Muslim Protestors Target Google

[IamGamer41]

There is absolutely nothing that this religion gives to the world other then the killing of innocent people or people who disagree with them.While you can say other religions do the same thing I have yet to see any Christens or Catholics blow themselves up in a crowed area or shoot a 14 year old girl in the head for speaking out for women's rights.

For a person with such a strong opinion on the subject, you seem to know little about it.

On the blowing themselves up... Bombs are fairly recent things, but you'll still find plenty of examples of christians doing it throughout history. Wikipedia alone has a string of fairly famous occurrences. The assassination of russian Tsar Alexander II is a specially cool example. Read through lists like these, and you'll find examples from all major cultures and religions, making it almost seem like this thing, like so many other things is kind of universal.

As for killing young women. You may have heard of the inquisition, and the salem witch trials, or of any other witch hunt down the religion's history, or the conquest of the americas, or the sacking of jerusalem, or the religious justifications for the second wave of colonialism... List goes on. Religious justification for killing young women found in all of them. But damn, that is a specific thing you picked there, huh?

On the bit about "not giving anything to the world"... You may want to think twice. The symbols you used to write that "14" on your message is arabic in origin. In fact, a disturbing volume of knowledge, science and culture in the world can be tracked to the arabic, muslim world, who kept culture alive while the christian nations were happily butchering each other.

The muslim world brought us startling examples of religious acceptance (such as the Ottoman Millet system), and was for a very long time the most fertile, most liberal and most rich breeding ground for new ideas both practical and philosophical.

These nations did all this while being, to a very significant degree, islamic and it would be disingenuous to affirm in any way that muslim values played no part in making it happen. It would be like trying to affirm that our ("Western") legal system does not derive from christian morals and values: Both are absurd statements.

How this religion has brained washed the so called million's or so people who are Muslim's on this planet I'll never know.

It's billions, actually.

-snip-

You are comparing reading a book written 10 years ago by a person from the same overall cultural background as yours to reading a book written 1300 years ago by a person from a completely different culture? Uhh... Seriously?

What I am trying to point out is that we in "The West" generally lack the cultural repertoire to adequately understand the Qur'an, especially if we do not seek secondary sources for explanation.

If you give a copy of Harry Potter to a sentinel islander (Assuming it was translated into his language, by some miracle), he will be at least as bewildered by it as you are about the Qur'an, and he will derive as much understanding as you did. Not much.

Well i am not i just find more major relgions so full of absolute garbage that i cannot be bothered to give them the time of day, nor the idea that our god is the correct god b.s. that has invaded all the major religions for the last 2,000 some odd years.

That's a reason to like Islam more than most other religions. It is the one that recognizes the prophets of a lot of other religions as being, indeed, holy people who did bring the word of god.

religions before and after the "agricultural revolution" were markedly different in their views, religions before were about balance and respect for nature and the god in nature, religions after were removing any respect for nature, and some were very much the excuse of why you could go slaughter your neighbors with a clear concience.

Those are dangerously broad blanket statements, and not ones I think you should be comfortable saying unless you've spent a lot of time with pastoral or hunter-gatherer communities.

Your talking about thing in the past.Seem's that most other religions have moved passed waring on others because they don't believe the same was a they do.All but Muslims.Also let me point out that I don't go to wiki every single time I need info. Believe it or not there are other forms in information you can look to.Arabic is not the same as Muslim or is it? I'm sure most people can't tell or even care.

Lets go back to that 14 year old girl who was shot point blank in the head because he dare speak about women's rights.Do you see catholic's shooting people in the head because they may have to provide birth control to employees's? No you do not.

Also let me point you to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLw6nCwgahpZ1DCcN3I9KYhg

 

[Char-Nobyl]

While in the Middle East, Muslim protestors have taken to smashing shop windows and attacking US embassies in order to demonstrate their displeasure at the release of terrible comedy, The Innocence of Muslims, those in the UK have chosen a marginally more sensible target. On Sunday, a large crowd of Muslims barricaded Google's London office in a bid to pressure the company into removing The Innocence trailer from YouTube. The protest was entirely peaceful.

Oh, for the love of...

This is why it's so hard to argue against the stigma created by the countless 'Behead those who insult Islam' posters and whatnot that can be found in all corners of the internet. This...this just makes no sense. It's poorly-made movie screened to less than a dozen people, and had to be massively overdubbed in post-production just to make it as controversial as it is. Compare this to the release of, say, The Da Vinci Code. That was a a multi-million dollar film starring A-list actors.

In response, Opus Dei (the group portrayed as composed solely of A) evil priests and B) albino assassins) simply asked the filmmakers to consider editing the DVD release because the content portrayed Catholics in such a damaging light, and did so with utter seriousness and 'factual' basis. The Vatican/Catholic churches in general released various pamphlets and whatnot, pretty much just saying that the movie was pure fiction because it was based on a book written by a man who thought a previous book of utter fiction was 100% truth. The worst incident was in India, where a large group of youths protesting the film broke a bookstore's window and destroyed a bunch of copies of the book.

My point is that there was a time when the Vatican would muster entire armies to crush cities and nations that opposed them. Most major religions have a few black marks on their records, but they try to move beyond those times in as great a majority as they can.

Then there's this, and I can't help but ask...why? Nobody would care about this movie if people hadn't literally been murdered because of it. Ten people saw all of it. Ten. This is why the average Western citizen actually has reason to worry about terrorists: because they don't give a rat's ass about 'individuals.' If one American did something that they didn't like, then by golly, it only makes sense to look for the nearest Americans and kill them. That'll teach 'em! Because Americans are a hive mind, right?

"Unreservedly condemns the preposterous film vilifying Islam and desecrating the sanctity of the Holy Prophet Mohammad peace be upon Him" reads the group's manifesto, which also "Calls for all civilized fellow human beings to join in the 'Campaign for Global Civility.'"

Okay, that sounds like a noble goal, but...really? It needed a stupid movie to happen?

YouTube has declined to remove the video, arguing that it doesn't break any of the service's rules. The MAF intends to organize other actions until the video is removed. Targeting Google is a clever move: If anything will force the West to abandon freedom of expression, it's the threat of having to use Bing.

Oh, goddamnit. Youtube is a subsidiary of Google, yes. But somehow I doubt that Google office is the Youtube Master Control Center. Taking it over is akin to occupying a kid's college dorm room because you didn't like something his parents did and they're the ones who pay his tuition.

 

[Doom972]

That's muslims in Europe for you. Civilized countries allow them to protest as a form of freedom of speech, and they use that right to demand censorship and an end to democracy.

I think I'll go watch this thing and see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

For a person with such a strong opinion on the subject, you seem to know little about it.

On the blowing themselves up... Bombs are fairly recent things, but you'll still find plenty of examples of christians doing it throughout history. Wikipedia alone has a string of fairly famous occurrences. The assassination of russian Tsar Alexander II is a specially cool example. Read through lists like these, and you'll find examples from all major cultures and religions, making it almost seem like this thing, like so many other things is kind of universal.

Alexander II was assassinated via explosives, not suicide bomb. The assassins threw the explosives at his carriage. One of them died, sure, but that was inadvertent.

A more recent example for you, though, would be the IRA, who were definitely founded with religious goals in mind, and were essentially the face of terrorist bombings until the late 80s.

As for killing young women. You may have heard of the inquisition,

The tales of which were, oddly enough, greatly exaggerated. Most of those 'medieval' torture devices you see attributed to inquisitors were fabricated in the past century and a half to be used as tourist attractions. Inquisitors weren't very nice, sure, but they were more a combination of auditor, detective, and commissar than anything else.

and the salem witch trials, or of any other witch hunt down the religion's history,

Yes...but in that case, world powers genuinely believed that witchcraft was a very real and very dangerous thing. Great Britain even passed a law in the 1700s making witchcraft or sorcery punishable by death. They were less worried about women gaining social mobility and more about them summoning real, non-metaphorical demons to devour their souls.

or the conquest of the americas,

Actually, that wasn't really religion's fault. When the Spanish met with the Tlaxcala (an enemy of the Aztecs), they had no problem whatsoever with adopting 'Dios' into their religious pantheon, and the Spanish didn't mind them keeping their temples. And when they fought groups like the Aztecs, Spanish troops were more worried about the concrete-and-actually-real stuff like cutting the hearts out of POWs than the fact that the Aztecs thought Quetzalcoatl would drive the Spanish back with the fury of the sun.

or the sacking of jerusalem,

In a hilarious-in-hindsight sort of way, the Crusades actually tended to veer violently from the Vatican's set goals from the third Crusade onward. Pope Innocent actually excomunicated the entire army during the 4th Crusade when he found out they'd sacked a Christian city. And not a Catholic city, either.

or the religious justifications for the second wave of colonialism... List goes on. Religious justification for killing young women found in all of them. But damn, that is a specific thing you picked there, huh?

It was a specific one from not even a month ago. All the examples you gave are centuries old, friend. Most groups, whether they're nations, organized religions, or whatever, have things they're not proud of in their history, but the important thing is growing beyond it.

The example he gave was a 14 year old girl, writing on the internet about how women deserved education. And for this, one of the most well-known terrorist groups on Earth hunted her down and shot her in the head.

On the bit about "not giving anything to the world"... You may want to think twice. The symbols you used to write that "14" on your message is arabic in origin. In fact, a disturbing volume of knowledge, science and culture in the world can be tracked to the arabic, muslim world, who kept culture alive while the christian nations were happily butchering each other.

I'll happily agree with you on everything up until the sweeping "Christians were just a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians" part at the end.

The muslim world brought us startling examples of religious acceptance (such as the Ottoman Millet system), and was for a very long time the most fertile, most liberal and most rich breeding ground for new ideas both practical and philosophical.

Yes...but what matters more? A nation's past, or a nation's present? The Vatican declared bloody wars centuries ago, but it doesn't any more. Old Muslim empires may have been exceptionally tolerant of other faiths centuries ago, but it seems like Islam has been becoming steadily more splintered in recent years.

What I am trying to point out is that we in "The West" generally lack the cultural repertoire to adequately understand the Qur'an, especially if we do not seek secondary sources for explanation.

If you give a copy of Harry Potter to a sentinel islander (Assuming it was translated into his language, by some miracle), he will be at least as bewildered by it as you are about the Qur'an, and he will derive as much understanding as you did. Not much.

Did...did you just compare the entire Western hemisphere's ability to understand Islam to the ability of a group who can literally and without hyperbole be called 'bloodthirsty savages' to understand a work of young adult fiction?

And aside from that, I'm worried that your point here is, "If you had the cultural background to understand Islam, you'd know why some people follow it and decide to try and murder teenage girls for wanting an education."

 

[Driekan]

A more recent example for you, though, would be the IRA, who were definitely founded with religious goals in mind, and were essentially the face of terrorist bombings until the late 80s.

You are right, that is absolutely a better example.

Actually, that wasn't really religion's fault. When the Spanish met with the Tlaxcala (an enemy of the Aztecs), they had no problem whatsoever with adopting 'Dios' into their religious pantheon, and the Spanish didn't mind them keeping their temples. And when they fought groups like the Aztecs, Spanish troops were more worried about the concrete-and-actually-real stuff like cutting the hearts out of POWs than the fact that the Aztecs thought Quetzalcoatl would drive the Spanish back with the fury of the sun.

The fact that spreading christianity was one of the core motivators for the entire chain of events to ever happen is not something that can just be shrugged off, nor the fact that religion served as justification for a lot of the violence going on. And while we may ascribe practical reasons for the actions of a lot of historical people, lets not be condescending and grant the fact that those conquistadors most definitely were, indeed, christians and did believe they were following the tenets thereof. Furthermore, that's just a subset of what was going on, further south you had the Bandeirantes and a lot more crazy bloodshed.

or the sacking of jerusalem,

In a hilarious-in-hindsight sort of way, the Crusades actually tended to veer violently from the Vatican's set goals from the third Crusade onward. Pope Innocent actually excomunicated the entire army during the 4th Crusade when he found out they'd sacked a Christian city. And not a Catholic city, either.

Which... Does not change the fact that a lot of 14 year old women very likely lived in Jerusalem at the time of the sacking. And that christian religious authorities were cool with the First Crusade.

or the religious justifications for the second wave of colonialism... List goes on. Religious justification for killing young women found in all of them. But damn, that is a specific thing you picked there, huh?

It was a specific one from not even a month ago. All the examples you gave are centuries old, friend. Most groups, whether they're nations, organized religions, or whatever, have things they're not proud of in their history, but the important thing is growing beyond it.

The example he gave was a 14 year old girl, writing on the internet about how women deserved education. And for this, one of the most well-known terrorist groups on Earth hunted her down and shot her in the head.

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

On the bit about "not giving anything to the world"... You may want to think twice. The symbols you used to write that "14" on your message is arabic in origin. In fact, a disturbing volume of knowledge, science and culture in the world can be tracked to the arabic, muslim world, who kept culture alive while the christian nations were happily butchering each other.

I'll happily agree with you on everything up until the sweeping "Christians were just a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians" part at the end.

They certainly seemed more bloodthirsty and more barbaric than the muslims, and since all things are a matter of comparison...

Yes...but what matters more? A nation's past, or a nation's present? The Vatican declared bloody wars centuries ago, but it doesn't any more. Old Muslim empires may have been exceptionally tolerant of other faiths centuries ago, but it seems like Islam has been becoming steadily more splintered in recent years.

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

Did...did you just compare the entire Western hemisphere's ability to understand Islam to the ability of a group who can literally and without hyperbole be called 'bloodthirsty savages' to understand a work of young adult fiction?

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

And aside from that, I'm worried that your point here is, "If you had the cultural background to understand Islam, you'd know why some people follow it and decide to try and murder teenage girls for wanting an education."

I can't see how you'd arrive at that point. What was being discussed is a person's inability to derive meaning from the Qur'an. The case about the girl and the discussion about cultural background were two completely separate discussions.

 

[Therumancer]

To be honest my major concern is that Google will back down (if they haven't already) which will just encourage more of this, and pretty much undermine free speech by pretty much sending the message "you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything bad about Muslims".

My initial reaction here would be to see if these Muslims have a permit, which I assume is also the law for such demonstrations in the UK (if not it probably should be). If not the authorities should get them to disperse, using riot control methods if need be.

Simply put, non-violent or not, this entire thing has gotten out of hand. I can't bring myself to have sympathy for a group of people protesting an indie movie based on it's trailer. Given the freedom of speech, which includes the abillity to mock and criticize religions in the media (there have been numerous comedies doing the same thing about Christianity for example), we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of pressure either abroad or overseas.

In the final equasion, if your a Muslim and don't like the movie, and think it's trailer means it's something you wouldn't want to see, by all means don't go and see it. The bloody movie is incredibly obscure anyway, as this article points out, like maybe 10 people have even seen this thing. Indeed more people are aware of it because of these protests than would ever have heard about it if people just chose to do the sane thing and ignore it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

They must be really insecure about their religion and faith if they think some dumb movie will effect. It wont. Suicide bombing and terrorist acts is what is ruining their religion, but you never hear them protest against that. An noone cares about this crappy movie on youtube, no one would have watched it or even knew it existed until the muslims started to kill and smash stuff up and put it in the headlines. Its these idiots that gave it all the free publicity it could ever wish for. lol

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

That's muslims in Europe for you. Civilized countries allow them to protest as a form of freedom of speech, and they use that right to demand censorship and an end to democracy.

Agreed. You only see them protest stuff that offends them, like muhommed drawings and crap like that. But people killing in the name of their religion? Nope, not a peep out of them.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

The fact that spreading christianity was one of the core motivators for the entire chain of events to ever happen is not something that can just be shrugged off,

The motivation was finding a trade route to West India. That's why Columbus went west in the first place, under Spain's endorsement no less. The fact that 'Spread Christianity' was on the conquistador's list of goals was no more relevant to why conflict broke out than, say, going to a bank to deposit a paycheck and winding up involved in a bank robbery. Yes, that's why you went there, but you'd have been sucked into things regardless of your motivation.

nor the fact that religion served as justification for a lot of the violence going on. And while we may ascribe practical reasons for the actions of a lot of historical people, lets not be condescending and grant the fact that those conquistadors most definitely were, indeed, christians and did believe they were following the tenets thereof. Furthermore, that's just a subset of what was going on, further south you had the Bandeirantes and a lot more crazy bloodshed.

So? Yes, they were Christian...and what of it? I find it laughable that you're attributing their actions to their perceived tenants of Christianity. If you think the noble class of a foreign city is planning to kill you in your sleep (as happened with Cortés and his men), do you sit back and let it happen as Jesus would've? Or do you make like Cortés and kill the conspirators before they can kill you?

Which... Does not change the fact that a lot of 14 year old women very likely lived in Jerusalem at the time of the sacking. And that christian religious authorities were cool with the First Crusade.

Okay. So...that leaves us with hypothetical women who supposedly stayed in the city as the walls were being overwhelmed, and were then hypothetically killed, even though the Crusaders didn't actually sack Jerusalem. The goal was to capture the city. Sacking it kind of defeats the purpose.

Besides, comparing the two events makes it sound like the Taliban were on their way to do something more important and just happened to shoot the girl in the head on their way there. They weren't. And they didn't. They launched a mission with the single goal of murdering a fourteen year old girl. That isn't even a case of collateral damage: the entire goal is to kill her.

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

You literally just mentioned it in comparison to the people who died during the Crusades.

They certainly seemed more bloodthirsty and more barbaric than the muslims, and since all things are a matter of comparison...

Seriously? You couldn't just accept the "I agree with everything besides X" remark and move on?

Let's see here...oh, look: the Greco-Persian War. Where the cultured Arabs rampaged through Greece for no other reason than a desire for more territory.

And hey: Janissaries and Mamelukes. They were groups of POWs, slaves, and/or Christian boys who were forced into military service, masterfully combining slavery, child soldiers, and forced labor in one stroke.

What's this? Ghengis Khan's first encounter with a Middle Eastern Empire? They butchered a Mongol trade caravan, then received Khan's diplomatic delegation by shaving the diplomats' heads and decapitating their interpreter?

Would you like me to go on? Or would you prefer if we leave things alone with the knowledge that people in the olden days did some messed up shit regardless of the religion they practiced while doing it, and that trying to objectively quantify which side was worse would be pointless?

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

And I was under the impression that we weren't bothering with such a distinction, but okay.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

And yet none of those things are even tangentially related to a major "political" group tracking down a fourteen year old girl and shooting her in the head for wanting women to be educated.

You know what Bin Laden thought until his last day? That America's increased presence in the Middle East was because they hadn't made a large enough attack against the US. Seriously. He was completely shocked when America didn't cower even deeper into their corner after 9/11 like they did following Pearl Harb...oh wait.

He was a delusional madman who got people to join his organization on the basis that a country on the other side of the world filled with people who most of them had never met even one of was responsible for all their problems, and that if they killed themselves trying to kill them, they'd get a mountain of ass in paradise.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

You just said that you can't blame the native people of a country for things that happen by the hands of specific groups. So why is it that we collectively have blood on our hands and only specific people among them do?

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

You used it as a direct comparison. It's hardly obsessing over details when it seems to be the absolute lynchpin of your argument.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

Erm...why not? The Qur'an is a book. What kind of book requires a reading guide, additional books, and a co-reader for anyone to have anything resembling a good understanding of it? Is it the Finnegan's Wake of religious texts or something? Because I think that a lot of people had to have and probably have recently read it on their own or without all the things you mention and still come out fine.

I can't see how you'd arrive at that point. What was being discussed is a person's inability to derive meaning from the Qur'an. The case about the girl and the discussion about cultural background were two completely separate discussions.

I'll rephrase it, then:

Someone said, "I can't understand how anyone can look at a religious text and think it's a justification for murdering a girl for wanting an education." You responded by saying that westerners lacked the cultural context and thus overall ability to understand the Qur'an.

When someone says, "I don't understand why someone would X because of Y," saying that, "Oh, you just don't understand Y" implies that if we did understand Y, then we'd know why X. If a magical genie were to grant me perfect understanding of the teachings of the Qur'an, would I look at the story of Malala Yousafzai and completely understand why the shooters did what they did?

 

[hooksashands]

Oddly enough, this movie's original working title was Desert Warrior, a story about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago when a comet fell to earth. Several actors and members of the film crew have come forward admitting that there was no mention of Islam in the film during production, negative or otherwise.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

In other words, ya'll been duped. Not just the Muslims.

 

[hooksashands]

(Re-posted for knowledge purposes)

Oddly enough, this movie's original working title was Desert Warrior, a story about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago when a comet fell to earth. Several actors and members of the film crew have come forward admitting that there was no mention of Islam in the film during production, negative or otherwise.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0912/There-may-be-no-anti-Islamic-movie-at-all

In other words, ya'll been duped. Not just the Muslims.

The post-production was allegedly tinkered with by one Steve Klein, an 'evangelical Christian and anti-Islamic activist with ties to militia groups and a Coptic Christian satellite TV station based in California[...]'

So there ya go. It turns out it was an entirely different film dubbed over with allusions to Islamic religion, when in fact it's set in a period that pre-dates Muhammad's teachings.

 

[Arsen]

Islam does not believe in freedom of expression. It believes in the control and domination of the human will to appease others.

 

[tjarne]

Don't people have the right to protest peacefully? I'm all for shooting all the demonstrators, but then again I'm a filthy communist.(Det är borgerligt att inte förstå sarkasm)

 

[Trippy Turtle]

A better title would be 'A bunch of idiots break the law for no reason and blame it on a video'. Seriously, I know nothing about them or their religion but I already have a negative view on it if its starting riots.
It pissed me off even more when I saw half the people rioting had nothing to do with Muslims. They just wanted to assholes.

[sub]Please kind mod, I am only insulting rioters, not muslims.[/sub]

 

[Driekan]

A fact that I'm pretty sure almost every muslim in the world finds deplorable, so despite all the discussion, it still bears very little relevance to a larger inter-cultural discussion.

You literally just mentioned it in comparison to the people who died during the Crusades.

No, I was merely pointing out the fact that no matter how much we discuss, the fact stands that this is pretty irrelevant to the larger discussion. People claiming to follow any religion (And you'll find examples for literally every religion or lack thereof if you look hard enough) have done horrible things and found themselves justified in their beliefs, islam is no special in this regard.

Let's see here...oh, look: the Greco-Persian War. Where the cultured Arabs rampaged through Greece for no other reason than a desire for more territory.

Those weren't arabs. Those were persians - different ehtnicity entirely. And islam only came into being close to a millenia afterwards, so... Other than proving that you can't tell all those people from each other, this didn't add anything.

That said, there is a lot to argue that on a socio-cultural level, the persians really were more cultured than the greeks. A lot points out to their society having been a lot more inclusive - the average persian probably led a much better, more peaceful life than the average greek.

And hey: Janissaries and Mamelukes. They were groups of POWs, slaves, and/or Christian boys who were forced into military service, masterfully combining slavery, child soldiers, and forced labor in one stroke.

Janissaries were not slaves in the sense you have been exposed to in "The West", being more akin to the group that would be called Freed Men in Europe. They were paid salaries, given education, they were free to marry, have children, etc. It is a well-known fact that families willingly gave their children over to be Janissaries because it was a good life. There were also possibilities for social ascension, with many Janissaries serving in political roles. The average peasant in western countries in the same time period had nowhere near as much freedom or as many possibilities. (Read: They were most often serfs, bound to the land and forced to work it).

Much the same applies to Mamluks. They were often elevated to positions of lordish, ruling over lands. At least two of them actually made themselves sultans, and for several centuries, mamluks pretty much ruled Egypt and neighboring regions.

What's this? Ghengis Khan's first encounter with a Middle Eastern Empire? They butchered a Mongol trade caravan, then received Khan's diplomatic delegation by shaving the diplomats' heads and decapitating their interpreter?

Yes, I'm certain if you saw mongols knocking on your town's gate around the 14th century you'd find no cause for fear whatsoever. And terrified people have been known to never do stupid things.

Besides... You're going to point the golden horde as victims? Seriously?

Would you like me to go on? Or would you prefer if we leave things alone with the knowledge that people in the olden days did some messed up shit regardless of the religion they practiced while doing it, and that trying to objectively quantify which side was worse would be pointless?

I agree it's pretty pointless, especially if all we're going to do is exchange anecdotes. Ultimately, though, on the big picture, looking over centuries and across continents, during a very, very, very long period, islam-influenced middle east and northern africa were far more civilized (By modern-day definition of the word) than europe was. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Hence putting to question any notion of a special degree of violence or aggressiveness inherent in islam.

I was under the impression we were discussing a religion, not nations. If it's nations we're talking about, we probably agree - lots of really shitty regimes in that region.

And I was under the impression that we weren't bothering with such a distinction, but okay.

It's a huge distinction. Not having that distinction allows me to say "Christianity threw nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki!" which sounds more than a bit stupid.

Yet, even considering that fact, the consideration must remain that a degree of blame for this rests elsewhere. USSR invasions, the great game, installing dictatorial puppet states, mass migrations... All things that can destabilize a region, none of them can be blamed on the natives.

And yet none of those things are even tangentially related to a major "political" group tracking down a fourteen year old girl and shooting her in the head for wanting women to be educated.

Of course they are. The Taliban wouldn't exist if not for the Great Game.

You know what Bin Laden thought until his last day? That America's increased presence in the Middle East was because they hadn't made a large enough attack against the US. Seriously. He was completely shocked when America didn't cower even deeper into their corner after 9/11 like they did following Pearl Harb...oh wait.

He was a delusional madman who got people to join his organization on the basis that a country on the other side of the world filled with people who most of them had never met even one of was responsible for all their problems, and that if they killed themselves trying to kill them, they'd get a mountain of ass in paradise.

And you believe a significant portion of the world's muslims think as that one dude did, is that it?

In the spirit of nitpicking, the mountain of ass quote is the product of the lack of cultural repertoire, and furthers one of the points we are arguing over. In context, the afterlife was being described and was said to be "akin to living in a paradisiac hall with a couple thousand servants and dozens of concubines"- i.e.: It is hyperbole to describe an existence in pure joy, not a description of fact.

Not saying everyone there are nice, naive, innocent lambs of god. But neither are "our" hands clean. Best to stop pointing fingers, and instead start lending hands.

You just said that you can't blame the native people of a country for things that happen by the hands of specific groups. So why is it that we collectively have blood on our hands and only specific people among them do?

I'm saying that obsessing about a group's wrongs and applying judgement for those wrongs onto the entirety of the group is precisely what the dude you brought up above does.

The point of the whole argument is that from their perspective, they can certainly see all westerners as having blood on their hands... Possibly far more easily than we can see blood on all of theirs. The only productive way out of this position is to stop pointing fingers and accusing the other of having more blood on their hands, or worse blood, or whatever the day's choice of words is.

You can obsess about the details rather than consider the point, sure. Not productive, though.

You used it as a direct comparison. It's hardly obsessing over details when it seems to be the absolute lynchpin of your argument.

It wasn't a lynchpin, not even close. It was a throw-away example, any other pair of cultures and books they are not exposed to could have been used:

- It would be like giving the Vedas to a medieval viking;
- It would be like giving Fifty Shades to an Aka Tribesman;
- It would be like giving the Epic of Gilgamesh to a Xavante;
- It would be like giving the AD&D Player's Handbook to one of the Pintupi people.
- It would be like giving the Popol Vuh to you and me;

Hot damn, my argument has a lot of lynchpins now!

You can nitpick, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Still, the point was that if someone without the cultural repertoire that surrounds a work tries to immerse themselves in that work without some form of guidance, secondary sources or direct help, they will often come out with a very bizarre understanding of it. For a nice example, you can check out the Taiping Rebellion.

Erm...why not? The Qur'an is a book. What kind of book requires a reading guide, additional books, and a co-reader for anyone to have anything resembling a good understanding of it? Is it the Finnegan's Wake of religious texts or something? Because I think that a lot of people had to have and probably have recently read it on their own or without all the things you mention and still come out fine.

All books. If you do not have the cultural repertoire to interpret a cultural product, you cannot expect to interact with it and derive from it the same meaning that someone who does have that repertoire.

Someone said, "I can't understand how anyone can look at a religious text and think it's a justification for murdering a girl for wanting an education." You responded by saying that westerners lacked the cultural context and thus overall ability to understand the Qur'an.

My interpretation of where that discussion came from was more akin to someone saying "I read six pages of this book and interpret it to be hate-filled justification for killing people", and I responded by saying that -yes, as you said- westerners lack the cultural context.

 

[dando300]

The thing that scares me is that the film is nothing compared to what the internet has created at times,
God forbid they find 4chan.

 

[gorfias]

Thus far the response to the film - which unfortunately goes way beyond the peaceful protests organized by MAF - has claimed the lives of at least four people, including US ambassador, John Christopher Stevens, and foreign service information management officer and EVE Online player, Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

That whole episode had nothing to do with the youtube video. The State Dept. has released a lot of evidence that there were no protests and the attack on the Ambassador was pre-planned not a random act of violence due to a video that had very little views until after the 9/11 attack. Thank the President and his staff for fanning those flames and making light of a video that was obscure and had little to no hits.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/chris-stevens-us-ambassador-libya-killed
Witnesses report that there were no protests and that the raid was pre-planned due to the use of RPGs. Protesters generally don't use mitlitary grade weaponry for "peaceful" means.

Dunno if I've been ninja'd or not, but thank you. This is exactly correct about Libya. This article references this video. But as you write, the video had nothing to do with the assassination of our diplomat.

I would like to get some translation about the video. What was it's maker trying to say? Do the Haddiths describe Mohammad asking a donkey if it likes women? Did keeping his head between a woman's thighs end visions of demons for him? In short, is the video a poorly done but reasonably dramatized en-action of the Haddiths? Is it trying to be? Sorry for my ignorance. I do not accuse: I do not know the answers to these questions and do not know what that video was aiming at.

EDIT: This link seems to be stating that this film could be someone's interpretation of Islamic holy texts. Still reviewing to see what was written where and how this director botched it.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/09/13/innocence-of-muslims-film-religion/

 

[Char-Nobyl]

No, I was merely pointing out the fact that no matter how much we discuss, the fact stands that this is pretty irrelevant to the larger discussion. People claiming to follow any religion (And you'll find examples for literally every religion or lack thereof if you look hard enough) have done horrible things and found themselves justified in their beliefs, islam is no special in this regard.

My point is that you're trying to have it both ways: you can argue that the terrible actions of a few in the name of a religion have no bearing on the vast majority of its practitioners, or you can play the guilt card by digging things up and saying, "Well, at worst, Islam is just as bad as every other major religion." Frankly, I'd prefer if we just stuck with the former. The latter is just a whole can of worms that nobody in their right mind wants to open.

Those weren't arabs. Those were persians - different ehtnicity entirely. And islam only came into being close to a millenia afterwards, so... Other than proving that you can't tell all those people from each other, this didn't add anything.

Except that the Persian Empire included modern-day Syria, which even has 'Arab' in its official name. Modern day Iranians identify as Persian, certainly, but it would've been awfully hard for an empire that only covered that territory to launch a massive invasion of Greece without at least some ties to Arab lands.

That said, there is a lot to argue that on a socio-cultural level, the persians really were more cultured than the greeks. A lot points out to their society having been a lot more inclusive - the average persian probably led a much better, more peaceful life than the average greek.

...why? Just tell me, why? Why would you offhandedly add such a sweeping remark to this already-roaring fire?

Or, if we're just rolling along with that line of thought, would you care to say specifically how Persian culture was objectively better than Greek culture? Because given the diversity of the Greek states (and putting aside the hopefully accidental racist undertones), I think that's a pretty hard conclusion to draw.

Janissaries were not slaves in the sense you have been exposed to in "The West",

...I'm not under the influence that they were chained together, singing spirituals, and being whipped by their Ottoman overseer, if that's what you're implying.

being more akin to the group that would be called Freed Men in Europe. They were paid salaries, given education, they were free to marry, have children, etc.

What, you mean peasants/serfs? Because the only definition of 'Freed Men' I know is slaves that have been freed from servitude...and nothing else.

It is a well-known fact that families willingly gave their children over to be Janissaries because it was a good life.

So, in other words, they sold their children to the military for a lifetime of service as a soldier? That actually strikes me as more shocking than most forms of western slavery because it explicitly involves parents selling their children to the army.

There were also possibilities for social ascension, with many Janissaries serving in political roles. The average peasant in western countries in the same time period had nowhere near as much freedom or as many possibilities. (Read: They were most often serfs, bound to the land and forced to work it).

...yes, but you seem to downplay the fact that you can only attain that socioeconomic mobility by involuntarily being surrendered to a lifetime of military service. Sure, you'll grow to like it if you hope to make anything of it, but isn't that just conditioned zealotry?

Much the same applies to Mamluks. They were often elevated to positions of lordish, ruling over lands. At least two of them actually made themselves sultans, and for several centuries, mamluks pretty much ruled Egypt and neighboring regions.

Look, mate, it doesn't sound like such appointments were being made out of the kindness of their patron's hearts. When you have an entire army composed of children raised as soldiers, prisoners of war, and other such non-volunteers, it's in your best interest to keep them A) happy and B) away from the general populace. If they were 'ruling' Egypt, doesn't that just mean that's where they were all plopped down in lieu of a conventional military?

Yes, I'm certain if you saw mongols knocking on your town's gate around the 14th century you'd find no cause for fear whatsoever. And terrified people have been known to never do stupid things.

Besides... You're going to point the golden horde as victims? Seriously?

Actually, yes. I am. Mostly because I said that it was a trade caravan. And an ambassadorial party. Khan was explicitly trying to forge an alliance with the Khwarezmid Empire. This was the first and second contact between the two empires, and when you explicitly humiliate ambassadors and murder their translator after already having butchered over four hundred people in a trade caravan, then it's awfully hard to write it off as a case of the jitters.

I agree it's pretty pointless, especially if all we're going to do is exchange anecdotes. Ultimately, though, on the big picture, looking over centuries and across continents, during a very, very, very long period, islam-influenced middle east and northern africa were far more civilized (By modern-day definition of the word) than europe was. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Hence putting to question any notion of a special degree of violence or aggressiveness inherent in islam.

But that begs the question of what the 'modern-day definition' of civilized even is. They were both completely different societies, and compared to actual modern times, they'd have both been pretty shitty for anyone to live in if they weren't royalty.

Of course they are. The Taliban wouldn't exist if not for the Great Game.

Putting aside the correlation between the two, how is that relevant now? After a certain amount of time, the Freudian excuse of, "European powers were waging wars in my ancestral land" gets weaker and weaker, and it fails to justify any of the actual crimes against humanity that groups like the Taliban are guilty of.

And you believe a significant portion of the world's muslims think as that one dude did, is that it?

I think that the fact that Al Qaeda continued to be a threat for as long as it did means yes, quite a few did. Not statistically a 'significant portion' of the entire world's Muslim population, mind you.

In the spirit of nitpicking, the mountain of ass quote is the product of the lack of cultural repertoire, and furthers one of the points we are arguing over. In context, the afterlife was being described and was said to be "akin to living in a paradisiac hall with a couple thousand servants and dozens of concubines"- i.e.: It is hyperbole to describe an existence in pure joy, not a description of fact.

...okay? I'm sorry, but I don't know how that changes things. If anything, it's just a less specific form of paradise...which is still paradise in exchange for a single massive act of murder/suicide. And frankly, doesn't it bother you that pure bliss is likened to living in a massive building with thousands of slaves of both the normal and sexual variety?

I'm saying that obsessing about a group's wrongs and applying judgement for those wrongs onto the entirety of the group is precisely what the dude you brought up above does.

Oddly enough, I had to backtrack a few posts to remember what it was that I was responding to in the first place. Sorta fitting, given the context of the argument.

The point of the whole argument is that from their perspective, they can certainly see all westerners as having blood on their hands... Possibly far more easily than we can see blood on all of theirs. The only productive way out of this position is to stop pointing fingers and accusing the other of having more blood on their hands, or worse blood, or whatever the day's choice of words is.

Then why on Earth did you bring up the Crusades and the inquisition of all things?

Look, man: the guy you were responding to when I got into the conversation was kind of a dullard. When someone who clearly has no idea what he's talking about says something like, "You don't see Christians/Catholics shooting 14 year olds in the head," or some equally asinine garbage, the response shouldn't be to break out an ancient list of Christianity-related crimes. Because, as you can see, that just draws people like me into the argument on the basis that you're trying to refute his claim by asserting that another prominent religion is worse.

He was upset, and for an understandable reason. A child was shot and very nearly killed for the most trivial of things, and it was done by a group that claims to be acting in the interests of Islam. That doesn't mean that they are, not by a long shot. But people will make knee-jerk statements in response to this, and the thing to do isn't to justify that response by asserting that their religion is even more evil, in part because it makes it sound like you're justifying the whole 'shooting a child' thing.

It wasn't a lynchpin, not even close. It was a throw-away example, any other pair of cultures and books they are not exposed to could have been used:

- It would be like giving the Vedas to a medieval viking;
- It would be like giving Fifty Shades to an Aka Tribesman;
- It would be like giving the Epic of Gilgamesh to a Xavante;
- It would be like giving the AD&D Player's Handbook to one of the Pintupi people.
- It would be like giving the Popol Vuh to you and me;

Hot damn, my argument has a lot of lynchpins now!

Alright, then let me break it into more manageable pieces, starting with a couple questions:

1. Is there a generally accepted English translation of the Qur'an? Or is being able to read Arabic an obligatory first step before even touching Islam?

2. Do you consider the contents of the Qur'an any more difficult to understand to a layman than, say, the Torah or the Gospel? If so, is it a cultural divide, or is it simply difficult to read?

All books. If you do not have the cultural repertoire to interpret a cultural product, you cannot expect to interact with it and derive from it the same meaning that someone who does have that repertoire.

But why is that the case? After all, Judaism and Christianity touch on an awful lot of the same bases as Islam does.

My interpretation of where that discussion came from was more akin to someone saying "I read six pages of this book and interpret it to be hate-filled justification for killing people", and I responded by saying that -yes, as you said- westerners lack the cultural context.

*facepalm*

That's not cultural context. That's literary context. If you pick out a random passage from a massive text, you're not going to have anything resembling an accurate assessment of what you just read. If someone picked up the Torah and read nothing but the story of Sampson, they'd think that Jews worshiped a glorified Conan the Barbarian novel.

 

[Driekan]

-snip-

For the sake of simplicity (And not being that much of a wall) I'll respond in subjects instead of specific phrases and such.

A. The "You Brought Bad Historical Christian Stuff Out" front

If you read the whole thread, you will see that I was very reluctant to do that. There were quite a few arguments trying to wrap islam as a whole (The entire religion and it's practitioners) in some kind of special "hate-bubble", and I repeatedly pointed out that any belief structure can be warped and used in that kind of way. When questioned and outright demanded for examples, I brought examples.

I'm not gleefully justifying murderers, nor am I saying one religion is more evil than the other (Which would be merely arguing for the same thing the other guy was arguing, just reversed...), I was correcting people who seemed to believe that there is something inherently evil in islam (And not in other major religions).

B. The Persia-Greece tangent

Seriously, this chunk of the conversation got a bit scary for me. First it seemed like it was being used as an argument for arabs, as an ethnicity, being inherently evil (Despite it being a persian empire, not arabic?).

We were, after all, discussing moral relativism as pertains to religions, with me taking the stance that no group is inherently wrong. You brought a bunch of examples to try and refute me... One of which was before the foundation of either religion, which can only lead me to believe that you equate the religion with the ethnicity directly, and morality as well. Which is a pretty scary way of thinking.

The bit about Persia being possibly a better gig than the ancient greeks... Well, a few arguments:

1. Diversity

Persia allowed member-states to be basically free. You can have your laws, live your way, do your thing. Just don't war on each other, swear fealty to the king of kings, and pay taxes. Not a bad deal, considering those taxes did revert into benefits for your people, with better infrastructure, etc. Come to think about it, in this aspect the Persian Empire was the less evil version of the latter Romans ("Yeah, they took over the land. But they gave us aqueducts and roads and academies...").

Greece, on the other hand, is a bit tougher to classify. Each city was it's own thing, but it is pretty clear that they had a hard time tolerating each other, and by and large saw the entire rest of the world as barbarians only fit for being enslaved.

2. Slavery

Persia outlawed slavery. Member-states could possibly have slaves, and it is likely a black market of sorts existed, much like it does today. However, widespread, state-instituted slavery simply did not exist.

Most Greek city-states were basically slave states. Especially the currently famous one which later became the leader of their entire federation.

3. Religion

Persia is perhaps the first documented case of full-on freedom of religion. Want to believe in your own god, do your own thing? Sure.

Greece... Not so much. They did have a good thing going with the whole syncretism thing, I'll give them that, but it only went so far.


All in all, from what we can know about those two states, Persia seemed to be the one who was, for lack of better words, far more enlightened. The Greek-Persian war was a war between a free, tolerant empire and a slave-state federation.

A federation that did include dictatorships, monarchies, and only arguable democracies (in that they were not very inclusive at all).

C. The Janissary-Mamluk front

The fact is, those guys had a lot more benefits and a lot more rights than the usual european serf. We can throw words around and apply all kinds of spin on it, but that fact is just gonna sit there staring at you. So if the creation of these groups is a bad thing... Well, Europe must have been hell, what with creating and maintaining a far more widespread, more enduring, and worse thing.

Just as a side-note, the bit about them ruling Egypt is quite literal. Mamluks ruled what might have been the largest muslim empire of their time for a long time. The sultan was a mamluk. Most officers and local leaders and rulers were mamluks.

Also, the Ottomans may not have had a Janissary emperor, but they had a lot of very distinct government officers and regional rulers. Being a Janissary was not just a military position, it was a distinguished public office.

D. The Golden Horde Vs. Khwaresmid side-note

Yeah, I do have to agree with you, the Khwarezmid were total dicks. The whole "It was the golden horde, man!" thing distorted my view on that. People are people, you don't do that.

E. In more recent news... (i.e.: Great Game, etc.).

It is not so much "European powers were waging wars in my ancestral land", rather "An european power tricked my father into fighting a war for them, he died, and my homeland (which I hear was a pretty sweet place to live in) was bombed and shelled and robbed until it turned into the present-day hellhole".

Put yourself in those shoes for a second. Imagine you have a kid. Then some other nation does all kinds of hijinks which result in you dying, and the nation you live in turning into hell on Earth. Do you think there is a slight, faint chance that your kid might find that situation to be less than satisfactory?

None of that justifies shooting innocents in the head (Obviously), but it's not like western powers (And Russia) can just wash their hands of all this. They're the Doctor Frankensteins who created this monster, however inadvertently.

F. Conquering the "Mountain of ass" quote

Yes, we can agree the "Mountain of ass" concept is a fabrication. Someone said "The afterlife is gonna be awesome, it's gonna be like constant ecstasy" and people took him out of context, translated him literally (Which is always a great way to remove meaning from things) and disseminated it.

No, that paradise is not what you get for killing a ton of people. It is what you get for living a good life and obeying god. Most muslims will argue that most instances of killing people will outright prevent you from ever getting that.

The reason I nitpick on this thing is because it is a dirty, false concept that only serves the purpose of tarnishing and ridiculing other people's beliefs. Why would someone spread this tale, if within context it is pretty obvious that there is no literal truth to it? Why indeed?

G. Western difficulties with the Qur'an

1. To the best of my knowledge (And someone may correct me on this), there is no accepted translation of the Qur'an to any language whatsoever. As far as I know, knowing enough arabic to read the Qur'an is indeed mandatory to being a good muslim. If you just want to be a "normal" muslim (read: Not a particularly pious one), you can just never read the holy book, like most christians do.

2. I believe there is sufficient cultural difference that we (Meaning Westerners in general) should not attempt to read an interpretation of the Qur'an without some form of aid. We've both grown up surrounded by all the symbols and factoids that surround and form the Bible (And Torah, actually). We grew up with christmas, and with taking saturday and sunday off. We grew up within our legal and moral system. We watched movies and heard stories which either represent or form allegory for biblical passages. Thus, we read the bible and we can derive a heck of a lot of understanding from it. We have the repertoire. We know what these people were, what some of the weird, kind of untranslatable things mean.

We did not grow up with ramadan, or with a lunar calendar, or with sharia law, nor have we (by and large) grown up with stories and movies culturally influenced by the Qur'an. Hence we could not read it and derive the same amount of understanding as someone who has.