The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion

Scroll to see replies

Original post by young_guns
Surat al Anfal 8:12 tells us Allah exhorted the angels to strike terror into the unbelievers and smote off their heads.
not to speak of "every fingertip of them"...

yes, that's a good one also

however, Muslims will tell you that this is a specific order given in the context of a battle (Badr, if I remember correctly), not a general remark, just like the "vilest of animals" will refer only to a specific group of unbelievers who were particularly annoying etc etc

when you think of it, any statement is made in a specific context, and it can always be claimed that it is valid in that context only

in this way, any religious discipline would fragment itself in a myriad of specific mini-contexts, and in the end it will become next to meaningless
Original post by Good bloke
Whether something is offensive is always a subjective matter, the person taking offence being the judge.


So there's basically no wrong or right..

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Are you as lucid as you could be?
I muddle through as best as I can, which is already not bad

and are you as lucid as you could be ?
Original post by mariachi
I muddle through as best as I can, which is already not bad

and are you as lucid as you could be ?


Having experienced greater lucidity in the past without the use of drugs, no.
Original post by elhm1800
So there's basically no wrong or right..

Posted from TSR Mobile
there are many wrongs and many rights

and then, national laws at State level, and International law at a global level

and that's about it : the rest lies in our individual consciences, which are (as one would presume) individual
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
I'm not saying one shouldn't be allowed to draw what they like. I'm saying that drawing something which someone finds offensive, when you wouldn't be drawing cartoons of the prophet otherwise, is childish.


Not exactly when you're doing it for a living.
Original post by mariachi

however, Muslims will tell you that this is a specific order given in the context of a battle (Badr, if I remember correctly), not a general remark, just like the "vilest of animals" will refer only to a specific group of unbelievers who were particularly annoying etc etc


Annoying? Were they annoying the Muslims by failing to believe what they believe?

Why are they referred to as disbelievers if their religion is not the relevant factor in the Muslims decision to kill them? And if religion was irrelevant, why did the early Muslims give their enemies the choice to convert or die? If religion was irrelevant, submit or die would make sense (I mean, it wouldn't make them good people, they would be characteristically barbaric like most people of that era, but it would be an issue of power, not simply killing people for not agreeing to worship Allah)
Original post by elhm1800
So there's basically no wrong or right..

Posted from TSR Mobile


What has taking offence to do with right and wrong? Some Moslems take offence at an image of Mohammed, others take no such offence and even draw them; which of them are right, which wrong? Some Jews and Christians take offence if the name of their god is pronounced or written, others don't and speak it; which is right?

And how can anyone predict which will take offence and which will not? Or do you advocate self-censorship to such an extent that you can never give offence? I find such behaviour offensive.
Original post by young_guns
Annoying? Were they annoying the Muslims by failing to believe what they believe?

Why are they referred to as disbelievers if their religion is not the relevant factor in the Muslims decision to kill them? And if religion was irrelevant, why did the early Muslims give their enemies the choice to convert or die? If religion was irrelevant, submit or die would make sense (I mean, it wouldn't make them good people, they would be characteristically barbaric like most people of that era, but it would be an issue of power, not simply killing people for not agreeing to worship Allah)
you raise some complex questions about early Muslim practices - early Muslims didn't systematically kill unbelievers (at least, Jews and Christians). Sometimes they would, but this was rather the exception ; mostly they were interested in booty, slaves, taxes etc and it is well known that dead people don't pay taxes nor can they be enslaved

as to the battle of Badr - well, one could start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr#The_day_of_battle

with regard to the annoying disbelievers, who are the "vilest of creatures", Surah 8 goes on and mentions "those who make treaties with you and time after time violate their treaties", so Muslims may say that only those particular disbelievers are among the "vilest of creatures" etc etc

in other words, you can extract most anything from these verses by "contextualising" in a convenient way

or, alternatively, you can take the verses literally, and go off cutting disbelieving heads and fingertips accompanied by some angels
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
Not exactly when you're doing it for a living.


Well I appreciate that there may be some artistic pleasure derived from drawing cartoons. My point is that to engage in an act that, while objectively, isn't wrong (drawing cartoons), to do so on the basis that you are legally protected to offend someone, or a group, is unproductive behaviour.
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Well I appreciate that there may be some artistic pleasure derived from drawing cartoons. My point is that to engage in an act that, while objectively, isn't wrong (drawing cartoons), to do so on the basis that you are legally protected to offend someone, or a group, is unproductive behaviour.


You appear to be wilfully ignoring the point that the giving of offence is incidental to the real aim of the cartoon, which is to make a point about the subject, and that it is impossible to predict who will take offence (by no means all religious adherents take offence at challenges to their beliefs).
Original post by Good bloke
You appear to be wilfully ignoring the point that the giving of offence is incidental to the real aim of the cartoon, which is to make a point about the subject, and that it is impossible to predict who will take offence (by no means all religious adherents take offence at challenges to their beliefs).


Can you elaborate on the real aim of the cartoon?

The conversation I was having with clh_hilary was to do with those who have gone out of their way to offend muslims on the internet.
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Can you elaborate on the real aim of the cartoon?


I don't have a particular cartoon in mind. I was making a point which applies to satirical cartoons in general.
Original post by mariachi
you raise some complex questions about early Muslim practices - early Muslims didn't systematically kill unbelievers (at least, Jews and Christians). Sometimes they would, but this was rather the exception ; mostly they were interested in booty, slaves, taxes etc and it is well known that dead people don't pay taxes nor can they be enslaved


I take your point that they didn't just murder everyone who failed to accept Islam, but doesn't the claim of divine inspiration hold them to a higher standard? One would think that if even one person died as a result of a coercive demand to join Islam, it would raise questions about whether Islam was truly inspired by a benevolent deity

in other words, you can extract most anything from these verses by "contextualising" in a convenient way


That being the case, isn't that evidence for its man-made origin? If it were a divinely inspired text, surely Allah would have foreseen that it would be "misinterpreted" and ensured it was written in a way that cannot be misinterpreted?

or, alternatively, you can take the verses literally, and go off cutting disbelieving heads and fingertips accompanied by some
angels


Again, this brings me back to the question; why would a loving and benevolent deity create a text that was in its literal form violent and intolerant? I would expect at the least such a deity would create a text that was loving and nice, and then was misinterpreted to mean violence by fringe-dwellers.

Making it violent from the get-go is surely just another nail in the coffin of the "divinely inspired" interpretation. The text, its violent literalism, is exactly what you would expect to see if it were the product of an angry 7th century warlord

I've even been told that there are jokes in Islam about how sometimes Muhammad came up with revelations that were extremely convenient to what he wanted. IF that's the case... like... wtf? That's exactly what atheists have been saying!!
Original post by young_guns

That being the case, isn't that evidence for its man-made origin? If it were a divinely inspired text, surely Allah would have foreseen that it would be "misinterpreted" and ensured it was written in a way that cannot be misinterpreted?
(...)
Again, this brings me back to the question; why would a loving and benevolent deity create a text that was in its literal form violent and intolerant? I would expect at the least such a deity would create a text that was loving and nice, and then was misinterpreted to mean violence by fringe-dwellers.
unfortunately, we agree to such an extent that a real discussion is not possible

I would add to your examples one of the most obvious : in Quran 4:34, husbands are advised to beat "disobedient" wives, if other corrective measures fail.

This advice (which may have been just normal practice in the 7th century) has become progressively less and less PC : therefore, many "interpretations" have been added (beat her only with a toothbrush, leave no bruises, not on the face, just a tap on the shoulder etc etc) on the basis of ahadith of varying authenticity and weight and a huge legal discussion

Many Muslims however beat their wives nonetheless, and then say that the Quran justifies this practice

wouldn't it have been much more simple for Allah to say, in 4:34 "discuss, even have an argument, but don't beat your wife" ?

Allah's error in 4:34 has caused untold suffering for Muslim wives , and still does. What a blunder !

As Muhammad's child-bride Aisha once said (quoting a hadith by memory) "I have never seen women so suffering as the believing women"
Original post by mariachi

wouldn't it have been much more simple for Allah to say, in 4:34 "discuss, even have an argument, but don't beat your wife" ?


That's exactly what I think, well said dude.

If Allah did inspire the Quran, and if Allah does not want wives to be beaten, he would have foreseen how it would be "misinterpreted" and ensured the Quran said something along the lines of what you wrote (Discuss, even argue, but *don't beat your wife*)

Equally, he surely would have included passages saying, "Do not conduct attacks on civilians purely because of their beliefs. Do not behead traveller scribes (or an equivalent 7th century term for journalists)"

Sorry, I thought you were pro-Quran / Islam, I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
I thought you were pro-Quran / Islam, I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?
No problem

just out of curiosity : what made you think I'm a Muslim ?
Original post by Good bloke
You appear to be wilfully ignoring the point that the giving of offence is incidental to the real aim of the cartoon, which is to make a point about the subject, and that it is impossible to predict who will take offence (by no means all religious adherents take offence at challenges to their beliefs).


I think it is a reasonable assumption at Muslims would be offended by the depictions of Mohammed in the same way that Christians would be offended by its last issue but one showing the Virgin Mary giving birth to a pig-face Christ. These were designed to be deliberately offensive. The magazine may have been legally entitled to do this under French law but the offensiveness of their cartoons was a deliberate and calculated act

Of course nothing justifies the murder of the cartoonists.
Original post by mariachi
No problem

just out of curiosity : what made you think I'm a Muslim ?


I have to confess, I speed-read your original response to me and so I thought you were saying that the passage about smoting and disbelievers had to be read in its context.

In fact, you made a very salient point about how if one is to assert such a contextual interpretation, it would lead to an unsustainable fragmentation that would render the text as a whole meaningless.

My apologies, I was lazy and scanned over it rather than bothering to read it, and I jumped ahead to what I expected you were saying. It looks as though we've come to the same conclusions about how a deity would logically write such a text to protect against "misinterpretation", and how these flaws in the Quran point to its lowly, man-made origin
Original post by nulli tertius
The magazine may have been legally entitled to do this under French law but the offensiveness of their cartoons was a deliberate and calculated act


It was, and it was one that was in many ways designed to cut through the bull**** and allow us to see the stark differences in values between one side and the other.

The events of the past few days have underlined what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying for years, what Theo van Gogh was murdered for, and what the Jyllands-Posten was telling us way back in 2006; that is, a large number of Muslims, hundreds of millions, believe that they are justified in murdering someone simply on the basis of what they think and what they say.

Insofar as their cartoons were designed to illustrate this situation, they were successful.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you