been due to publicity around Triads at the time. There have been historic waves of publicity of different criminal gangs which have affected the depiction of criminals in movies, books and games. Examples are the Eighties movies about Mafia gangs, all redolent with Italian-Americans. Then you have blackxplotation movies like "Shaft" from the Seventies, where heroes and baddies were black. Going back even further to the Thirties you had Hollywood gangset movies with distinct racial gangs, such as Irish-Americans fighting Italian-Americans (all white, no coloured people involved at all). Before 9/11 the typical Hollywood terrorist was a white European such as Rutger Hauer in "Nighthawks" or Alan Rickman in "Die Hard". Trying to claim that gangs did not exist in racial groups, and that depicting such racial groups is unrealistic or offensive, is simply stupid and smacks of over-sensitve appeasement of vocal minorities.

    2. solidsoup

      From a legal standpoint, hate speech is speech that is inherently threatening to a group of people or can cause that group to be discriminated against. In US, short of direct incitement to violence, such speech is protected by the First Amendment. Note, however, that the movie in question wouldn't even qualify as hate speech. While, it mocks Muhammed and Islam (and does a terrible job of doing that), it is no more hate speech than the episode of South Park about Catholic Church.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ solidsoup

        thanks for answer

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC - OP 07:38

      >soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan

      I haven't played the game but I suspect the targets are Islamic extremists not your average rank and file Muslim.

      The only games I play are aircraft simulations and way back during the cold war the set scenarios were mainly against targets in Russia and Korea. I don't recall any Russians nor Koreans getting all uppity about it.

      >Will someone please clarify why is it not considered to hate speech when a certain group of people are attacked and not another?

      Maybe you can explain why a group of people who blow up buddhas in the face of world opposition can claim to exempt from criticism.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @AC - OP 07:38

        Maybe you can explain why a group of people who blow up buddhas in the face of world opposition can claim to exempt from criticism.

        I am assuming that you are referring to the Taliban here. You are generalizing the actions of the Taliban as if those actions represent to general Muslim world. The truth is, even Muslims didn't get along with the Taliban. I even recall being told that many of the Taliban's views actually goes against the normal Islamic teachings.

        Any way, for now you might wish to keep in mind that in other Muslim countries, statues are still been preserved, example in Egyptian museums.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC - OP 07:38

          Sorry, I forgot to add something,

          you might also wish to keep in mind that those protests are taking place in countries that already have previous problems with unemployment and poverty. The people would have gone to a protest for one reason or another, this happened to be the reason this time. Extremists are just taking the opportunity to push their agenda.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC - OP 07:38

          >You are generalizing the actions of the Taliban as if those actions represent to general Muslim world

          Thankyou, that's what I was expecting so I can now retort, and muslims are generalizing the action of one film maker as if he represent the general western world.

          What's the difference?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC - OP 07:38

            What's the difference?

            you and I? it might not be enough, but that's how it is right now.

            As wrote in the post above yours, these protests are taking in place in some countries, countries that already had problems and the people would have gone on a protest for any reason.

            I currently work and live in Tanzania, I've seen Muslims who watched the video, their reaction: Closed the page and just say something about the creators of the film. Not a word about the USofA nor a single word about the West in general.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC - OP 07:38

              >you and I? it might not be enough, but that's how it is right now.

              I suspect most people realise the actions of one individual or small group don't speak for the general community.

              >As wrote in the post above yours, these protests are taking in place in some countries, countries that already had problems and the people would have gone on a protest for any reason.

              I'd go further and suggest what we see on out TV news from those countries has been edited to enhance the dramatical effect.

        3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: @AC - OP 07:38

          ".....Any way, for now you might wish to keep in mind that in other Muslim countries, statues are still been preserved, example in Egyptian museums." Thanks for the perfect example to show one of the hidden truths of history. If you look at the pyramids at Giza in Egypt you may want to wonder what they actually looked like BEFORE the Arabic hordes conquered Egypt. The invading muslim Arab armies stripped the coating of white stone and the gold caps off the pyramids and used the Sphinx for target practice. They later made up a story blaming Napoleon's French troops. Amusingly, there is evidence (graffiti) on the many tombs in the Valley of the Kings to suggest there were tourists going back to ancient Greek times, so it more likely as not that the treasures of Egypt were only saved by a little bit of Arab greed rather than a desire to save them for future generations - they wanted to get the tourist revenue even back in the day before the term "tourist" existed!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC - OP 07:38, Matt Bryant

            1st, you mean the Spanish did better when they saw the gold? 2nd, you are ignoring the comment that my post was replying to. You are expanding my reply to areas that were never part of the discussion. The Taliban-Buddha incident is a recent one and I was replying to the fact that it wasn't religiously motivated act but a Taliban act.

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      "....Another example, in the game Medial of Honor...." Dial-up version for modem play?

      ".....you play the role of a multiple American soldiers who shoot different Muslims factions in Afghanistan...." Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan (possibly Afghans, but also Pakistani or other Taleban-friendly types such as Chechens) that are fighting the government of Afghanistan and killing other (muslim) Afghan civillians and soldiers. I'm betting you don't want me to remind people that the majority of victims of Islamic terrorists such as the Taleban are other muslims, right? The fact that the "opposition" in the game are probably muslim is neither proven nor is it the reason you are fighting them. Doesn't a little context mess with your portrayal of Western racism?

      ".....Can a developer make a game where a white police officer hunt down crime syndicates (been waiting for a chance to use this), it is just that those syndicates happened to reside in black and/or Asian neighborhoods....." Your example makes several assumptions based on RACE, not religion. Firstly, I can bet you're making the assumption that all the police would be white - first fail! The story could be quite easily set in China, use Oriental cops, and have them hunting white gangs such as Russian Mafia. Secondly, you ignore the existance of racially-aligned criminal gangs that do exist in Western towns (Yardies for example).

      Sorry, but trying to equate questioning the rationality of a religion with racism is a big fail.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Matt Bryant @ 10:00

        "Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan" who are also Muslims, so where is the mistake? Your point of view doesn't denies mine.

        "I'm betting you don't want me to remind people that the majority of victims of Islamic terrorists such as the Taleban are other muslims, right?" Which wasn't the subject of my post. It was that the targets shared a common religion, not what the targets did. An oversight on my behalf, but not an intentional one.

        "Your example makes several assumptions based on RACE, not religion." Which was the point I am trying to make: race hate is unacceptable, yet religious one is acceptable, why? (hint, read the 3rd reply to my first post)

        "Firstly, I can bet you're making the assumption that all the police would be white - first fail!" Actually I am not making that assumption, which is why I made the point of specifying that the police officer is white.

        "you ignore the existance of racially-aligned criminal gangs that do exist in Western towns" Will the KKK qualify? They were in there in the first part of my post.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Matt Bryant @ 10:00

          "........"Incorrect, and probably deliberately so! In the game you shoot different factions of people in Afghanistan" who are also Muslims, so where is the mistake? Your point of view doesn't denies mine...." You tried to imply the ONLY reason they were being shot at in the game was because they were muslim, rather than the truth that they are muslims that kill other muslims and hence the "enemy" of a force trying to restore order to Afghanistan.

          "....An oversight on my behalf, but not an intentional one...." I'm not surprised with those blinkers you have on.

          ".....Will the KKK qualify?...." You mean the Klan, as investigated and punished by majority WHITE authorities?

          ".... Which was the point I am trying to make: race hate is unacceptable, yet religious one is acceptable, why?...." Your very tired attempts to equate racism and anit-Islam are both very old and boring. Please, go get a new script, that one has been done to death by apologists for Islam for years. Islam is not a race, it's a cult.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Matt Bryant @ 10:00

            Note for AC.

            I suggest you read some of Matt Bryant's previous posts before giving credibility to his current rantings by entering into dialogue with him.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Matt Bryant @ 10:00 Chris W

              the thread grow too large, so I was skipping it.

              I'll keep that in mind, thanks

  9. solidsoup
    Alert

    Self-censorship.

    This is kind of cool actually. I wonder if anyone has noticed. Go back through this thread and read the posts. Christianity is mentioned more times than Islam, even though it has nothing to do with the article. Posts that decry the Islamists' behavior expressly avoid mentioning them or Muhammed. I don't think there's much to add to this.

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Self-censorship.

      I mentioned Islam once. I think I got away with it :)

  10. Purlieu

    Irony

    Can't escape the irony - the movie portrays Muslims as violent, hateful, intolerant, so they protest about it be being, erm, .... yes you got it.

    Killing people in the name of religion, says it all really.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Irony

      I was going to stay out of this "debate" but: There have been many rowdy protests, yes, there have been a few seriously violent protests, I don't know about all the ones which turned violent, but the Lybian protest where the American embassy was gutted and diplomats killed was no ordinary protest. The local Al Queda affiliate group had organised a large amount of armed thugs to attend the protest. These thugs turned up with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles. This is a terrorist attack on an embassy, while a protest was taking place. Similar things happened with the pIRA during the "troubles" and we don't see people lining up to decry Catholicism as a religion of violence.

  11. Anonymous Cowerd

    It isn't about some crap video

    That's just a pretext for behaving as they have wanted to for some time...

  12. Whyfore

    13 minutes is a film trailer?

    I've watched it and can only imagine the full-length film would be so awful that no-one would waste their time watching it long enough to get to the blasphemous bits. Only by sticking all the juicy bits together could you bait anyone with such tripe.

  13. R69

    Free speech....when it suits

    Religion = brainwashing...and Islam is better than the rest at that as its so dogmatic. These people have no perspective on reality. Im tired of hearing how the Koran promotes tolerance and peace - thats clearly bollocks. Weve seen enough evidence over the last 30 years to know that just isnt true anymore & its about time that the civilised nations of the world adopted an equally intolerant attitude towards religious fanatics...

  14. J1

    atheist 'sense'

    For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either.

    For a bunch of people that claim to 'think for themselves', atheists display a singular lack of ability in that respect. They are however great at the, predictable, knee jerk reaction, when Islam is mentioned.

    Many would have heard the words...'sticks and stones, blah blah blah', however not many will appreaciate that the closer something is to you, the more you love something, the more it will hurt, when someone says something against it. So take for example the offense taken when current soldiers are made a mockery of, or when someone says something against them.. then this becomes speech that is not acceptable. The perpetrators of such speech are taken to court and made to pay for their words. Free speech finds a limit as does ones tolerance.

    In the house of Islam, the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is the most beloved of human beings.. more than ones family, more than oneself. It actually hurts when you use his name without using the, peace be upon him, to follow it.

    In the house of Islam, we are specifically forbidden from doing so to others..

    Quran 6:108: And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them about what they used to do.

    Most apply no self control, thier knees will jerk... and what is inside, will be splurged out for all the world to see.

    The name, Muhammad, means 'the praised one' in Arabic.. and it is a fact that he is being praised world wide, every minute of every day, since his name is mentioned in the call to prayer, which is recited five times a day. A sign, for those with the wherewithall to see.

    1. deive
      FAIL

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      You are tying to get us to understand from your point of view, which is a good thing - if more people tried to understand others viewpoints we would probably all be better off.

      However the first thing you do is attack a group in exactly the same manner as others - "They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either". How is that any different from someone outside of Islam from insulting Muhammad?

      Just because an atheist doesn't have a religion to tell them what is right or wrong, doesn't mean they do not know. Not everyone has to be told these things!

      1. J1

        Re: atheist 'sense'

        I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else.

        It does not tell you anything else, it does not say that you had to come to this understanding, using logic, science, having a dream etc.. are all equally valid ways of getting to the understanding that 'there is no God'.

        If you have a look at atheist websites.. thats what they say.

        I merely said what atheists say.

        As to good and bad, most people follow the prevailing views. Atheism did not give it to them, society did.

        In order to promote more understanding, if you are really that interested...

        http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=muhammad%20the%20greates&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsabr.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcategory%2F4-seerah%3Fdownload%3D10%253Amuhammad-the-greatest-doc&ei=7IVZUOGEB6jB0QXPrIHQDA&usg=AFQjCNFS6M90NUmbvG0wdSQi6fegVB6KRQ

        should be a link to a short pdf booklet about the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.

        1. Growly Snuffle Bunny
          Flame

          Re: atheist 'sense' (J1 @ 09.20)

          "I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else."

          What you actually said was:

          "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."

          The two sentences are not the same.

          Atheists (in general) say we/they do not believe in god(s). What the majority mean when saying this is that atheism doesn't mean being 100% certain that God doesn't exist. It means being certain enough. It means thinking God is hypothetically possible, but unless we see some better evidence for him, we're going to assume he doesn't exist. I guess this means that the majority of us are 'strong agnostics' rather than atheists. I've talked to (and met) very few people who have the 'faith' to say 100% 'there are no gods'.

          "I merely said what atheists say."

          And people are merely saying that they have observed the 'religion of peace' being terrifically violent.

          Do you see?

          "As to good and bad, most people follow the prevailing views. Atheism did not give it to them, society did."

          And if you'd have been born in a different society, your religious views would most likely be different to what they are now. The number of people who change religions are tiny. The number of people who stay in the religion of their birth group is vast. The number of people who renounce their religion because they see the problems and injustice that religions cause are growing, and growing quite rapidly.

          "Good" and "Bad", "moral" and immoral" are all culturally relative, but with thought and compassion a reasonable personal code can be constructed that can change over time. Having a fixed code that is hundreds or thousands of years old can only lead to conflict with a modern society and viewpoints.

          1. J1

            Re: atheist 'sense' (J1 @ 09.20)

            -"I said atheism does not give any basis for good and bad.. which is true.. atheism is only 'there is no god', it is nothing else."

            -What you actually said was:

            -"For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."

            -The two sentences are not the same.

            How so.. atheism is 'there is no god', nothing else.. and atheism gives no basis to determine right and wrong etc.. seem to be saying the same thing.. no?

            While true the statements are not identical, they are saying the same thing.

            -And people are merely saying that they have observed the 'religion of peace' being terrifically violent.

            The word Islam, in Arabic, means to get to peace by submitting ones will to the Will of God. This means following whatever He says, whether one agrees with it or not.

            Islam is a way of life of strength and justice. If someone strkes you, you have every right under law to get redress.. however, it is better to forgive. It is not for nothing that it has grown ever since the time of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.. and is still growing.

            Peace does not mean that you allow others to beat you up, and keep doing so for years.. and you do not respond. It seems to be a common misunderstanding that being a muslim means that you should be a monk or something. Do not raise a hand to defend yourself.. this is not Islam.

            As to violence and who is being the most 'terrific' at it. If one only views the standard media.. yes one will ofcourse get the view that Islam and Muslims are the baddest people on the planet. Hardly a surprise there.

            However, if you were to view independent media..

            http://www.counterpunch.org/

            http://www.medialens.org/

            ..these are non-muslim examples.. you get quite a different picture of what actually is going on.

            -And if you'd have been born in a different society, your religious views would most likely be different to what they are now. The number of people who change religions are tiny. The number of people who stay in the religion of their birth group is vast. The number of people who renounce their religion because they see the problems and injustice that religions cause are growing, and growing quite rapidly.

            Agree with most of this. However, the number of people entering into Islam is growing aswell.. and such people are not people who are uneducated, or have been picked up from some cave and popped into this time.

            -"Good" and "Bad", "moral" and immoral" are all culturally relative, but with thought and compassion a reasonable personal code can be constructed that can change over time. Having a fixed code that is hundreds or thousands of years old can only lead to conflict with a modern society and viewpoints.

            This is only the case where one has no basis for good and bad.. if you take God out of the equation, then ofcourse its your word, your opinion against mine.. the point to keep in mind is that with God in the picture, your and my views do not count for anything. God's view trumps ours.

            In the house of Islam, the point being made is exactly this, that I am not trying to push my view upon you. Just passing on the view of God.. I expect you'll want evidence.. God provides evidence.. the Quran is the evidence, the creation is evidence, you are evidence.

            I expect you do not accept the creation as evidence.. in which case, stick with the Quran. It claims to be a miracle, it claims that you cannot produce even 3 sentences like it, challenges you to do so. It claims that it is with out contradictions, it contains no doubts.. essentially, God is saying, come take me on if you can. He even goes further.. He says, get all your buddies together, your equipment etc.. and produce something like the Quran.

            Now, if you are truly after evidence, I posted a link earlier.. have a read, think about it. This man, Muhammad, peace be upon him.. we are claiming is the greatest of all human beings. Does what is presented in the booklet make sense. At the very least, it may dispel some views one may have picked up.

            The Quran is evidence, take up its challenge.. read it, deconstruct it..

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g

            This is a TED lecture, 10 mins, on the take of an agnositc Jew, on her reading of the Quran.

            Atheist like to claim that they are free thinkers.. people that think for themselves.. well the Quran is addressing you. People of intellect, people who think, those that know, those that think deeply etc...

            1. DavCrav Silver badge

              Re: atheist 'sense' (J1 @ 09.20)

              "I expect you'll want evidence.. God provides evidence.. the Quran is the evidence, the creation is evidence, you are evidence."

              Moron alert. Whoop whoop. A book written by humans is not evidence; in that case Harry Potter is evidence of wizards. Creation isn't evidence of a will or creation force, so don't use that, else what created the god? And I am evidence of evolution. Surely you believe in that, since I can demonstrate it? Or next time you get sick with drug-resistant illnesses, you can die.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: atheist 'sense' (J1 @ 09.20)

            You can add one to your list, as I am more than happy to state with total conviction that 'there are no gods".

            1. Titus Technophobe
              Thumb Down

              Re: atheist 'sense' (J1 @ 09.20)

              >...If someone strkes you, you have every right under law to get redress..

              Or in this case kill people on account of an amateur movie on Youtube?

            2. J1

              Re: atheist 'sense' (AC @ 11:56)

              -You can add one to your list, as I am more than happy to state with total conviction that 'there are no gods".

              I agree, there are no gods.

              The begining of Islam is come to the conclusion that there are no gods.. that there is nothing worthy of worship. No man can be, no sun moon fire etc.. nothing in creation is worthy of worship.

              The literal meaning of the creed of Islam begins with, "There is nothing worthy of worship"...

              It then goes on to, ", except Allah", the one and only worthy of worship

              It completes with, ", and Muhammad is His messanger.". ie. the messenger, peace be upon him, is not God, is not worthy of worship.. keep it straight in your heads, and don't make the same mistake others have made in the past.

              Now, where would like to go with this?

    2. Growly Snuffle Bunny
      Flame

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either."

      Atheists have morality, as do religious believers. We just don't think our moral compass is planted in us by God or supernatural forces, and we don't think fear of God's punishment is necessary to be a good person. We base our morality in this life: our empathy with others, and our observations about what causes suffering and happiness.

      "Free speech finds a limit as does ones tolerance."

      Limited "free speech"? Not exactly free then, is it?

      'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'

      - Stephen Fry

      1. J1

        Re: atheist 'sense'

        So essentially you have agreed that atheism gave you nothing but, 'God does not exist'.. the rest did not come from atheism, it came from which ever other sources you happened to like at the time.

        None of which is universal and can be applied to anyone else other than you (your experiences, perceptions, conclusions are yours alone), and also has to be subordinated to the prevailing views (which are applied to everyone).. and within the limit of the law (again applied to everyone).. in other words.. you have come up with pretty much nothing. Or have you actually come up with something that one could not attribute as I have done so above, something from athiesm?

        Please note, I did not say that atheists do not have morality.. I said, that they cannot claim that atheism gives it to them.

        As to limited free speech not being free, agreed.

        Quoting Mr Fry does not help.

        Neither does the use of bad language. It merely shows a lack of self control, and the ability to come up with an argument, whether it is quoted or not.

        Saying anything, providing proof on top of proof, to most people makes no difference.. they do not care.

        However, to say that I am offended to someone who has the empathy/compassion etc.. that you mention, will mean that they will be more careful with the subject in question. Their empathy/compassion etc..leads to such behaviour. They may not agree, but they will be careful. Mr Fry, is wrong, it does make a difference, depends on who your are talking to. Most of the posters on this site, are in the camp of offend away.. which one are you in? and yet at the same time they will claim to have the empathy etc.. as you claimed above.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Re: atheist 'sense'

          "....Or have you actually come up with something that one could not attribute as I have done so above, something from athiesm?...." So what you're saying is aethiests think for themselves but mulsims get it all spoonfed to them? Thanks for clearing that up.

    3. PassiveSmoking
      Mushroom

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      The "Religion is the source of all morality in the world" argument is such an obnoxious pile of horse shit you could keep Que Gardens in tip top condition with it for the next decade.

      If only religious people are moral then why does the catholic church enable paedophilia and helped Nazi war criminals escape justice whilst downplaying the holocaust?

      On the subject of Nazis, why did Nazi uniforms include a belt buckle inscribed with the phrase "God On Our Side"?

      Most atheists have a very simple but effective moral code: "If I didn't want somebody doing that to me then I'll refrain from doing it to someone else".

      Christian "morality" on the other hand endorses rape, slavery, disproportionate punishments and the extermination of all non-believers.

      And that's relatively mild compared to what Islam endorses!

      Get off your moral high horse, it's made of plastic and has a Fisher Price logo on it.

    4. FatGerman
      Childcatcher

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      I don't count myself as an atheist, but I am most definitely not religious. I don't come from the angle that "there is definitely no God", rather I come from the angle of "oh yeah, some people think there's a god, well it really doesn't bother me one way or the other". Religion, or the absence of it, simply has no relevance in my life.

      So, how do I know what's right and wrong you seem to be asking. Simple. I was taught right and wrong by my parents, by growing up in a society where there is not just right and wrong - good and evil - but a whole spectrum of middle ground, and from my empathy with others and my humanity.

      From this point of view I can see quite clearly that while making a film that mocks someone's beloved Prophet may be insensitive (this is the middle ground I spoke of), reacting to that by rioting, attacking foreign embassies, and murdering ambassadors is most definitely wrong, no matter how offensive the film is perceived to be. You talk of knee jerk reactions, well I wonder which group is having the biggest jerk.

    5. badmonkey
      Devil

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      Don't feed the [Islamic] troll, guys!

      Seriously J1, you only exemplify the problems you will find most reasonable and civilized people will have with you.

      Start with your definition of atheist. The word is a strange term that exists only because it is forced to in the presence of deism or theism.

      I am an atheist, an anti-theist, and, by the way, an anti-fairyist. Cos I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden either. I also don't believe there is a fine china teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars. See how we don't need to make the point in civilized conversation.

      If that doesn't work, all you need to know, troll, is that when you follow your indoctrination to its logical conclusion, you will eventually find men in your way who will guard against you, one way or another, and that one day you will be consigned to the dark ages of history where you belong.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      >>It actually hurts when you use his name without using the, peace be upon him, to follow it.

      Like you didn't in your own post;

      >>The name, Muhammad, means 'the praised one' in Arabic.

      Forgetting the ṣalawāt is serious, it's quite clear in the Qur'an that it's a requirement (Surah 33:56), and the Hadith stresses that if you fail to do this you will be denied paradise (or it could all be nonsense, I suppose).

    7. Peter Johnstone
      FAIL

      Re: atheist 'sense'

      "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love to talk alot about how bad others are. They do not appear to realise that atheism gives one no way to determine either.

      For a bunch of people that claim to 'think for themselves', atheists display a singular lack of ability in that respect."

      I am an atheist. My parents are Christians. I arrived at the the conclusion that there was no God by questioning the teachings of the religion of my parents. All atheists would have religious ancestors, so at some point the've chosen to abandon religion by thinking for themselves. Unless you've converted to Islam, it's likely that your belief has been bestowed upon you by your parents, so the thinking for yourself argument hardly stands.

      I am an atheist. I believe that there is no God. No God means probably no afterlife. No afterlife means you only get one shot at life. Therefore murder destroys the potential that a person had for the rest of their life. Therefore murder is bad. Not able to determine good or bad without religion - give me a break?

      1. J1

        @Peter Johnstone 18:39 Re: atheist 'sense'

        -No God means probably no afterlife.

        Thats an assumption.. which atheism does not give you, one particular to you.

        notice also the probably.. a bit unsure are we??

        you got your break, at your first step.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its rubbish anyway. Not nearly as funny as Life Of Brian.

  16. Dave Bell

    It's more than the film

    One element of the script, at the time of the original shooting, was that there was an arranged marriage between a 7-year-old girl and the character identified as "Master George".

    This fits with one version of the marriage of Aisha to the Prophet, but that age can only be traced to one single source. 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.

    But when you check this through Google, there are a lot of websites which appear to uncritically accept the version with the 7-year-old Ayesha, not even saying it is only one version of the story.

    Islam is unusual in that a huge amount of detail was written down while the witnesses to the Prophet's life were still alive. This film, and many websites, seem to pick and choose the details they use, to suit their purposes. What we see may be no more reliable an expression of the reality than is The Da Vinci Code.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            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.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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.

    2. badmonkey
      Angel

      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.

  17. solidsoup
    Facepalm

    @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.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      @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.

      1. solidsoup
        Thumb Up

        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?

        1. John Overment

          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"?

          1. solidsoup

            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.

        2. Thorne

          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.

      2. badmonkey
        Angel

        @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?

        1. badmonkey

          Re: @Ken Hagan

          Sept 11 even, my bad

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            ' 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

          2. badmonkey
            Mushroom

            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?

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Boffin

              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.

          3. badmonkey
            Thumb Down

            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.

            1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
              Facepalm

              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.

        3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          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.)

  18. Triggerfish

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

    2. badmonkey
      Angel

      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.

      1. Triggerfish

        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.

        1. badmonkey
          Devil

          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?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            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.

          2. Triggerfish

            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.

            1. badmonkey
              Mushroom

              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.

        2. John H Woods Silver badge

          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.

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

            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

  19. solidsoup
    Thumb Up

    "on the other you have a bunch of rednecks ... who want to tar one group of people all with the same brush"

    LOL! Irony?

    1. Triggerfish
      Happy

      @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?

  20. El Presidente
    FAIL

    @ 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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @ Chris W

      >You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin

      Go on, try. I dare you.

    2. John Overment

      Re: @ Chris W

      Well at least you made the effort.

      Wait...

  21. DaeDaLuS_015
    Mushroom

    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.

  22. John Deeb
    Boffin

    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.

    1. solidsoup
      Thumb Down

      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.

    2. Thorne

      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!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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?

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      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.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    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.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      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.

      1. badmonkey
        Angel

        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).

        1. cyborg
          Meh

          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.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Boffin

          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.

          1. badmonkey
            Mushroom

            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.

  24. The Alphabet

    I believe humans are idiots. Things like this reinforce why.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  26. alien anthropologist
    Mushroom

    disease

    Religion is a disease that infects the mind. It has, unfortunately, a very poor cure rate.

    Solution? Take off. Nuke the planet from orbit.

    Only way to be sure...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: disease

      Just as religion has fanatics, so does atheism. I wish there could be a middle ground, where atheist and people of faith can live together (I'm a Christian with many atheist friends, we get on fine. I want them to have faith as much as they want me to be atheist, but we have enough respect for each other to respect our boundaries) but it seems that the fringes out there will accept nothing other than their own ilk.

      1. No, I will not fix your computer
        FAIL

        Re: disease

        >>Just as religion has fanatics, so does atheism.

        ^^

        By fanatics, do you mean Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, who fanatically write books about how religion is nonsense and it's a better idea just to be nice to people for the sake of it?

        1. badmonkey

          Re: disease

          He must mean those same fanatics of intellectual honesty and Much Great Cleverness.

          The truth hurts and it's much easier to try to slander those who are brave enough to point to the elephant in the room.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: disease

            "The truth hurts and it's much easier to try to slander those who are brave enough to point to the elephant in the room"

            I disagree, I think it would be easier to say you're agnostic or atheist. It's certainly not easy to defend my faith when it's challenged both by the atrocities you see every day and the attritious attacks from all sides (from non believers and believers of other religions).

            1. badmonkey
              Stop

              Re: disease

              >>> I disagree, I think it would be easier to say you're agnostic or atheist.

              Only because of centuries of struggle. Move to the Middle East with your friendly protesters and try it.

              >>> It's certainly not easy to defend my faith

              Nor should it be. It is indefensible.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: disease

          Well, no, I was actually meaning the poster who pretty much suggested that the only way forward is to nuke everyone who doesn't share his convictions. Interesting responses though, when you consider I was suggesting that a middle ground would be best for everyone.

          1. No, I will not fix your computer
            FAIL

            Re: disease

            @AC 13:49

            When the poster said "Solution? Take off. Nuke the planet from orbit, Only way to be sure..." it was probably a reference to the film Aliens (I'm pretty sure that's the exact quote) - I suspect that they weren't suggesting it as an actual "solution".

          2. badmonkey
            Angel

            Re: disease

            >>> Well, no, I was actually meaning the poster who pretty much suggested that the only way forward is to nuke everyone who doesn't share his convictions. Interesting responses though, when you consider I was suggesting that a middle ground would be best for everyone.

            Typical religious: no sense of humor!

            As to your second point, typical religious: two failures of logic in one sentence! C'mon, you can do better. Only a false dichotomy and a middle ground fallacy forming the basis of your beliefs?

          3. alien anthropologist
            FAIL

            Re: disease

            AC said:

            " Well, no, I was actually meaning the poster who pretty much suggested that the only way forward is to nuke everyone who doesn't share his convictions. Interesting responses though, when you consider I was suggesting that a middle ground would be best for everyone."

            It was a a tongue-in-cheek verbatim quote from the movie Aliens - where this was a suggestion on how to deal with the problem they faced.

            If you take the rod out of your backside, you may realise that the meaning behind this quote is that there are no real solutions to religious fanatics and fundamentalism. From the bible belt in southern US, to the Middle East.

            There is no "middle ground". And that is not my opinion. That is what these fanatics are saying and are demonstrating - by killing innocents bystanders (like the 8 South Africans in Kabul).

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just who is getting killed anyway?

    Apart from the thee people in the American embassy, all the other casualties have (afaik) been Muslim. Which strikes me as strange way of protesting about an insult to your religion. I did wonder at one point if the best approach to this sort of behaviour would be to continually insult Islam. The response to this particular insult has been pretty crude and utterly disproportionate. Perhaps if there was something new to riot about three times every day for a year, they'd just eventually tire of it... I don't know. You'd think people would be more worried about feeding their children and earning some money

  28. Crisp Silver badge

    Well at least it's taken the muslim eyes away from that Channel 4 Documentery

    Let's hope that they can broadcast that now.

  29. Vanir
    Big Brother

    The religion of free speech

    I wonder if the people who 'believe' in free speech are prepared to defend their belief with their lives, the lives of their loved ones and that they are also prepared to kill to defend it and their way of life.

    Muslims are quite prepared to do so. They would quite gladly use nuclear weapons; an act of martyrdom, the will of Allah. After all , one will go to 'heaven'.

    If believers in free speech are not so prepared, then there will be no free speech.

    1. Thorne

      Re: The religion of free speech

      "If believers in free speech are not so prepared, then there will be no free speech."

      We are prepared. We protect free speech by speaking freely and not shutting up just because some nutter threatened to murder people if we don't.

      Blowing yourself up doesn't get you to heaven, it just gets you dead

  30. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. badmonkey
      FAIL

      Re: Cultural imperialism

      >>> imposing its rules and sensibilities on the rest of the world (whether on child pornography, or online gambling, or trade with Cuba, or "democracy and freedom"

      You're right, child pornography is clearly acceptable. How dare the Feds impose their arrogance on the rest of us who just need to get their daily 10 yr old lovin', praise the Lord!

      "Trade with Cuba" is a hangover from the Cold War. Despite what Michael Moore might have you believe about Havana, Cuba remains an outpost of authoritarianism and heavily restricted freedom.

      And "democracy and freedom", as you so scathingly smear them with scare quotes, are, you will be surprised to find, in fact universal values that history has shown time and time again to be cherished by all humans. It is right that they are promoted and exported.

      >>> "and then getting all worked up when it realises that other cultures have different priorities or attitudes concerning what they think is or is not acceptable."

      Throwing acid on a woman's faces because she didn't follow the misogynistic patriarchal sexual restrictions of her "culture" is not acceptable.

      Driving a car laden with sweets and explosives into the middle of a crowd, attracting as many children as possible, then detonating - because those filthy Shia are not the true followers of Allah - is not acceptable.

      In fact when you think about it, murdering an ambassador, on the anniversary of the happy day that your martyred friends murdered thousands of innocent civilians, is a bit off too really.

      Hunting down and trying to murder those evil infidel apostates, who dare to blow the whistle on your pathetic bag of lies and deception, is not acceptable.

      >>> "What gives us the right to assume we're always correct and can force our point of view down other people's throats?"

      Sometimes: human rights, civilized bodies of law, civilized debate, reason, rational argument, and science.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. badmonkey
          Angel

          Re: Cultural imperialism

          >>> Don't forget that it's not that many years ago that homosexuality was a crime in this country,

          And not so long ago that we were burning witches at the stake. Never mind history: the UK is still a monarchist parliamentary theocracy in a technical sense last time I looked, a relic of our history if there was ever one, and we are even now allowing the nation's children to be brainwashed and divided against each other in "faith schools". But, the worse things used to be, the more we can see we are making progress. The Islamic world is stuck several hundred years behind, and moving more slowly. Meanwhile the reality of 21st century weaponry and warfare is rapidly colliding with our assumption that ideological or political enemies will act rationally and in their own best interests.

          >>> that it was the CIA who originally armed the Taliban and were perfectly happy to ignore how appallingly they treated women as long as they gave the Russians a bloody nose the way we support regimes like Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan (or Israel's treatments of the Palestinians) because it's strategically or politically convenient to do so

          I won't defend US or British foreign policy carte blanche, but these examples are simplistic. The Taliban morphed out of the US sponsored rebels when the US didn't keep up the aid once the Ruskies had been ousted, and are much more the responsibility of the Pakis than anyone else. As to Saudi Arabia, well. We also allied ourselves with Stalin during the war, and so against democratic Norway, in the greater interest of putting a stop to the Catholic right in Europe. Life sucks. Nothing is simple.

          1. badmonkey
            WTF?

            Re: Cultural imperialism

            FINLAND even, oops!

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sigh

    I do wish the human race would grow out of religion.

    1. mistergrantham

      Re: Sigh

      Or humans can just stop being dickheads.

      Dickheads are winners though...

  32. SpaMster
    Facepalm

    Life of Brian?!?

    I dread to think what would happen if somebody released a film mocking Jesus Christ

    oh wait.....

    1. Thorne

      Re: Life of Brian?!?

      "I dread to think what would happen if somebody released a film mocking Jesus Christ"

      Jesus is a regular on Southpark. Scientology gets a roasting there as well but even they don't insult the muslims cause they will start burning and killing.

      1. Crisp Silver badge

        Re: Life of Brian?!?

        Mohammed has made an appearance on South Park too.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Life of Brian?!?

          Life of Brian didn't mock Jesus at all, it mocked the way people behaved and elevated someone to Godhood because he lost his shoe.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How dare they

    I am outraged! how dare someone mock someone else's invisible friend.

    What's that Obiwan? Someone didn't like Star Wars....how dare they.....

    Its really fuckin dull isn't it - have invisible friends by all means but KEEP THEM TO YOURSELVES!!!!

  34. adam payne Silver badge

    Films like this are made to be controversial. If it offends you or you think it might then don't watch it.

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Low production values

    Perhaps all the shrieking, gnashing of teeth, bus burning, looting, flag trampling and Rage Boy impressions are not over insults to a religion, but the actual artistic qualities of the film. Top of my personal list of complaints would be the particularly dire colour separation overlay, which ought to win some kind of technical category Razzy for sheer awfulness, although the fake beards are a close second, looking like hand me downs from Life of Brian's stoning scene. While the acting was excruciating, the bit where the woman gets smacked after a close up of her Bulgarian airbags/crucifix did at least get some debate going in our house about exactly which unislamic decoration was the primary motivation for her attackers.

    As a photography lecturer of mine once remarked on a story about the vice squad (yes that long ago) throwing the book at someone for making particularly hardcore porn; "I've got no problem with the content, but it really should be a criminal offence to light a scene that badly"

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let's hope they don't see this...

    http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=49714

  37. John A Blackley

    The film has served its purpose

    The film itself is a dreadful, childish p.o.s. that nobody in their right mind would waste time watching. So I did.

    It is a cheap provocation designed (which is much too grand a word for this crap) to create fury among the more excitable parts of the muslim world. Whether the makers of the movie (and remember that 'Pastor' Terry Jones - he of the televised Koran burning was a backer of this 'movie') had a more complex motive in mind than simply to stir up trouble in the Muslim world is hard to say. (I doubt it. Terry Jones doesn't strike me as a complex kind of person.)

    So rant about the ignorance of Muslims if you like. Rattle on about freedom of speech until you're hoarse. But think on this: This nasty little film was meant to cause trouble and the kind of trouble it caused resulted in the death of four Americans.

    I wonder how 'Pastor' Terry Jones feels about that as he lies down to sleep at night.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The film has served its purpose

      Stop apologising for these people. No film, book, picture etc should ever cause deaths because a group of people find it offensive. The civilised way of dealing with something you don't like or disagree with is to either debate the merits or lack of, or accept that you find it offensive and then move on with your life.

      1. John A Blackley

        Re: The film has served its purpose

        I am not, in any way, apologising for "these people". I am simply pointing out cause and effect and that the effect was entirely to be expected by the perpetrators of the cause.

        I agree that the "civilised way of dealing with something you don't like" is very different from the way these uncivilised (by our lights) people reacted but the perpetrators of this film knew, when they made the film, what the reaction would be.

        So, is all the blame to be laid at the feet of a group of religious fanatics? When you poke a beehive and get stung does all the blame lie with the bees?

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: The film has served its purpose

          ".....When you poke a beehive and get stung does all the blame lie with the bees?" Oh, I see, you think the American ambassador in Libya and his three colleagues were making the film.... Too stupid an apologist's analogy to post a more serious answer.

          1. John A Blackley

            Re: The film has served its purpose

            Sorry, I thought I was talking with someone interested in conversation.

            I won't bother you in future.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Alert

              Re: The film has served its purpose

              "Sorry, I thought I was talking with someone interested in conversation. I won't bother you in future." What, were you insulted by the replies? I hope that doesn't mean you want to go burn down an embassy.

        2. badmonkey
          WTF?

          Re: The film has served its purpose

          >>> I am not, in any way, apologising for "these people". I am simply pointing out cause and effect and that the effect was entirely to be expected by the perpetrators of the cause.

          By shifting blame you are doing exactly that.

          >>> So, is all the blame to be laid at the feet of a group of religious fanatics?

          No, it is to be laid at the feet of the religious mainstream and the liberal fools who prattle on about tolerance, whilst the "fanatics" calmly proceed with God's work in the certainty they are right.

          >>> When you poke a beehive and get stung does all the blame lie with the bees?

          What a stupid argument, I hardly know where to being. Let's start with the idea that bees are not intelligent beings, and that we may reasonably assume they are not trying to destroy Western civilization, shall we?

    2. badmonkey
      Pirate

      Re: The film has served its purpose

      Oh bollox. Stupid nonsense deserves to be ridiculed, should be ridiculed, in fact MUST be ridiculed - and satirical film is a great way of doing it.

      The only problem is that the production value of this particular example is just so mind numbingly bad!

      1. John A Blackley

        Re: The film has served its purpose

        Your stupid nonsense is their strongly-held belief. I understand that you don't share that belief (or appear to share any belief). What you don't appear to understand is that 'they' don't subscribe to your 'values'.

        Say I met you down the pub one night and proceeded to rubbish your choice of clothes, drinks, football team and girlfriend. What then?

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
          Pint

          Re: The film has served its purpose

          "Say I met you down the pub one night and proceeded to rubbish your choice of clothes, drinks, football team and girlfriend. What then?"

          Then I would kill you, your family, your pets and cover your vegetable patch with salt, that nothing should spawn from your seed for a thousand centuries!!!

          Or I might buy you a drink and ask what's got your goat.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: The film has served its purpose

          "....Say I met you down the pub one night and proceeded to rubbish your choice of clothes, drinks, football team and girlfriend. What then?" Well, seeing as I'm an educated, civilised adult, I'd have a whale of a time winding you up in return (well, up until the point the missus says "what's this about a girlfriend?"). I wouldn't feel the need to go burn something down just because you acted like a knob. At worst, I'd just laugh at you and walk away. That's the difference.

        3. badmonkey
          FAIL

          Re: The film has served its purpose

          >>> Your stupid nonsense is their strongly-held belief. I understand that you don't share that belief (or appear to share any belief). What you don't appear to understand is that 'they' don't subscribe to your 'values'.

          I understand that perfectly, which is exactly why they must be fought against very strongly.

          >>> Say I met you down the pub one night and proceeded to rubbish your choice of clothes, drinks, football team and girlfriend. What then?

          I suppose we wouldn't be friends. Next dumb question?

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: The film has served its purpose

      ".....I wonder how 'Pastor' Terry Jones feels about that....." I'm sure Pastor Jones and his ilk will think they have done mankind a service by "exposing the brutal muslim". And after all, being believers in their own fairytale, they will assume any American killed as a result will either go to heaven (if they were "good") or hell (if they were anything other than the Pastor's definition of "good". Either way, even if he did fund the movie, it wasn't Pastor Jones that killed anyone, it was muslims that did, and they did so in the name of Allah and Mo.

  38. Anomalous Cowshed

    In a world where millions of people feel so strongly about Apple iphones and carbon footprints and other stuff like that, that they are prepared to get really angry and personal over them, is it really that shocking that some Muslim people get angry at provocation against Muhammed, which they have been brought up to think is absolutely forbidden and reprehensible?

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Anomalous Cowshed

      "In a world where millions of people feel so strongly about Apple iphones....." So true, I mean it was only last week the fanbois stormed the British embassy in Washington after the UK courts dismissed the Apple case against Samsung! And just after that the Samsung crowd were torching the US embassy in Seoul! Oh, wait a sec...

      ".....which they have been brought up to think...." FINALY! The crux of the issue - if the muslim countries keep on educating their children in the same manner then they will keep being the target of people out to provoke them with rubbish movies. But that idea is just too PC for far too many politicians to handle.

    2. badmonkey
      IT Angle

      is it really that shocking?

      Not especially, but our response needn't depend on whether it is "shocking" or not.

      Apple iDiots should be ruthlessly teased and mocked for their stupidity too. Why? Because irrational behavior should be discouraged. I believe you have come to the right place for it...

  39. Andrew Jones 2

    I've read 4 pages of comments so I get the general gist of both sides of the argument - but I am rather surprised to see the amount of flack that atheists seem to be coming under. I didn't think that I was particularly special or unique - but my general way of thinking is thus:

    I do not personally believe in god(s) or any of the religious stories that surround the various faiths - and as a gay person in a very happy civil partnership - it is not likely that that will change since as far as I can see - none of the faiths have any benefit to me. I prefer to look at the world with a rational mind and use logic and understanding to explain the world. However - I am perfectly happy for various people to believe in whatever they want providing that their beliefs do not cause harm to others. Clearly other people do not support this (to my mind) normal point of view - preferring to tell me I will go to hell unless I stop being gay and announce my faith in some supernatural being (though they are stumped when I ask them to explain why they should wish me to stop living my life in a way that makes me happy and does not cause harm to others - in return for living my life in a way some thousand year old unseen being would prefer - nor can they explain why some all powerful unseen being would get his kicks from creating a planet, plonking life on it and then demanding that all that life follow his rules - I would rather hope that if I was an all powerful, all knowing being with the ability to create life out of nothing - I might have better things to do with my time - but I suppose he could be lonely - or masochistic).

    So fine - go ahead and believe in whatever gives your life meaning - it is of no consequence to me unless you start causing harm to others in the name of your faith. In response to J1 whose depressing comments I have had the misfortune to read - the ability to tell right from wrong - does not require faith - it requires the ability to use logic, reasoning and common sense.

    1. Andy ORourke
      Joke

      My thoughts exactly Andrew

      I respect other people's right to believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't cause actual harm to anyone.

      in fact the world would be a nicer place if we all got along with one another but for that to happen these things would have to come to pass:

      1. An android fan would have to utter the phrase "the iPhone, yeah, it's not too bad"

      2. An apple fan would have to admit that there may be more advanced smart phones than the latest iPhone

      3. A Linux user would have to admit that they tried windows 7 for a bit and they quite liked it

      Unfortunately I see the unification of all the worlds religions happening before those 3 come to pass

      1. Andrew Jones 2
        Joke

        Re: My thoughts exactly Andrew

        to be fair though..... the iPhone.... *meh*

    2. badmonkey
      Angel

      The truth hurts

      >>> I am rather surprised to see the amount of flack that atheists seem to be coming under

      Shooting the messenger is a strong tradition.

      Not just amongst the religious, but the liberals who do not understand just how far the west has come, how much progress against Christianity we have made, and how dangerous the remaining elements of the dark ages still are.

      "Atheists", who tend to lack the ethically twisted mindset that tolerance of any and all idiocy is some sort of virtue, are much easier to target for "poking the beehive" as one liberal put it above. Facing up to the real threat requires some very uncomfortable admissions about the world in which we all live.

    3. J1

      gimme what I want.. @Andrew Jones 2 16:13

      -the ability to tell right from wrong - does not require faith - it requires the ability to use logic, reasoning and common sense.

      surely your logic would require you to read what I actually wrote first.. and then comment on it.

      I said that atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong. Nobody has yet been able to show otherwise.

      What is harm? this requires a good and bad basis, which atheism does not provide you. Is it harmful to someone to offend them? most atheists have no problem with doing so all the time claiming they do not like to harm.

      You mention that none of the faiths have any benefit for you.. which is an atheistic view.. what can I get out of it.. rather than, what is the truth here.

      You appear not to be interested in truth, just in getting what you want. In which case, atheism is exactly what you will want, since it cannot say to you anything about good or bad, and make you even more depressed.

      1. badmonkey
        Devil

        Re: gimme what I want.. @Andrew Jones 2 16:13

        >>> I said that atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong. Nobody has yet been able to show otherwise.

        It's not supposed to, you moron. Atheism is simply the absence of unsubstantiated belief in ridiculous fantasy figures that the imbecilic indoctrinated likes of you insist on believing in because an ignorant old pervert told you to one day.

      2. Oscar Pops
        Devil

        Re: gimme what I want.. @J1

        >>I said that atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong.

        >>Nobody has yet been able to show otherwise.

        No, that's because nobody disagrees with that. The bit that's being disputed is where you assert that "atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong" therefore atheists have no basis for right and wrong (you said it here: "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love...") - obviously atheists *do* have a basis for right and wrong, it is just not a result of, nor related to, their absence of religious faith. Rather, their absence of faith is a result of the same source of their basis of right and wrong - principally logic and reason.

        Driving my car (or, holding the irrefutable belief that my car can transport me places) gives me no basis for determining right and wrong, but I can't conclude that all drivers have no basis for right and wrong, merely that driving a car doesn't provide it.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

          Re: gimme what I want.. @J1

          "I said that atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong. Nobody has yet been able to show otherwise."

          No, but it does clear the way for some rational behaviour which would allow one to form ones' own opinion on such matters.

        2. J1

          @Oscar Pops 13:49 Re: gimme what I want.. @J1

          -No, that's because nobody disagrees with that.

          There have been plenty who did.

          -The bit that's being disputed is where you assert that "atheism does not give you any basis for right and wrong" therefore atheists have no basis for right and wrong (you said it here: "For a bunch of people who do not even have a basis for good or bad, right or wrong, atheist appear to love...") - obviously atheists *do* have a basis for right and wrong, it is just not a result of, nor related to, their absence of religious faith. Rather, their absence of faith is a result of the same source of their basis of right and wrong - principally logic and reason.

          Atheism has nothing also to do with logic and reason.. it does not specify that you have to use either. You can equally toss a coin to decide if you want.

          Further, I would say that most do not decide on what is right and wrong. They merely use whatever is already defined for them, based on whichever society they live in, whatever are the prevailing views of the time. Within the context of that society, what it allows, atheists make a choice. Which is no different from anyone else, ie. the level of the choice being made. So for example, there will be very few if any who will ever go back to first principals and try and address why lying is bad, or taking some else's land is bad.

          Even you are saying that logic and reason are what you are basing you conclusions on.. Why use logic/reason... it is just one tool out of many that can be employed (what kind of logic?).. why is it first on your list.. do you think that no one else can employ the same tool.. so in the case of Islam... we are told time and time again in the Quran to think, to understand, to see behind what is on the surface.. to contemplate deeply... so I could quite justifyably say that muslims are required to make use of such tools (whether we do or not, is a different matter) ... however, the atheist has no such reason to make use of these tools.

          If, as you suggest above, its your logic and reason that is primary, and atheism is just as a result of the use of these tools.. even then you have a problem. Why employ these, is it perhaps logical to use logic? or only sensible to be reasonable. One persons reason is not anothers, neither is logic always correct.

          As to it clearing the way to allow rational behaviour, the example of the comments here are evidence against this... since plenty have seen fit to use all sorts of foul language. Is that rational behaviour? I'd suggest it is one step removed from physical violence.. which is the same thing these same people are decrying.

          Islam makes the claim, that revelation trumps logic, reason etc.. The only way to confirm or reject this claim, is to study the Quran. If the Quran is truly the Gods word, then it is only rational to follow it. What most atheists do, is they reject, perhaps Christianity, and because of the little that they know about that faith, they decide that all the rest must be the same... and so with one brush, they tar the lot as nonesense, irrational.. unfortuanately, for the one who claims to think for themselves.. you do not have this as a get out.. your claim itself requires you to weigh each claiment on its merits.. Islam is not Christianity, nor is the Quran the Bible.

          Further, I'd suggest its in your own interests, purely from a worldly perspective, to have some understanding of Islam. I heard that the UN is predicting that within a few years, that 1 out every 2 people born, will be born a muslim. At work and home you will be dealing with more and more of them. It is only reasonable for you to be prepared to deal with so many people who are professing the same faith.

          1. Oscar Pops
            Devil

            Re: @J1 gimme what I want..

            >>No, that's because nobody disagrees with that.

            >There have been plenty who did.

            >>The bit that's being disputed is...

            OK, circular argument here, so no point continuing as neither of us have anything new to add. Agree to disagree on how people have interpreted your original post?

            >Atheism has nothing also to do with logic and reason.. it does not specify that you have to use either.

            >You can equally toss a coin to decide if you want.

            I don't really understand that assertion - why could one not equally use a coin toss to decide whether or not to follow Islam? Regardless, is it not fair to assume that neither atheists nor Muslims have reached their conclusions via an arbitrary process? Muslims have accepted the Quran unquestioningly as the word of God (correct me if I'm wrong) and atheists have applied logic and reason to the evidence available (I'd speculate that's the main process).

            >Further, I would say that most do not decide on what is right and wrong. They merely use whatever is already

            >defined for them, based on whichever society they live in, whatever are the prevailing views of the time.

            >Within the context of that society, what it allows, atheists make a choice. Which is no different from anyone

            >else, ie. the level of the choice being made.

            And presumably no different to those that have their right/wrong decisions defined by their Holy Book and reinforced by their society? Different set of rules for the right/wrong, but same blind application of the rules without personal consideration of whether they are truly right or wrong? The difference is, the atheists can, may and I personally think *do* make that consideration, whilst those believing they are following their God's will, will not question it.

            >So for example, there will be very few if any who will ever go back to first principals and try and address why

            >lying is bad, or taking some else's land is bad.

            Again I'm failing to see your point - but it sounds like you disagree with my last assertion above ("can, may and ...*do*..."). Even if you're right (I don't think you are) and atheists don't make these analyses, then their actions are dictated simply by what they see others doing - again how is this worse or different than people not making the analysis because they are carrying out Gods word so don't need to question it? My argument is based on the premise that atheists *do* employ logic and reason out of necessity as they don't have a position supplied to them by a religion.

            But let's test the theory a bit - please explain using first principles why lying and stealing are bad? As an atheist my explanation would be based on the goal of a peaceful, harmonious existence with all the other humans we're forced to share our planet with and lying and stealing are demonstrably not conducive to that goal. I think as a Muslim your explanation will boil down to, "God says so"? (If that sounds facile, it's not meant to)

            >Even you are saying that logic and reason are what you are basing you conclusions on.. Why use

            >logic/reason...

            Why not?

            >it is just one tool out of many that can be employed (what kind of logic?).. why is it first on your list..

            Seems most appropriate to me, what other tools would you propose?

            >do you think that no one else can employ the same tool.. so in the case of Islam... we are told time and time

            >again in the Quran to think, to understand, to see behind what is on the surface.. to contemplate deeply...

            Well that's at odds with most of the criticisms levelled at Islam on here, so please clear something up for me - murdering the US ambassador and Libyans, was that the result of (a) reasoning, free will, etc ('All things considered, I believe this is the right thing to do') or (b) religious reprisal ('I don't need to consider whether this is right or wrong, God has made that decision for me and I'm doing as instructed') ?

            > so I

            > could quite justifyably say that muslims are required to make use of such tools (whether we do or not, is a

            >different matter) ... however, the atheist has no such reason to make use of these tools.

            Agreed, the atheist does not have the reason of being ordered to by their religion to make use of those tools - they do so of their own volition, so the conclusion they reach may be something different to what their religious equivalent is obligated to conclude.

            >If, as you suggest above, its your logic and reason that is primary, and atheism is just as a result of the use of

            > these tools.. even then you have a problem. Why employ these, is it perhaps logical to use logic? or only

            > sensible to be reasonable.

            Yes, I think I am making those assumptions, that logic is logical and reason is sensible. I think those are difficult concepts to dispute and...

            >One persons reason is not anothers, neither is logic always correct.

            ... I think this statement is an attempt to dispute them, which fails in my opinion as I don't necessarily disagree with this either.

            >As to it clearing the way to allow rational behaviour, the example of the comments here are evidence against

            >this... since plenty have seen fit to use all sorts of foul language. Is that rational behaviour? I'd suggest it is

            >one step removed from physical violence.. which is the same thing these same people are decrying.

            But by your own admission, it is at least one step removed, hence more rational than *not* using logic and reason. Predictably I'd argue that using foul language is actually much more than one step removed from murder, however.

            >Islam makes the claim, that revelation trumps logic, reason etc..

            And logic and reason make the claim that Islam is probably wrong.

            >The only way to confirm or reject this claim, is to study the Quran. If the Quran is truly the Gods word,

            >then it is only rational to follow it.

            That conclusion is not the result of logic and reason - it is the result of assuming the Quran is the God's word. What if that assumption is wrong? Then it may be irrational to follow it. You state that Islam promotes deep contemplation, yet not about whether or not Islam is 'correct' it seems - that has to be taken as a given?

            >What most atheists do, is they reject, perhaps Christianity, and because of the little that they know about

            >that faith, they decide that all the rest must be the same... and so with one brush, they tar the lot as

            >nonesense, irrational..

            >unfortuanately, for the one who claims to think for themselves.. you do not have this as a get out..

            >your claim itself requires you to weigh each claiment on its merits.. Islam is not Christianity, nor is the Quran

            > the Bible.

            I disagree - I think atheists may reach their position a number of ways, but regardless the result is the rejection of a concept of a divine creator, so I'd say it's not relevant whether your "reject one religion, reject them all" observation is correct or not, as Islam is still based on there being a creator. You seem to be saying atheists would embrace Islam if they only understood it?

            >Further, I'd suggest its in your own interests, purely from a worldly perspective, to have some understanding

            >of Islam.

            Agreed and I am interested, hence continuing this debate despite being pretty certain we're not going to change each other's minds.

            1. J1

              @Oscar Pops 12:50 Re: @J1 gimme what I want..

              Let me try to shorten this abit.

              logic and reason.

              The point is that atheism does not require you to make use of either. Atheism has only one thing, God does not exist.

              You agree with this, and your contention is that it is logic and reason that brought you to atheism.. which may well be the case.

              However, you have accepted that the use of these tools is due to circular reasoning (there are lots of forms of logic, fuzzy logic quantum logic.. you could have used dreams or tossed coins to come to your conclusions etc.. that God does not exist.. atheism does not care), in which case, your conclusion may not be sound.

              Further, I get the impression that you have not made use of some relevant information to hand.. Revelation for example.. specifically the Quran. I'd suggest to you that once you incorporate it into your reasoning, your conclusions would change.. and atheism would no longer be the outcome.

              Why look at this particular book claiming to be a revelation, and not others.. its in the news at the moment.. the numbers of its adherents are growing.. more and more likelyhood of you having to deal with them.

              Just to be clear.. when you are researching into Islam...

              Islam does not advocate blind following. It does not ask you to close your eyes and jump into the abyss so to speak. God says that you should make use of reason, come with all the criticisms you may have against Islam, and see if they match up. Atheists claim to think for themselves, Islams calls them out on this, and says to use that ability wrt the Quran. How did a man who could not read or write, and was in the public eye so much, produce in secret such a book.

              Islam says the position of one who believes just because they were born into a faith, is a weak position.. This was a common excuse at the time of the Last Prophet, peace be upon him.. 'we are only doing what our fathers did', one that God refuted again and again..

              Islam does not ask you to believe because, for instance, the Holy Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, split the sea by Gods permission. You were not there to see it.

              God does provide you with something for you to look at, listen to, feel, think about, that something is the Quran. The claim being made is that this book is Gods word, and is a greater miracle than any other miracle given to any other Prophet before. Further, it has been preserved, and it is here for you to analyse. The claim becomes even more audacious, that you will not be able to understand it all, that you cannot reproduce the like of it.

              There are lots of other things that can be looked at, the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, his life, his honesty, his effect... the history of the message, the prophecies, the way revelation was sent down, Quranic verses about the world/Universe..

              21:30 Do not, see, those who, disbelieved, that, the heavens, and the earth, were, a joined entity, then we parted them, and we made, from, water, every, living thing, then will not, they believe.

              For the one willing to look, there is alot to look at.

              The above is when you are coming to Islam, checking into it, learning about it, deciding whether it is from God or not, or does God actually exist etc..

              Once you have made the determination, that God does exist, and that Islam is the truth, that the Quran is the word of God, then you are saying that there is One who knows better than you. That whether you understand or not, He still knows better than you.

              God at this point places responsibilities upon you.. that you will be subservient to Him, that what He says goes.. whether or not you understand. You have every right and indeed it is a duty upon you to try to understand. Note the word try.

              Ofcourse, if you make the determination that Islam is not what it claims.. then you have actually lost nothing much.. just gained understanding.

              ---Agreed and I am interested, hence continuing this debate despite being pretty certain we're not going to change each other's minds.

              Understanding does not require you to change your position.

              I'd suggest that you have a look at the couple of links I posted in my earlier posts on this topic.. one is about 'Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Greatest', its a small booklet, that gives a background on why muslims and others say he is so special, that he is the greatest of human beings.

              http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=muhammad%20the%20greates&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsabr.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcategory%2F4-seerah%3Fdownload%3D10%253Amuhammad-the-greatest-doc&ei=7IVZUOGEB6jB0QXPrIHQDA&usg=AFQjCNFS6M90NUmbvG0wdSQi6fegVB6KRQ

              The other is a link to a TED lecture (10 mins or so), about reading the Quran, by a self described agnostic jew..

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y2Or0LlO6g

              She was quite amusing.

              Both will give you some insights.

              http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=697:us-consulate-killings-spontaneous-religious-or-planned-political&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

              The above is a link to a medialens article, this is about their take on the consulate killings. Keep in mind, that they are not muslims.

              1. Oscar Pops
                Go

                Re: @Oscar Pops 12:50 @J1 gimme what I want..

                J1,

                Thanks for the response - I will check out the links and may be back if I think there's anymore to add without repeating a stalemate position. For now, my immediate response to your reply is that it still seems that Islam encourages free thinking but if the conclusion is different to that prescribed by the Quran then it's still wrong and should be ignored. Summarised succinctly by this (shortened but not taken out of context):

                >Once you have made the determination that God does exist and that Islam is the truth [and] that

                >the Quran is the word of God, then ... what He says goes.. whether or not you understand.

                1. J1

                  @Oscar Pops 11:16 @J1 gimme what I want..

                  ---For now, my immediate response to your reply is that it still seems that Islam encourages free thinking but if the conclusion is different to that prescribed by the Quran then it's still wrong and should be ignored. Summarised succinctly by this (shortened but not taken out of context):

                  >Once you have made the determination that God does exist and that Islam is the truth [and] that

                  >the Quran is the word of God, then ... what He says goes.. whether or not you understand.

                  If God exists, then He obviously knows more than anyone else.

                  Any other creature cannot hope to match His knowledge in any way.

                  He is the one who sends down the law, what is good, what is bad.

                  No one is in any postion to argue with Him, to say, that He is wrong.

                  If one does so, then one is saying that I know better than God, that He is wrong, which means that He is not God, which means that He does not exist.

                  So once one has come to the determination that God does exist, and that the Quran is His word, then it follows that one has to submit ones will and knowledge etc.. to His.

                  One is encouraged to try to understand, however, one cannot say that I do not agree with what God says on x, y or z. That is a negation of the determination that one made that God exists, and the revelation is from God. So for instance, earning interest on money.. is forbidden by God in Islam.. one cannot come along, and say, well I don't accept that, God made a mistake. If one does so, then one has left Islam.

                  As to thinking about the Universe, how was it made, how does it work etc.. all is encouraged.. we are told that this is food for the mind... that in such an endevour you will see the many signs of God, it will strengthen your belief in Him. That none of it is in contradiction to God, or not pointing towards Him. Indeed the Quran contains many pointers to such things and urges people to think about them.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: @Oscar Pops 11:16 @J1 gimme what I want..

                    ".....If God exists, then He obviously knows more than anyone else...." Really? Apart from the obvious problem with him existing in the first place, how do you KNOW he is superbrainy? For all you know, if a god does exist, maybe he's a puke-brained drone. After all, it could be there are more than one "gods", and a load of them did the clever creation stuff, but then they had to step out of the universe to take a call and left their first-cousin's sister-in-law's mentally-challenged, drugged-up, hippy nephew, the janitor (Allah) in charge. That would explain a lot. If you want to pretend that the skyfairies exist without evidence, then there is also no reason to belive that they are perfect seeing as you also have no evidence of your god's genius.

          2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: @Oscar Pops 13:49 gimme what I want.. @J1

            ".....It is only reasonable for you to be prepared to deal with so many people who are professing the same faith." Well, surely that should actually mean MUSLIMS should learn how to interact with others without felling the need to riot, burn down embassies, etc, etc?

  40. This post has been deleted by its author

  41. badmonkey
    Thumb Up

    Harris clear thinking

    TThis issue dealt with brilliantly as usual:

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

  42. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

    Weirdly enough

    I'm Gnostic. No one seems to mention that much, which is odd becuase both Jesus and Mohammed were both Gnostics.

  43. silver darling
    Stop

    hate crime

    the twisted hate of so many islamophobes. who are you people? are you the same people who think its fine to bomb afghanistan, libya, iran ? kill and supress people in the name of democracy and free speech, because they're all non-scientific mad mullahs anyway.

    the video is deliberately provocative, hateful and insulting. google, and by extension, the western 'democracies' are broadcasting this rant to the world, in the name of free speech. where's the benefit in this?

    if you believe so passionately in your right to gravely offend people's beliefs why don't you get on a plane to karachi, kabul, marrakech, algiers and explain to the people face to face why their way of life is so inferior to yours and why you have the right to tell them so?

    if you came to my christian town and did that at best you'd get a slap and treated with contempt. and you would deserve it.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: hate crime

      "....if you came to my christian town...." It is very obvious by the content of your post that you are not a Christian in any shape or form.

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The axe can forget, but the tree can't

    I guess this is the reality of the world we live in today. The powerful nations can provoke and laugh whenever they want. Why would the French magazine choose to publish cartoons right now. Freedom of speech, yeah right.

    Do the posters here genuinely think that all these protests are caused just by this film? I don't think so. There has been a series of incidents recently, such as the cartoons, repeated descration of Koran in afghanistan by invaders and burning by that american priest, the repeated "mistakes" of bombing civilians from the drones and so on. As much as some people on this forum would like to believe it, it's not true that muslims can't take criticism of their religion. People know the kind of things that are said every day about their religion in western and other non-muslim societies but they simply get on with their lives. The trouble is that they are not used to these offensive caricatures. It's not like they make caricatures of religious figures of others but get upset when it's done to them. They just aren't used to this kind of "free speech". And the fact that their countries are being invaded and bombed by the christian (oh sorry, secular) west just exacerbates the situation. It's like kicking someone to death and then laughing and then looking surprised as to why they scream.

    Well, at least religion has one benefit, especially for the vast silent majority of muslims, the ones not being violent or shouting for beheadings in the streets. It allows them to let go and leave justice to God. Of course the atheists would call it opium of the masses or something else, but I would like to believe (even if I have no way of knowing or proving it) that there is a God on the side of the oppressed ones, whatever their religion, color or race.

  45. Jaybus

    The difference is in the reaction

    What is the difference between making fun of Muhammad and making fun of Jesus in a film? If you make fun of Jesus in a film, say Monty Python's Life of Brian, then millions of people will pay to see it and have a good laugh and zealot leaders will complain loudly enough that they are paid well to appear on talk shows. Apparently, if you make fun of Muhammad in a film, people will only view it if it is free on YouTube, zealot protestors will storm embassies and murder people, and nobody will make any money.

    I can understand a filmmaker branching out, since the "make fun of Jesus" theme has already been done so many times, but it is obvious that it flopped as a film. He should have stuck with the tried and true "make fun of Jesus" theme. What a waste of time and effort. Or perhaps not. Maybe the publicity from the effort will land him a job in Hollywood. Who knows? Was it Oscar Wilde who said "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."?

  46. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    And the rioting gets the result intended.

    Anyone catch the Obumblers big speech at the UN? Anyone note how he daren't say "Islamic extremism", he had to refer to "all extremism", like there were crowds of Bhuddists burning down embassies? The rioting works. Soon the muslim countries at the UN will start pushing for another law banning all criticism of Islam as a "hate crime". In fact, Obambi only dared mention Islam once, and then only by saying it might be in conflict with other religions, not that it is mulsims rioting and killing people even as he spoke. This sweeping of the issue under the carpet will only lead to more insulting films, cartoons and articles as the way our politicians avoid discussing the problem only pushes the anti-muslim crowd to drag it back into the spotlight again and again. If the muslim World really does want to deal with the issue then they need to be prepared for a grown-up discussion that could just possibly include admitting Islam is not perfect, and our Western politicians need to grow a backbone and help them reach that conclusion.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019