Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Defending Islam?
I found myself in quite an uncomfortable situation tonight. As you may know, I have been studying many of the world's religions for the past 2 years. Although Buddhism has caught my attention the most, I have also read parts of the Koran as well.
Tonight, my Mom read an article online about a new Barbie Doll. She is the new cousin of Barbie with olive skin and a Muslim head scarf. My mom laughed talking about the "Muslim Barie" saying that "we just have to satisfy everone these days."
I began to say something when my Dad said, "I just don't understand those Muslims. What is up with them anyway?"
I inquired as to what he meant and he responded, "Like there are all these wacko Muslims out there that hate us. You never hear of any wacko Christians trying to hurt us."
I was quite surprised by this. I think I had spoken to my Dad about different religions maybe once many years ago. I quickly explained that the "'wacko Muslims' he was referring to were for the most part fundamentalists who take everything literally in the Koran. True Muslims would not attack and murder innocents. They lived by a simple code of fasting, almsgiving, prayer, and pilgrimage."
I said a few other things about the beginnings of Islam and then mentioned it was the fastest growing religion in the world. He said, "Yeah, well...."
And the strange conversation ended. I left the room in a bad mood seething inside about the intolerance and lack of respect. I am no Muslim. I see the Koran as nothing more than amazing poetry. All I was trying to do was right a wrong.
I have found myself in similar instances but usually instead of Muslims, it is the Goths, peers, or bikers.
Is it even worth it though? What I say does not make a difference on someone's stereotypes. And I only feel angry about it later.:werr: I feel so tempted sometimes especially like this, to actually say what exactly I believe instead of just what I am supposed to believe.
Tonight, my Mom read an article online about a new Barbie Doll. She is the new cousin of Barbie with olive skin and a Muslim head scarf. My mom laughed talking about the "Muslim Barie" saying that "we just have to satisfy everone these days."
I began to say something when my Dad said, "I just don't understand those Muslims. What is up with them anyway?"
I inquired as to what he meant and he responded, "Like there are all these wacko Muslims out there that hate us. You never hear of any wacko Christians trying to hurt us."
I was quite surprised by this. I think I had spoken to my Dad about different religions maybe once many years ago. I quickly explained that the "'wacko Muslims' he was referring to were for the most part fundamentalists who take everything literally in the Koran. True Muslims would not attack and murder innocents. They lived by a simple code of fasting, almsgiving, prayer, and pilgrimage."
I said a few other things about the beginnings of Islam and then mentioned it was the fastest growing religion in the world. He said, "Yeah, well...."
And the strange conversation ended. I left the room in a bad mood seething inside about the intolerance and lack of respect. I am no Muslim. I see the Koran as nothing more than amazing poetry. All I was trying to do was right a wrong.
I have found myself in similar instances but usually instead of Muslims, it is the Goths, peers, or bikers.
Is it even worth it though? What I say does not make a difference on someone's stereotypes. And I only feel angry about it later.:werr: I feel so tempted sometimes especially like this, to actually say what exactly I believe instead of just what I am supposed to believe.
0
Comments
Your actions are done out of your feeling to uphold justice.I respect you for your arguments and correcting the wrong perception of Muslims that your father had.I am a Muslim,and sometimes I come across people who look upon my religion as a violent group just because of the actions of a group of people.
The wrong perception and some sort of racism have existed in this world for a long time.While we can only try and correct some of them,we can do nothing about the appending problem in the world.Right now to me,you are doing the right thing,your respect for other religions compelled you to help uphold facts.For that,i thank you.
As to your question to why you do this,it is the fact that you are able to respect all religion and aspects of life and that knowing there is no right in stereotyping or condemming another.But we must always remember,not everyone think the same.We can spout the truth to them but they can find excuses to bring them down.At least don't let anger consume us and compel us to take actions in the wrong path.
As quoted from Simonthepilgrim "Let the Truth speaks for itself"
"May your faith in yourself and your religion remain unwavering"
-Ar.Aid
We have a young gentleman (and I'm delighted to say the term is extremely appropriate!) who frequents the forum, and goes by the name of Muslim_Youth.... He's busy doing his exams at the mo', but he posted a couple of very interesting posts in the thread 'Suicide Bombings in iraq' (this section.)
You might like to have a look at them for further reference....
It is right that your sense of injustice sits angrily with you... but be sure to channel your passion, rather than permit it to govern you....
Whatever you do, don't lose it, for it's often replaced by complacency.....
Your father should read some history!
You don't need to go back that far. Despite the peculiar 'theology' of the Nazi Party, Germans and Austrian are Christians. So, the Second World War pitted Christian nations against each other.
Also, US history contains a war between the States which did the same. War on Mexico is a war against another Christian nation, too. Add to this that Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's deputy, is a Christian as are many Iraqis and his thesis falls.
Steven Weinberg
naturally, I turned the other cheek...!!
Simon,
That was my first thought too!
Ignorance is bliss. Or ... at least allows us to wallow in our own self-satisfaction.
-bf
I really enjoyed the movie. (By the way, the Christian Crusader is played by Orlando Bloom who is a Nichiren Buddhist if I am not mistaken)
From a distance.............? :crazy:
By the way what is Angelina Jolie's official belief? Christian? Atheist? Or Buddhist?
I am stunt not to hear the mention of the disappearance of Buddhism in India.
The Buddhist did not get along with the Hindus at that time which was a mistake. To compound that mistake with wrong view thinking the muslims were peaceful they befriended the Muslims invaders.
To the Buddhist astonishment, we now learn they cease to exist.
The order given to the invading crusaders was to kill and destroy.
Can someone verify the history of Indian Buddhism?
I saw this on the Legendary trails of the Buddha. A documentery by BBC.
There is a man in Afghanistan that has switched from Islam to Christianity and he is being tried for this "crime" and could be executed...
I understand that many Islamic states have similar law based on the koran. Is this true?
Like I said, this really disturbs me.
Forgiveness is a virtue not a rosary bead.
Please explain the massive hatred of the Danish cartoonist towards poor Muslims.
Please explain why the Danish authorities and press did not listen to the group of Danish Muslims which protested the cartoons peacefully for over 3 months.
Just so you know, the cartoons were insulting, slanderous and a slap in the face to all Muslims. This was not simply a political commentary on the violence erupting in Islam. It was an implicit statement that all Muslims are terrorists as was Mohammad. The cartoons were well beyond what was necessary to get across a cutting message about the current violence.
Just so you know, the group of Danish Muslims did not take this issue to Muslim majority countries until after 3 months of being ignored by Danish officials and media publications.
Just so you know, only a miniscule minority of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims reacted with violence.
Also, if you want to encourage Muslims to act diplomatically and peacefully, it would be best to not ignore their diplomatic and peaceful attempts at dialogue. If you think that Muslims are violent, don't slander their most important religious figure and accuse them all of being terrorists. If you don't want to re-enforce the Arab-Muslim conception that the West is out to get them, then don't support such foolish and despicable statements such as the cartoons.
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
One guy draws an insulting cartoon and months later there are a few dozen deaths in the name of being insulted. Suggesting that if we want to get the small (but significant) amount of Muslims out there who murder and riot to act peacefully we must police every cartoonist in the world and make sure no one insults the Muslim religion is impossible.
There is no excuse for what they did because of this cartoon. There is no excuse for killing because one changes from Islam to another religion. There is no excuse for terrorism in the name of religion. There is not excuse for causing harm in the name of on being insulted, Allah, God, religion... there is no excuse for causing suffering period.
Who is excusing the violence? Are you assuming that I am? If you are, I suggest you may be projecting more into my statements than was actually there.
Now, no Cartoonist Police Force will be necessary here, nor were they necessary. If the Danish authorities would have simply given the diplomatic efforts of organized Danish Muslims the time of day, there would have been no violence.
So, back to the fact that we can't excuse the violence, I have a question. If you have observed a group of people who are particularly volitile, and you intentionally rile them up, are you not, in part, responsible for the violence which ensues? I'm not asking if you would let the people who engaged in the violence off the hook, but would you hold the instigator responsible as well?
If you do not excuse violence, then you should not excuse these cartoons or the Danish Government and Danish Press for not issuing any statements of non-endorsement. That was my point, in case I was not clear. All contributing parties have a responsibility in this whole matter.
Additionally, we should not consider the actions of the severe minority of Muslims to be completely representative of the entirety of Islam or Muslims. We should not ignore the violence, but we should not make sweeping generalizations that further polarizes the issue either. In other words we must not take the part to represent the whole.
There is a story which illustrates my point:
I hope you take my points in the way that they were intended.
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
Excellent posts!! I'm with you 100%.
And you expressed your points beautifully, I might add.
Brigid
I am suggesting that when it comes to people rioting and killing because they are insulted, I become concerned when people seem more concerned with what the cartoonist did than the thousands who rioted and ended up killing 30+ people. It seems so out of balance to point to the cartoonist for the murderous actions of others. I don't believe a person who insults another has any culpability if the insulted kills over it.
By the way, I would not condemn all people of any faith for the actions of a few of the same faith - People are responsible for their own actions.
The reason I am so concerned with what the cartoonist, and afterwards the Danish authorities, did is this. The cartoonist identified Muslims and Islam as a violent religion. He/she then proceeded to make a cartoon which would most certainly make Muslims angry. In this, the what the cartoonist did, and the lack of any adequate response from the Danish, was a direct contributor to the violence did erupt.
Yes, ultimately, the Muslims who perpetrated the violence are responsible for their action, but we also have a shared responsibility to not provoke an agitated group of people whose worst examples use things such as these cartoons to incite violence and acts of terrorism. We live in an ever-more apparently interconnected world. It is the responsibility of all involved not to engage in actions which will likely result in violence and which will play into the hands of terrorist groups who use these sorts of things for recruitment purposes.
I am not 'more' concerned with the cartoonist than the individuals who committed the violence. I am emphasizing the responsibility of the artist and all other parties involved, because it seems they have been let off the hook by those in the west.
take care
_/\_
metta
Sikhs don't riot because we don't wear turbans...
Christians don't riot because people say 'Jesus Christ' and open shops on a sunday...
Moslems riot because even though it's forbidden to them, it's not forbidden to us....
If we are going to observe the niceties and customs of other religions, then maybe we should do it across the board...;
Just a thought....
They don't talk about it much on the news or news-discussion-shows (ha, don't know what they're really called >_>) like they did 5-8 years ago, but it's still there, and it's still a real problem (which was probably aggrevated a great deal by the 9-11 attacks). I suppose this attitude exists in most western countries, and is just worse in some. Scares me to think about.
My point was, I think, that it wasn't "just" the cartoons, which were bad enough, but also the reaction (or lack thereof), and years of resentment, and other issues playing a part in it. But we only talk about the cartoons.
And muslims don't riot because we eat pork either. This is on a rather different level, though I suppose I agree with you in principle.
(And I guess I have to add a disclaimer and state that I don't think the riots were okay and that I'm not trying to excuse them. :rolleyesc)
Mind you, this on-line newspaper is brilliant. And though I don't exactly recall the content, I think they did talk about this issue.....Look through. See what you think.
This one maybe?
Zen and the Heart of Blasphemy
by Liam Clarke, The Blanket, March 19, 2006
Belfast, Northern Ireland -- "What is Buddha? A dried shit stick". Such a statement about Mohammed or Jesus would provoke outrage amongst Muslims or Christians but to the pious Buddhist who asked the question in T'ang dynasty China, Master Ummon's reply was a precious teaching. It was so valued that it has been passed down from more than 1,000 years and is now case 21 in the Gateless Gate, one of the main collections of Zen koans....
Or maybe this one...
A Buddhist's curse to Islamists' bigotry
by Asoka Weerasinghe, Asian Tribune, Feb 15, 2006
Bangkok, Thailand -- Asoka Weerasinghe reminds the Muslim world, the blasting of The Bamiyan Buddhas in the Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan, by the Islamic fundamentalists in 2001, that stood for 23 centuries...
-bf
Hello,
I have just seen your post now. Please see this topic: http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1481
I have explained everything there.
In one sense, the liberal bluff is being called. Do we really believe that freedom of expression is important? How do we weigh the democratic concept of rights against individuals' sense of offence?
In respect of the Danish cartoons, my personal objection is that they are not funny! I have absolute certainty that the cartoonist had the right to draw them and the paper to publish. Political and religious cartooning has a long and honourable history. Sometimes, such lampoons have even changed attitudes.
The need to mock and make fun is deeply ingrained in human beings, an aspect of a refusal to be cowed - and there can be no doubt that the terrorists who use the name of Islam are trying to cow us.
Brigid asks whether a Buddhist publication would have printed the cartoons. I believe that, had the quality been good enough, they could do so without straying from the Noble Eightfold Path. The Path is red-blooded and hard to walk. It is not a hippy stroll in flowery meadows.
So, the problem appears to be the following:
* which is more important, freedom of speech and of the press or the sensibilities of those who may be offended?
For years, Catholics were, allegedly, offended by Dave Allen. The BBC had the guts to continue to schedule his shows, just as they refused to be bullied by a small number of protesters over Jerry Springer - The Opera. If we believe that a free press (in all media) is an important aspect of a free democracy and that free democracy is a worthwhile political system, then it surely behoves us to support the editors who resist pressure, within the law. And this is even more important when they work at the margins.
I am not sure how it is for other people but, for me, the Dharma and the practice of the Noble Eighfold Path bring, as night follows day, a social commitment which is political in nature. This does not mean that every Buddhist is of the same political opinion or stipe - quite the reverse. It should mean that our political opinions, attitudes and actions are in harmony with our understanding of the Dharma. But it does not mean that we shall all agree on the 'action in the world' any more than we all wear the same clothes, eat the same food or speak the same language.
The liberal bluff is to challenge ourselves to put principle above expediency and not to lapse "for the greater good". The story of Robespierre illustrates what I mean. Before coming to power, he espoused all the liberal causes of the Enlightenment: freedom of the press, univeral suffrage and the abolition of the death penalty. It was the question of the trial of the king that changed his mind. From his point of view, the problem was that, if the king were to be put on trial, he could be found innocent, which would mean that the whole Revolution was condemned. If he were found guilty but not executed, there would remain the threat of restoration. For the good of the people, for the protection of the republic and "for the greater good", the king had to die even though principle said otherwise. The result was the Terror and the Empire, destroying the Revolution which Robespierre has abandonned his principles to save.
Has it ever struck you that the question, in the story of Jesus, posed by Caiaphas is a trap? He asks : "Isn't it better for one man to die for the sake of the people." Every commentator I have read links this with the 'sacrifice of the Cross' but I hear it differently. Caiaphas is not presented as a gospel model but as one of the anti-Jesusites, so the answer has to be "NO". The principle that we should not take life overrides even the risk that sparing this life might lead to other loss.
I know it seems a long way from a few badly-drawn cartoons to the precept about life but I believe that, if we sell the pass on censorship, we risk caving in to demands for systematic breaches of the First Precept.
What the Danish cartoonist did is basically an attack not on Islam, but religion in general. I am not too sure on this, but in the Quran, I believe there is an exception for Muslims (I cannot remember whether men or women) to marry outside the religion for Christians and Jews because they believe in one God, have a holy book, and deem Abraham a prophet. I interpret this as the 3 worship the same God, Muslims just call him Allah, God by a different name (to Christians and Jews). If that is true, then the Danish cartoonist did not slander the name of Allah, but launched an attack on God. I have forumlated an opinion that most Muslims are more respectful and tolerant of Christianity and Judaism then the two are of Islam.
I am of the opinion that the needs of those who will be offended outweigh the freedom of the press (at least in the US) because many of the news outlets I have seen have gotten to the point where it creates an envrionment physically dangerous to those who would be offended. For example, there has been alot of negative media about Muslims portraying them as dangerous, creating an envrionment where an innocent Muslim family taking their child to soccer practice will be reported by 1 person who has much prejudice towards Muslims as "suspicious behaviour". Also, I have seen attacks against Muslims on the news, where mothers driving home with food for their families have been attacked while pulling out of a parking lot (stones thrown and windows battered) as well as anti-Muslim grafiti on Muslim homes and even seperation from Muslim children in schools (in some areas). These actions can be attributed to the media outlets (even years after the tragedy of 9/11) because of anti-Muslim messages. I have even seen a network representative even go so far as to criticize Islam on air.
After attacks like these, I can say why I think the media should be more restricted, and not be allowed to spread slander about a religion that has suffered so much in the US as well as they have and still are contributing to the problems mentioned earlier as the causes of the riots. Buddhism and Islam are both peaceful religions at heart (I only bring Buddhism into the equation for an example of peaceful and tolerant behaviour), but it is in human nature to only tolerate so much. How we handle it is different from person to person (as with the Elephant), but certain Muslims have "snapped" because as was said before, the current injustices facing Muslims are only small attacks in a long list of problems. It is our job not to police cartoonists or the media, but to undertake respecting all the religions, to be tolerant of others regardless of race, religion, nationality, or background. To restrain from such harmful acts and police ourselves before we mass circulate a contreversial item. I myself can be friends with and work with Muslims, the ones I have met and befriended where some of the nicest people I met, very peaceful and kind hearted people. It's a shame to see a culture be so disrespected because of a select few individuals (the same can be said about Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition - that was violence), it's physically and mentally painful to see and hear about this, knowing I can do only so little.
and pls no one talk about good or evil..(points at feder) it doesnt exist.. in any shape or form except your own views..
i dont think the cartoons matter much, yes they are offensive but really you shouldn't take things so seriously.. people satire God and jesus all the time..
and i've had several instances with ppl badmouthing islam and calling muslims terrorists and that their religion teaches them to commit holy war pff... .. .. its hardly worth it talking to these people .. just tell them in straight basic fast terms what islam is.. because explaining in depth don't help them.. and i find most of them are incapable of learning or changing their views by listening alone.
A shame.. but society's eyes are pretty blurry
SATIRE is one thing. DISREGARD is another.
Is this truly what you think?
Have you followed this idea to its logical conclusion? It would mean that any person or group, whatever their own agenda, could prevent free expression, be it serious or comic.
Does it apply to anyone who might be offended? What happens if I am offended by what, say, the Murdoch press is saying? Or if I object to HHDL's opposition to the use of animal skins? Or if I am upset by Blackadder or The Life of Brian?
I have to disagree mostr strongly: let individuals deal with their feelings of upset but, for the sake of millions murdered in secret, keep expression free.
The Middle Way is not a recipe for non-action. There are times when we may have to die to protect what is far more important than our own short life. Freedom of expression has been ripped away from people, time and again, by those who want to dominate and exploit. It is in the interests only of the autocrat or the dictator that truth be distorted by propaganda and censorship.
The buddha's approach is to let it pass, since everything comes to pass. Spend time more profitably.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Celebrin. The way I see it, I know I've stepped off the path when I think or behave in extremes of any sort. I always have to bring myself back to the middle. This point is very important to me. There are no absolutes, no pure blacks and white, only shades of gray. There's a bit of positive and negative in everything. The middle way is the way, for me at least. That's my guiding principle. Flexibility in thought and understanding and no extremes.
We are (at least for the moment) free to have pictures of, say, Usama Bin Laden or copies of Mein Kampf in our homes without persecution eactly because people were prepared to die for the right.
My point is that there are some principles for which 'moderation' is not the Middle Way.
He is even more "absolutist" than I am about the freedom to express an opinion.
Both my late father and my late German teacher witnessed Nazi book burnings and taught that any attempt to suppress free expression had to be opposed because small repression will be built upon by those who want power over us.
Alice Miller wrote a book called For Your Own Good, about the way in which parents abuse their children "for their own good" (the children's that is). I am deeply suspicious of anyone who says that that they are doing something oppressive for our "good". To me, that way lie the auto da fe, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and "Arbeit Macht Frei".
I'm purposefully trying to be argumentative here for the sake of discussion; what if you had a kid and caught him cooking methamphetamine in his room? After all, methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug meaning it has legitamate theraputic uses, and it's his body and his freedom, right?
The problem, in my opinion, with free will, is that it tends to gravitate towards our basal animal desires, the Freudian "id". If you accept that, the question becomes how much moderation do you enforce? There are no easy answers here, but personally my reading of the Qu'ran suggests Islam is far more moderate than most people think.
"The mark of the educated man is the suppression of these [animal] qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true of civilization." -Warren Spector
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726472.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4682262.stm