Question

But maybe talking about violence, abrogation of rights and religions that support those things will.
Yeah, of course. People should be aware of the problems, the moral despicable aspects that one can find under the title of Islam. Recognising the problem is the first step for the solution of a problem. In this case people must also be convinced that Moslem extremism is a serious threat, however, in this case I think most people already are. But it is also necessary to define the problem correctly: so we must be clear that the danger of Islam is coming from extremists, not from the masses. That the main causes for extremism are not Islam itself but the background of colonialism, continuing exploitation, social segregation, etc etc. Islam is just the thankful hat rack for political and personal frustration.

GdB is repeating worn out tropes. Meanwhile, little girls are getting shot in the face because they “provoke” “extremists” by going to school and others are dead because they drew cartoons. These are perfectly normal actions in a peaceful society. No one is going out of their way to piss off anyone. NOT doing those things just because some nut job MIGHT get angry would be an extreme action.

I posted this before, but I’ve listened to it several times and it bears repeating. ] The link is a summary, but you can click through to Sam’s podcast, it’s about 20 minutes long. He talks of the Chapel Hill murders, by an atheist, and how quick people were to condemn atheists in general for this one action. Comparatively, the rest of the world was very slow to recognize the dangers of fundamentalists protesting outside of abortion clinics, or terrorists organizing and recruiting based on Muslim teachings. Sam distinguishes between inflammatory speech and speech that criticizes bad leadership and poor decision making. If that form of criticism makes someone mad enough to randomly kill, that is a consequence we have to deal with. We deal with it in the same way we deal with people who can’t handle their alcohol, we arrest those who violate standards, and we offer treatment to anyone who wants it.
The original question was, should we care about someone’s blasphemy norm. GdB responded by suggesting that we shouldn’t go hassle people. That is a conflation of two different things. A muddying of the waters, when what we need is clear boundaries.

No, it won't, but it doesn't mean that scientific theories should not be talked about. It doesn't mean that violent and sexist religions should not be roundly criticized at every opportunity, either. Lois
I would suggest that criticizing is not enough, those who hold those kinds of religious beliefs should be isolated from the rest of society. If that is the way they want to believe, and treat each other, let them, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
when what we need is clear boundaries.
Yes, clear boundaries that can be strictly enforced, so that one group cannot spread their particular set of beliefs by force and violence.
The root cause of radicalised Islam is colonialism and its continuing aftermath, like the Palestinian problem, the Iraq- and Afghanistan wars and much more. It has not much to do with the contents of Islam. You should know that, if you look at the history of Christianity (the 'religion of peace').
I had to re-read this one. What? The nation of Islam was a large and successful empire in the 13th century. THEY were the colonialists at that time. They were defeated by their own folly, plus Mongols from the East and Christian who were finally getting their act together after a 1,000 years of Catholic rule. I assume you are talking about how we carved up that territory during the world wars, and got involved in their politics in Iran. Afghanistan was the Russians attempting to colonize and we came in as liberators, what we screwed up there was the end-game, we just packed up and went home once the USSR lost. But I think the deeply ingrained aspect of their political expansion being tied to their religion is just as much a factor as anything the super powers have done to them recently. We ended that type of rule after 100 years of religious wars with the Peace of Westphalia. Westphalian nations are still how we operate today. We brought Russia and others into that system with World War I. We forced it on the Middle East, but that doesn't mean that nations are wrong, just how we went about it with them. They removed our puppet dictator in Iran, and you could argue we gave them a new one in Iraq, but they also have a lot more freedom. There is no reason for them to behead anyone to get want they want, unless what they want is to install their own religious dictators.
But maybe talking about violence, abrogation of rights and religions that support those things will.
Yeah, of course. People should be aware of the problems, the moral despicable aspects that one can find under the title of Islam. Recognising the problem is the first step for the solution of a problem. In this case people must also be convinced that Moslem extremism is a serious threat, however, in this case I think most people already are. But it is also necessary to define the problem correctly: so we must be clear that the danger of Islam is coming from extremists, not from the masses. That the main causes for extremism are not Islam itself but the background of colonialism, continuing exploitation, social segregation, etc etc. Islam is just the thankful hat rack for political and personal frustration.I think you hit the nail on the head...colonialism, as in the US and its allies invading the Middle East. BUT let's go all the way. The reason for the colonialism is oil plain and simple. Whether it's Russia or GB or the US, oil is the motivator, bottom line.
I think you hit the nail on the head...colonialism, as in the US and its allies invading the Middle East. BUT let's go all the way. The reason for the colonialism is oil plain and simple. Whether it's Russia or GB or the US, oil is the motivator, bottom line.
That can only explain what has happened in the Middle East for the last 100 years. A huge factor, no question, but there was no oil when Christian Europe was re-writing history and calling Muslims backwards, claiming that they were "re-conquering" land that they took from them.
GdB is repeating worn out tropes. Meanwhile, little girls are getting shot in the face because they "provoke" "extremists" by going to school and others are dead because they drew cartoons. These are perfectly normal actions in a peaceful society. No one is going out of their way to piss off anyone. NOT doing those things just because some nut job MIGHT get angry would be an extreme action.
Excellent point. Lois
The root cause of radicalised Islam is colonialism and its continuing aftermath, like the Palestinian problem, the Iraq- and Afghanistan wars and much more. It has not much to do with the contents of Islam. You should know that, if you look at the history of Christianity (the 'religion of peace').
I had to re-read this one. What? The nation of Islam was a large and successful empire in the 13th century. THEY were the colonialists at that time... Good point, Lausten. Islam is distinctly different from Christianity in that the Koran is a relatively straightforward (compared to the conflicting Old and New Testaments) manifesto for conducting all aspects of life, including warfare and governance. The radical aspects of devoutly following Islam will not go away, even over hundreds of years, by our imagining that it is inherently a "religion of peace"... Unless, of course, one faction of Islam becomes the completely dominant world religion AND world theocratic government, and rigidly imposes "peace" on Islamic terms.
Unless, of course, one faction of Islam becomes the completely dominant world religion AND world theocratic government, and rigidly imposes "peace" on Islamic terms.
And we know how that would works out. The 200 years of peace and prosperity in Rome, the Pax Romana, happens to coincide with the time that they were destroying temples and nailing people to trees in the East.
GdB is repeating worn out tropes. Meanwhile, little girls are getting shot in the face because they "provoke" "extremists" by going to school and others are dead because they drew cartoons. These are perfectly normal actions in a peaceful society. No one is going out of their way to piss off anyone. NOT doing those things just because some nut job MIGHT get angry would be an extreme action.
Did I say we should do nothing, that we should just accept what (radical) Moslems do? We should defend ourselves, and our values. If simple telling truths in a societal debate provokes Moslems, then that is a pity, but it is their problem. But if we provoke only for the pleasure of provoking, then that serves no reasonable goal. It will not help to solve the problem. Satire is the weapon of the powerless to expose the powerful. If satire aims at minorities, and if these minorities are in this position because of our doings, now or in the recent past, then we just marginalise them more. This is a good breeding soil for terrorism; also a weapon of the powerless.
The nation of Islam was a large and successful empire in the 13th century. THEY were the colonialists at that time.
True. Just as true that the Serbians justified their civil war against the Moslems, referring to the battle of Kosovo in 1389. Is that the way to use history? How is it possible that about the time I was born we already lived in peace with Germany, only about 15 years after the end of WW II? PS Lausten, you have a beautiful writing style, but for me, as non-native English speaker with no background in the USA, I sometimes really do not understand what you mean. It is typical for me that I have no problem reading technical books and papers in English, but I do with literature, and even sometimes newspapers. Please be aware of that, if you think I did not understand you. Beauty of language can go at the cost of clarity.

This thread is a great example of liberal humanist horseshit.
The solution is this - don’t let any Arabs into your country. And if they get in somehow, kill them. :coolsmile:

GdB is repeating worn out tropes. Meanwhile, little girls are getting shot in the face because they "provoke" "extremists" by going to school and others are dead because they drew cartoons. These are perfectly normal actions in a peaceful society. No one is going out of their way to piss off anyone. NOT doing those things just because some nut job MIGHT get angry would be an extreme action.
Did I say we should do nothing, that we should just accept what (radical) Moslems do? We should defend ourselves, and our values. If simple telling truths in a societal debate provokes Moslems, then that is a pity, but it is their problem. But if we provoke only for the pleasure of provoking, then that serves no reasonable goal. It will not help to solve the problem. Satire is the weapon of the powerless to expose the powerful. If satire aims at minorities, and if these minorities are in this position because of our doings, now or in the recent past, then we just marginalise them more. This is a good breeding soil for terrorism; also a weapon of the powerless. No, you didn't say do nothing. You brought up something unrelated to the OP and claimed that was the real issue. Now you're bringing in this "minorities" thing. I realize there are some neighborhoods in European cities where Muslims are discriminated against, but that's not who we're talking about is it? We're talking about the son of rich Saudis and some people who are making a lot of money off oil on the black market.
The nation of Islam was a large and successful empire in the 13th century. THEY were the colonialists at that time.
True. Just as true that the Serbians justified their civil war against the Moslems, referring to the battle of Kosovo in 1389. Is that the way to use history? How is it possible that about the time I was born we already lived in peace with Germany, only about 15 years after the end of WW II? Funny you should be the one saying that. Instead of me making assumptions about what you mean and bringing up 13th century history, I should have asked, "What do you mean by colonialism?" You just threw that word out like it summed up the whole situation.

I have one question.
Why can we make fun of Pastafarians and not of Muslims?

No, you didn't say do nothing. You brought up something unrelated to the OP and claimed that was the real issue. Now you're bringing in this "minorities" thing.
It has everything to with the question if it is a good idea to provoke Moslems in general: if it is wise, and if it is morally justifiable.
Funny you should be the one saying that. Instead of me making assumptions about what you mean and bringing up 13th century history, I should have asked, "What do you mean by colonialism?" You just threw that word out like it summed up the whole situation.
Well, colonialism is not that old, and in many former colonies nothing has changed, except that those in power are exchanged by locals. And do not expect of me to give a full explanation of why I think that the religion of Islam is only a minor factor in the rising of terrorism. Which of course is not saying that Islam is good. But to act based prejudices and hate, on wrong and incomplete premises, can only go wrong, and does not fit to people who pretend to be rational.
I have one question. Why can we make fun of Pastafarians and not of Muslims?
Good question. i am certainly offended. Lois

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur’an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (0).
Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine.
Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Qur’an, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin, and limits the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through the taking and ransoming of hostages, which began under Muhammad.
The Qur’an:
Qur’an (33:50) - “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:
Qur’an (23:5-6) - “…who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur’an (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.
Qur’an (4:24) - “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible.
Qur’an (8:69) - “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”
Qur’an (24:32) - “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness.
Qur’an (2:178) - “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man’s).
Qur’an (16:75) - “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.” Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (80:753) - “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.’”
Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.
Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt.
Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.
Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.
Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).
Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.
Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.
Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.
Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.
Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad’s own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.
Bukhari (59:637) - “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.’” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives,” since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.
Abu Dawud (2150) - “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur’an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)
Abu Dawud 1814 - “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.
Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.
Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)". A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”).
Ibn Ishaq (693) - “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).
Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm

Yes, Lois, every Moslem agrees with slavery, and nearly every Moslem has a few. :-S
My neighbours in the Netherlands had a few, and everyday, when I met him in the stairway he threatened me with the coming of sharia, and that I would become his slave too.
But thanks for proving my point.

No, you didn't say do nothing. You brought up something unrelated to the OP and claimed that was the real issue. Now you're bringing in this "minorities" thing.
It has everything to with the question if it is a good idea to provoke Moslems in general: if it is wise, and if it is morally justifiable. If you're just going to make claims, not much discussion here. The question was about blaspheming. Me simply saying that Allah is a myth is blaspheming. It has nothing to do with provoking.
Funny you should be the one saying that. Instead of me making assumptions about what you mean and bringing up 13th century history, I should have asked, "What do you mean by colonialism?" You just threw that word out like it summed up the whole situation.
Well, colonialism is not that old, and in many former colonies nothing has changed, except that those in power are exchanged by locals. And do not expect of me to give a full explanation of why I think that the religion of Islam is only a minor factor in the rising of terrorism. Which of course is not saying that Islam is good. But to act based prejudices and hate, on wrong and incomplete premises, can only go wrong, and does not fit to people who pretend to be rational. You are still talking way to generally to be making any kind of a point. I'm not going to review the history of every Muslim country since 1492, but since you brought it up, which ones were colonies? Spain was conquered. I'm not that familiar with Northern Africa, but they were all primarily Muslim countries by time I was born. We carved up the Ottoman Empire, but their religion was left intact. We had a puppet ruler in Iran for what, 30 years? Who exactly did we colonize?