PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia > Islam



Sirc
21st February 08, 01:29 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam


Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopaedia, though not on Arabic sites. On two of the images, Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. But on two others, one from 1315, which is the earliest surviving depiction of the prophet, and the other from the 15th century, his face is shown. Some protesters are claiming the pictures have been posted simply to 'bait' and 'insult' Muslims and argue the least Wikipedia can do is blur or blank out the faces.

Such has been the adverse reaction, Wikipedia has been forced to set up a separate page on its site explaining why it refuses to bow to pressure and has also had to set up measures to block people from 'editing' the pages themselves.

In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it.

'Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.

'So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the US state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed because people find them objectionable or offensive.'

The traditional reason given for the Islamic prohibition on images of prophets it to prevent them from becoming objects of worship in a form of idolatry. But, say the editors, the images used were examples of how Muhammad has been depicted by various Islamic sects through history and not in a religious context.

I say, good on Wikipedia for not bowing down to religious idiocy. The more this happens the more I feel that people are starting to stand up to idiots and not make the whole of humanity look like a bitch.

And as always:

RELIGION OF PEACE!

kismasher
21st February 08, 01:53 PM
Nicely done wiki.

lol at Religion of Peace.

Steve
21st February 08, 02:12 PM
Hmmm, I see no pictures of Muhammad on the US Wiki site... Link to Wiki with the offensive pictures?

elipson
21st February 08, 02:20 PM
Good on wikipedia.

Strange, I was against the Danish guys who posted the cartoon about Mo, but now I support wiki... how interesting....

mrblackmagic
21st February 08, 02:59 PM
Hmmm, I see no pictures of Muhammad on the US Wiki site... Link to Wiki with the offensive pictures?

You will burst in to flames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

It's not that it is offensive. Muslims are just not supposed to have engraved images.

krazy kaju
21st February 08, 03:54 PM
Another win for free speach... YEAH RON PAUL!!!

BTW, now that my man RP won't be nominated FOR SURE, who wants to start a "Stephen Colbert or Death" campaign with me?

WarPhalange
21st February 08, 04:01 PM
Good on wikipedia.

Strange, I was against the Danish guys who posted the cartoon about Mo, but now I support wiki... how interesting....

Because the Danish guy was doing it as a troll job as I recall. This is just for knowledge.

elipson
21st February 08, 04:04 PM
That would be why.

Intentionally setting out to piss of members of the biggest religion in the world and then going "whats everyone so mad about?" is a bit of a douchebag move as far as I'm concerned.

This is just historical reporting. Islam says that muslims can't make pictures of mohamed. It doesn't say they should go after everyone else in the world who does.

Kein Haar
21st February 08, 04:21 PM
Our rights end where someone else's feelings begin.

Show cumpashin plz thnx.

Sirc
21st February 08, 05:00 PM
Our rights end where someone else's feelings begin.

Show cumpashin plz thnx.

No. Never.

Lu Tze
21st February 08, 05:44 PM
This bullshit has got fuck all to do with being offended, it's about a self righteous group trying to impose its will on everyone else. It's an exercise of power.

I'm not at risk of idolatry, because I don't believe in god anyway, I'll look at pictures of Mohamed all I fucking want thanks.

Odacon
21st February 08, 06:11 PM
First $cientology, now Islam, the internet isn't taking shit from anyone anymore.

MSphinx
21st February 08, 06:19 PM
First $cientology, now Islam, the internet isn't taking shit from anyone anymore.

They're on our turf now.

mrblackmagic
21st February 08, 10:36 PM
I know what you're thinking. Anon doesn't have the means to bring down Islam. Don't even waste space on your computer making the video.

socratic
22nd February 08, 02:49 AM
I think it's hilarious people think this and the Danish cartoon are even in the same ballpark.

That engraving is history. While I normally tend to side with Islam (We've got to stick up for all the Judeo-Christian religions, right? Otherwise we'd be descriminating in our descriminating. [At least when it comes to assholes trying to piss them off deliberately with pictures or something]) this I don't agree with. It's not insensitive artists, or an elaborate trolling, it's history. If it's offensive, don't look at it. I don't read historical revisionism books because they're stupid and so are their authors. Doesn't mean I think the author's arms should be cut off so they can't write any more.

Now that I think about it, we really should cut off historical revisionists' (or at least, the Hollocaust deniers etc) arms so they can't write any more trash.

Steve
22nd February 08, 03:13 AM
Is this why we haven't heard of any images of Muhammad on a piece of toast (surely it could catch more than this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm))?

Would eating it to remove the image be acceptable or would it be an automatic ticket to damnation?

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 04:08 AM
Is this why we haven't heard of any images of Muhammad on a piece of toast (surely it could catch more than this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm))?


Scientology pulls the ebay auctions

Bahuyuddha
22nd February 08, 04:17 AM
Yes, this is very different from the Muhammad cartoon issue. However...

As Danish society is very liberal, it is common practice to make fun of many subjects, including religions. The Muhammad cartoons were not that out-of-the-ordinary for the kind of satire that is common in Denmark. But once the word spread throughout the Muslim world, it got taken out of the context of Danish society and seen as an affront to Islam in general.

Bear in mind, however, that my opinion on the situation mostly comes from what I have read of the Wikipedia article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy).

Shawarma
22nd February 08, 05:22 AM
And it is entirely wrong, too. It wasn't satire. Danish satire tries to be amusing. This wasn't. It was, essentially, LOOK WE HAVE FREEDUMB OF SPEECH I CAN SLAP YOU IN THE FACE WITH MY COCK AND YOU CANT DO NOTHIN HAHA SILLY MUSLIMS.
Not the most well thought through of provocations, I feel.

socratic
22nd February 08, 05:56 AM
It's a shame that current Islam is so negative towards artistic representations of religious figures. I went to a gallery in Sydney once, and the quality of the artwork there (yes, there was even one with Mohammed without a veil) was amazing. Shit, even the post-anti-Idolatry law art is amazing. They really understood geometry and tesselation.

But yeah, there may be a fine line between deliberately goading someone and 'art', but this issue is definitely about art. Unless someone made a really good fake peice of medieval artwork!

elipson
22nd February 08, 06:45 AM
They really understood geometry and tesselation.
Pictures are pretty.

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 12:19 PM
And it is entirely wrong, too. It wasn't satire. Danish satire tries to be amusing. This wasn't. It was, essentially, LOOK WE HAVE FREEDUMB OF SPEECH I CAN SLAP YOU IN THE FACE WITH MY COCK AND YOU CANT DO NOTHIN HAHA SILLY MUSLIMS.
Not the most well thought through of provocations, I feel.

Actually there was some deliberate misrepresentation involved on the so-called Muslim side that totally influenced the "Muslim" reaction.

The specific shit-stirrer was an Imam who took the Danish cartoons from the "draw Muhammad" contest, which were pretty-much standard editorial cartoon level, and combined them with drawings and photoshops from right-wing groups in Europe- i.e. the guy getting fucked by a dog while praying and Muhammad with a pig's head. Ironically, the whole thing justified the radicals on each side.


It's a shame that current Islam is so negative towards artistic representations of religious figures. I went to a gallery in Sydney once, and the quality of the artwork there (yes, there was even one with Mohammed without a veil) was amazing. Shit, even the post-anti-Idolatry law art is amazing. They really understood geometry and tesselation.

But yeah, there may be a fine line between deliberately goading someone and 'art', but this issue is definitely about art. Unless someone made a really good fake peice of medieval artwork!

The most radical Islam "sees history as a parenthesis" a la Pol Pot's year zero.
The retardation of such behavior is matched only by the amount of time, money and lives the US/UK have spent to enable it via the Saudis and their pet projects. Some radical-muslim-enablers got their shit burnt up in Belgrade a few days ago, if that makes anyone feel better.

IMHO, it's more idolatrous to say someone can't be depicted. It's like someone saying, "we can't see any photographs of the president because he's not that important," obviously a contradiction. If you leave out Mesopotamia (where the art began with the isolate group of Sumerians), there never was a really great semitic tradition of representational art.

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/nes275/studentproj/fall05/kmr38/Bes.jpg

Um, wow, not exactly the venus de milo. That's Yahweh in the front with his, uh, creative potency emphasized, and his chick behind him with the two circles=boobies (her tail is actually a tail). So you combine suckage with the reaction to Byzantine iconism (which many Christians were up in arms against) + post-Platonic artists as creators of t3h fake and there's your early Islamic iconoclasm.

The geometry comment is on, the 17 types of mosaics at the al-Hambra, for instance, depict the 17 plane symmetry groups aka wallpaper groups made while Europeans were picking their noses. The obvious issue now is that you've got a big group of Islamic ideologists who want to go back to the good old nose picking days for themselves.

Think about the whole anonymous vs. scientology- we live in the most visual age ever, and visuals are the key to change. Even the Nazis were embarassed when an exhibit of "deviant art" they put on as a form of denunciation got huge ticket receipts. Yeah, there's the sound bite/broadcast too, but if you ban music you lose another most appealing and evocative level. This is why the Wahhabi-Salafi takeover of t3h world will never happen, no matter how much money we pour into it then pour into fighting against it. Sufism is in a period of latency now, more or less, but at the risk of Frank Hebert nutridery I agree it's going to come back in a big way, and will likely be the Islam people know in several centuries- as it was the one they knew for almost a millennia.

EvilSteve
22nd February 08, 12:49 PM
Wait a minute- why are so many people on this thread apparently making apologies for Muslim outrage at the Danish cartoons when you same people read the most belligerently offensive posts here without batting an eye?

If you all can deal with it, why do they need mollycoddling?

mrblackmagic
22nd February 08, 01:19 PM
Yeah. It sucks having to play the compassion game with people who only play when their feelings get hurt.

HappyOldGuy
22nd February 08, 01:19 PM
If you all can deal with it, why do they need mollycoddling?

I chose to be here, in spite of the great big dripping red letters warning that this is a corrupt offensive shithole?

I wouldn't be so happy wth some of these threads on the cover of the NYT.

Well, okay. I would, but that's because I'm the kind of evil fuck who hangs out in corrupt offensive shitholes.

EvilSteve
22nd February 08, 01:38 PM
Because you'd be a fucktard to take one approach to everything.

And you'd be a fucktard to capitulate to religious zealots. Consider that Judeo-Christianity-Islam (or at least the latter two) preach a doctrine which says that anyone who does not follow their particular sect is deserving of eternal damnation.

Even though that means me, I don't find it offensive. Why? Because I think they're all idiots if they believe that.

And they REALLY don't have any business getting pissy about Mohammed drawn with a bomb in his turban when the most vocal members of their religion have been turning themselves into human bombs. Point: There are MANY American Christians who are sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as the religious right. However, they don't get mad at the press for badmouthing them, they get mad at the religious right for being a bunch of assholes.

Your right to believe what you want does not trump my right to point at you and laugh. We hold these truths to be self evident that the following things are REALLY funny: 9/11, the Holocaust, the slave trade, the Armenian genocide, rape, incest, child molestation, suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, abortion, your god, school shootings, and of course, your momma.

Love, laughter, truth.

Shawarma
22nd February 08, 01:42 PM
All of which I am entirely aware of, Ironlurker. That doesn't make it a clever thing the newspapers did.

The spectacular thing about Mohammedgate was that EVERYONE and I do mean EVERYONE got to show the world what enormous dicks they were.

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 02:41 PM
And you'd be a fucktard to capitulate to religious zealots. Consider that Judeo-Christianity-Islam (or at least the latter two) preach a doctrine which says that anyone who does not follow their particular sect is deserving of eternal damnation.

Even though that means me, I don't find it offensive. Why? Because I think they're all idiots if they believe that.

And they REALLY don't have any business getting pissy about Mohammed drawn with a bomb in his turban when the most vocal members of their religion have been turning themselves into human bombs. Point: There are MANY American Christians who are sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as the religious right. However, they don't get mad at the press for badmouthing them, they get mad at the religious right for being a bunch of assholes.

Your right to believe what you want does not trump my right to point at you and laugh. We hold these truths to be self evident that the following things are REALLY funny: 9/11, the Holocaust, the slave trade, the Armenian genocide, rape, incest, child molestation, suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, abortion, your god, school shootings, and of course, your momma.

Love, laughter, truth.
The situation is a bit different. Here's the timeline:


This is the timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. The cartoons were first published by Jyllands-Posten in late September 2005; approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images, triggering more protests.
Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in January 2006, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued in February. In Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set on fire by protesters. In Beirut, thousands of people protested on the streets, and the Danish General Consulate was stormed and set on fire. As of March 2, 2006, at least 139 people have died primarily during riots stemming from protests.[1]
timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)

So, they published the original cartoons. No riots, no mass murders, no arson. Those offended protested peacefully. A month later, other papers publish them.
More protests, still under control, in Europe.

In the meantime, a Danish "Imam" went on a speaking tour of Africa and the Middle east. With the editorial cartoons, he included offensive drawings and photoshops from, basically, neo-Nazi groups. He claims he didn't intend to mislead, but I doubt this.

It was only then that the violent anti-Western riots began, in ME and African countries. 1) In half of these countries (Syria, Pakistan) it is a police state in the main urban centers. If a big riot/rally/chaos takes place, it's being allowed to happen, or promoted by agent-provocateurs, to say "oh look the man is bad, let us the corrupt assholes remain in power little muslims", and to say to the West, "look at the nuts who would take over without you sending us guns and money." 2) in the other countries (Africa), half of the places are somewhere between Mad Max and the Heart of Darkness. Shitty, weak, corrupt governments, foreign interference/half-ass neocolonialism, and rampant tribalism (ie the mass killings in Kenya right now, the Rwandan genocide). The day was another day with another reason for insane unemployed young men living in the middle ages with AK-47's and megaphones to go on a rampage.
As mentioned in the enturb forum, you have black bloc types who show up to cause a ruckus in protests here. How about in a state on borderline anarchy?

Did any of the ten million American Muslims blow shit up over this? No, because they left 1 and 2 for the reasons above, and our government doesn't let people (usually) run wild or assasinate religious/ethnic enemies, although there are many of all stripes who would given the chance.

People have a right to be offended. People have a right not to care if other people are offended. Peaceful protests, letter-writing, and boycotts are acceptable means of expressing your opinion in a democracy, and there will never be a time when everyone has the same opinion. If people cave to something you don't like, you have every right to do the same to protest/fight their caving. Choco-Jesus got taken down because the hotel got a bazillion letters about it. The issue is, people who want the right to offend often aren't as motivated, active, or organized as those who want to not be offended.
Why? Because right to offend=individualist, demand not to be offended=group.
The ACLU sticks up for people (htey like at the time), so become a member or start a letter-writing campaign the next time you think someone caves.

We understand the Christian thing, and actually don't so well -there are many Evangelicals, believe it or not, who dislike the focus on social conservatism at the expense of social progress, and aren't obsessed with putting creationism in the schools- because we are a Christian country, perhaps more so than many others on the planet. I'm very surprised at times to see how little people know/understand about Judaism, given that it's supposedly a "Judaeo-Christian" country. I have a close friend who wasn't served in a bar down south because she wore a star of david pendant. There's swastika graffiti and graveyard desecrations all the time up hear in the "liberal northeast". Many of the elite private schools still have quotas on Jewish students.

Now, whats the difference with Jews and Muslims? 1) Jews were forced, brutally even, to accept their minority status in the hearts of Western society for thousands of years. Muslims are not used to life in non-Muslim majority countries 2) Jews are probably the most educated per-capita religious group in the world. Muslims are probably the most illiterate (especially given the development levels of ME countries) 3) Israel is on our team, many Muslim countries aren't, so you get ethnicity-tribalism-nationalism mixed with "religion".

Now, if you drive through the Meah Shearim neighborhood in Israel on the Sabbat, your car, and possibly you, will get stoned, and not in the Cheech and Chong sense. In Israel, there are socialists, atheists, Westernized people (obviously), and multiple ethnicities (including Arab Christians, Muslims, and Druze), so a neighborhood of people marrying their cousins and throwing rocks at cars violating a particular religious law is seen as a specific phenomenon enabled by different factors.


"Modesty" posters in Hebrew and English are hung at every entrance to Meah Shearim. When visiting the neighborhood, women and girls are asked to dress modestly (knee-length skirts or longer, no plunging necklines or midriff tops, no sleeveless blouses or bare shoulders) and tourists are requested not to arrive in large, conspicuous groups. During the Jewish Sabbath (from sunset Friday until it is completely dark on Saturday night), visitors should refrain from smoking, photography, driving or use of mobile phones. Wearing blatant Christian symbols or T-shirts with Christian slogans should also be avoided. When entering synagogues, men should cover their heads link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meah_Shearim)

Now, the Haredi Jews of the neighborhood aren't allowed to run out and burn the cars of people who drive on Saturday throughout the country, intimidate imporperly dressed women, burn the american embassy for X, etc. Why? Because Israel is a strong state with a firm (yet ambivalent) relationship to religion.

As far as "vocal" goes, there's another issue. Say "the ones who get press". The press loves sensationalism and often goes with the flow of what we're doing overseas. There's two other factors- Muslims are very decentralized, no Archbishop of Canterbury, no Pope, no Sanhedrin even. This plays out in two ways. When someone wants a story, they go to whoever will talk. Second part, there's a big problem in the Muslim community, which is when someone wants to do leadership, it's "who the hell are you?" based on the decentralization above. So, the most vocal people are often those who don't give a shit what people think about their authority to speak, which tend to be on one end of the spectrum or another- totally Westernized intellectuals and radical fundamentalist nuts.

Do Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan represent the black American community? No, but you could say they're the "most vocal" and judge blacks based on their wackiness/corruption/intolerence. You never hear about Warith Din Muhammad, son of Elijah, when you hear about black Muslims. Why? Because he practices normal Islam, doesn't believe white people are a science experiment gone bad, and supports the US- often in conflict with both radical black and Muslim groups.

Finally, there's human nature. If you live in a place where the government doesn't give two shits about you, and the nuts can shoot and bomb you at will, would you speak out on the part of often hostile people several thousand miles away? As I said before, why in the 90's don't we see the inhabitants of Long Beach standing up and protesting the Crips and Bloods? Naming names, picketing their houses. Would you travel through Pakistan or Syria willingly? If you wouldn't go there on vacation, it makes judging the vocal-ness of the normal people who live there a little more complicated. Doesn't make any purported silence right, but again, it's human nature.

You have a right to make holocaust jokes. People have a right not to laugh. If you want to teach a course based on holocaust denial or print a book advocating it, no one has to hire you or market your book. Should you be bombed if you do either? No, but you can't expect people to be thrilled or rank #1 on Amazon. Do you have a right to run into a synagogue dressed in an SS uniform? Throw pig heads in a mosque? A little different. Basically, this cynical, slimy imam perpetrated the worst case scenario of this thing with his manipulation of the pictures, and did for the neo-Nazis what they didn't have the balls to do.

BTW have you ever made a mojo?

mrblackmagic
22nd February 08, 03:02 PM
And you'd be a fucktard to capitulate to religious zealots. Consider that Judeo-Christianity-Islam (or at least the latter two) preach a doctrine which says that anyone who does not follow their particular sect is deserving of eternal damnation.

Even though that means me, I don't find it offensive. Why? Because I think they're all idiots if they believe that.

And they REALLY don't have any business getting pissy about Mohammed drawn with a bomb in his turban when the most vocal members of their religion have been turning themselves into human bombs. Point: There are MANY American Christians who are sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush as the religious right. However, they don't get mad at the press for badmouthing them, they get mad at the religious right for being a bunch of assholes.

Your right to believe what you want does not trump my right to point at you and laugh. We hold these truths to be self evident that the following things are REALLY funny: 9/11, the Holocaust, the slave trade, the Armenian genocide, rape, incest, child molestation, suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, abortion, your god, school shootings, and of course, your momma.

Love, laughter, truth.

The fuck are you talking about?

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 03:10 PM
The fuck are you talking about?


rape, incest, child molestation, suicide bombers
^he's just referring to forum members' interest lists

EvilSteve
22nd February 08, 03:14 PM
You have a right to make holocaust jokes. People have a right not to laugh. If you want to teach a course based on holocaust denial or print a book advocating it, no one has to hire you or market your book. Should you be bombed if you do either? No, but you can't expect people to be thrilled or rank #1 on Amazon. Do you have a right to run into a synagogue dressed in an SS uniform? Throw pig heads in a mosque? A little different. Basically, this cynical, slimy imam perpetrated the worst case scenario of this thing with his manipulation of the pictures, and did for the neo-Nazis what they didn't have the balls to do.

Yep, I got that from your earlier post- the publicity whore Imam thing. Good post, BTW, didn't get a chance to respond to it. Anywho, while perhaps I was unfair in my judgement of those offended, I'm seeing that a lot of this boils down to the bulk of the world population are a bunch of bass-ackward freaks who should pull their heads out of their asses.

And usually I'm pretty understanding of bass-ackward freaks, especially given that certain places, say Iran, wouldn't be so full of them if Western powers hadn't overthrown more progressive governments.

But, bottom line, no matter what context the images were presented in (i.e. accompanied by neo-nazi propaganda) the response was unjustified. Even peaceful protests were a bit silly. If I can get called a faggot commie moonbat to my face and shrug it off, I think the rest of the planet can deal with a cartoon.



BTW have you ever made a mojo?

If you're referring to a sauce, then yes. I'm a big fan if Latin cooking.

mrblackmagic
22nd February 08, 03:19 PM
^he's just referring to forum members' interest lists

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

EvilSteve
22nd February 08, 03:22 PM
^he's just referring to forum members' interest lists

Ha!

To clarify though, get as offended by humor as you want. The appropriate response is more humor, not attempts to silence the speaker.

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 03:24 PM
If you're referring to a sauce, then yes. I'm a big fan if Latin cooking.
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/elb84.091104175537.photo02..jpg

EvilSteve
22nd February 08, 03:26 PM
Ummm... I'll take a "DUH" on this one Alex. Explain?

ironlurker
22nd February 08, 04:54 PM
a faggot commie moonbat
The fact that those three perjoratives are based on achieved status (even the faggot part) and conscious identity, rather than ascribed status or congenital stigma, may explain why it's so easy to shrug it off. This isn't to say people shouldn't shrug things off, just to point out the factors involved. A lot of gays can shrug off being called a faggot by a straight person or take it as a joke better than a black man could being called n1gger by a white man. If you call a Jewish professor a commie he'll probably laugh, not so if you're a non-Jew calling him a kike.

In other words, you can become not a faggot (scientology or join the republican party), not a commie (vote against the library funding), and not a moonbat (ditch the birkenstocks and the serape and lose the ponytail). You can try to become not a Jew, but neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, and some Jews will say no. You can't become not black or not asian (insert food item references here). You can become not Muslim, sort of, but if you look anything that doesn't pass for Italian, Jewish, or Greek or don't want to change your name you get lumped in with the Sikhs and Hindu "muslims" when it's time for Billy Bob to crack some heads.

If you don't have any stigma/identifiers/markers you can't get rid of (your Jewish mom, your face, your skin, your name) that are linked to your identity, then it's easier to change, and the ability to change and consciousness of affiliation makes it easier to shrug off things. In other words, if you're white, it's no big deal if you stop being a Catholic and start being a Buddhist, Mormon, Episcopalian, etc.- here. Or you could lie or "pass" with no trouble. In turn, this makes all comparisons seem like apples and apples, while a few of them are really apples and oranges. This doesn't give anyone the right to go bobbing for your apples with a pack of C-4, but it helps explain why things seem different to different people.

Basically, religion as voluntary participation in an intellectual construct vs. as a lived experience, or, even more, a primordial component of identity (many Jews and Muslims) has different levels of emotional charge. Again, doesn't excuse anything, but there is such a thing as shit-stirring (which to be clear is not the case with wikipedia).

If a system or person is challenged/threatened by negative aspects of group identity, the way to deal with it (or to co-opt through divide and conquer, if you're cynical) is to break it down into constituent components, and raise awareness of multiple identities within the group complex (ie Sufis, Ahmadis, Ismailis, Shiites, different maddhabs) or that overlap with the group complex (the status of women or the poor, for example). As I said before, there's a reason the Southern Poverty Law center (fights against nazis and kkk in the US) is called that and not the anti-cracker/anti-white trash center. The wrong way to deal with it is to enforce the very formation of monolithic identity one finds disturbing and problematic. Whats happening now is an increasing number of Muslims are getting caught up in a feedback loop.

The real "political correctness" is the refusal to deal with the hive and nerve centers of the worst forms of "Islam", because certain individuals have over 500 billion in US banks, and to blindly perpetuate their fuel in positive and negative ways (money to corrupt losers, bungling in foreign policy and the war on terror). The worst, most harebrained and sentimental commie Muslim symp professor has much, much less to do with what's going on than the fortune 500.

AAAhmed46
24th February 08, 10:19 PM
When the danish cartoons first happened, i was pretty offended.

But now it's given me a thick skin.

so it really doesn't offend me anymore.

Here is the thing though, NO ONE would have known about the danish cartoons if the news didn't talk about them. They heard about the trade boycott on the news, THEN got angry, then it spread.

The NEWS made it a big deal, and sparked reaction to it. Otherwise, it was pretty much a non issue, until it BECAME an issue.


I DO believe anti-semetic cartoons and even critiques against judaism should be 'politically correct' simply because of the fact that it could become a 'trend' that makes bigotted views against jews(whether talking the religion or the culture) to be once again more acceptable. People are stupid, and probably won't be able to tell the difference between critiquing the teachings of a faith vs treatment of a race of people.


Question to you all though:

Would the reaction have been so strong if Iraq and afganistan had not been invaded?

ironlurker
25th February 08, 12:58 AM
Question to you all though:

Would the reaction have been so strong if Iraq and afganistan had not been invaded?
Define "as strong", and where.

Ironically:

I think the Muslim reaction within western countries would not have. By this I mean the group protests, etc. Every international event is a further moment of group definition for Muslims in the west. This is one of the complicated facts of Muslim life in the West- they're tied, both by members of their own communities and those outside, to international events, in a way Christians (since Catholics became white and "real" Americans) and Jews (except for conspiracy theorists and highly activist Israel-focused Jews) aren't.

I think the riotous behavior, killings, etc. in the ME countries would not have been any different, at this point. All of those factors I described in the earlier post have been at work for decades. The upper class in many Muslim countries is either highly Westernized or the remnants of century-old lineage/patronage systems. The lower class has no real representation outside of demogogue tactics by the ruling authorities and some of the religious estalishment. Most of the traditional religious establishment is just that (with some important exceptions like Iran and Shiite Iraq and Lebanon). The middle class often emigrates or drifts into more mainstream Islamist movements that aren't allowed a chance at representation. And everywhere, there's a big population of young, semi-employed, males more than willing to raise hell. Both the terrorist leadership cadre of disaffected upper-middle/lower-upper class men and the "instigator" group of imams play with fire, the former intentionally and the latter stupidly or cynically.

http://www.kivik.dk/images/EU_abu_laban_stor.JPG

^ This is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, the Imam in question.


On August 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_21), 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994) Abu Laban was interviewed in Jyllands-Posten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten) following a massacre committed by the Algerian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria) terrorist organisation GIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Islamic_Group) that led to the murder of among others seven Christian Monks and a number of foreign tourists. Asked if he could condemn the massacre he replied: "Perhaps the tourists are spreading AIDS in Algeria just like the Jews are spreading AIDS in Egypt."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Abu_Laban#_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Abu_Laban#_note-6)
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Abu_Laban)

So, did this guy "need" the US action in Afghanistan and Iraq to justify anything? No. Did the people who reacted violently need it either? No.

He is thought to have been tied to GIA etc. and knew Zawahiri.

You can read their publicity dossier here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_43p_dossier)
and it's full of deliberate lies.

RE: Denmark


This country has its own language. The rule is constitutional Monarchy. The country consists of a number of islands, the capital is Copenhagen, the number of citizens is 5 million and most of them are Protestants (Christian). Even though they belong to the Christian faith, secularization has overcome them, and if you say that they are all infidels, then you are not wrong.
O rly? At one time Abu Laban claimed he wasn't a jurist, so he couldn't denounce a Nigerian stoning verdict as un-Islamic, but he can certify with his friends that an entire nation is "all infidels."


The faithful in their religion (Muslims) suffer under a number of circumstances, first and foremost the lack of official recognition of the Islamic faith.
Not true, Islam is officially recognized in Denmark.

34-37 are the inserted image, followed with a shitload of extraneous stuff attached- interweb postings by atheists, feminists groups, random things from different newpapers.

This was nothing more than deliberate shit-stirring and there is no reference to Iraq or Afghanistan.

So, why? Because the jurists do not want, by and large, Western Muslims to develop independence from them, by either ignoring them or creating their own judiciary and seminaries in the West. If an ijaza (certificate) from al-Azhar (biggest Sunni theological school in Egypt and most of the world, very influential) is worth the same as one from Zaytuna (Islamic university in America), their e-peni, so to speak, get proportionally smaller.

Every Jewish rabbi does not have to be trained in Israel to have cred. Catholics follow the pope, but not every priest has to be Italian or personally study in vatican city. Still, for many Muslims, "t3h r34l Islam" comes from back home, or one of the power-centers. It all goes back to the lack of official centralization, on the one hand, and the need for consensus/authority issues on the other.

(just as the real girls often come from back home)

edit- and it seems Abu Laban died from cancer last year, shouldn't have eaten the sushi

AAAhmed46
25th February 08, 01:47 AM
I find muslims who believe in islamic law in the west funny, because were supposed to respect the laws of a foreign non-muslim land, even something like that in the quran if my memory serves right.

ironlurker
25th February 08, 01:54 AM
I find muslims who believe in islamic law in the west funny, because were supposed to respect the laws of a foreign non-muslim land, even something like that in the quran if my memory serves right.

Depends on the particular school. In general, yes. However, the issue for hairsplitters becomes if there is a "state of treaty" between the non-Islamic state and the Islamic state. Obviously, this was formulated at a time when there was an Islamic state. Cynical/radical people say, there's no official treaty, so there's no need to follow the laws. Then again, there's no Islamic state, and so on, and so forth. It all goes back to the old dar al-harb dar al-Islam issue.

Goldenmane
25th February 08, 06:14 AM
ironlurker-

Who the fuck told you that speaking sense was acceptable on this board? Christ, we finally got rid of DAYoung and his ridiculous insistence on being rational, intelligent, and thoughtful, and you have to come along and fuck everything up by bringing such things into a thread like this (which by rights should have consisted entirely of people being as offensive as possible to as many people as possible).

Fuck you.

(+rep on its way, mate)

ironlurker
25th February 08, 02:45 PM
we finally got rid of DAYoung

We're trying to bring him back, I think it's going something like this

http://www.mythinglinks.org/MAGIC8.jpg




I DO believe anti-semetic cartoons and even critiques against judaism should be 'politically correct' simply because of the fact that it could become a 'trend' that makes bigotted views against jews(whether talking the religion or the culture) to be once again more acceptable. People are stupid, and probably won't be able to tell the difference between critiquing the teachings of a faith vs treatment of a race of people.




I DO believe anti-semetic cartoons and even critiques against judaism should be 'politically correct' simply because of the fact that it could become a 'trend' that makes bigotted views against jews(whether talking the religion or the culture) to be once again more acceptable. People are stupid, and probably won't be able to tell the difference between critiquing the teachings of a faith vs treatment of a race of people.

This kind of reminds me of Chapelle's stated reasons for quitting after his Racial Pixies sketch, basically when the line between laughing with/laughing at gets blurred. There's always the argument, though, that it's better to have things out there as humor, first and foremost, and let the chips fall. It's never "fair" one way or another.

billy sol hurok
25th February 08, 07:15 PM
We're trying to bring him back, I think it's going something like this

http://www.mythinglinks.org/MAGIC8.jpg

Well there's your problem right there -- needs moar noodz:

http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/01143008.jpg

But you know, like, classy ones.