European Terror Attacks

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

99% of Muslims in the UK or France or any other Western country are not offended by the country they live in and lets face it ,you yourself have not been over generous in your views of the country you live in .

It's 42% not 99%

[techguyone]

I was genuinely curious & mystified as to why it's bad to depict Mohammed, here's what I found.

it's not bad at all in the Qur’an.. BUT Sunni Muslims (the majority) also follow something called hadiths, which are the next best thing after the Qur’an and in there it says. any pictures of people or animals, especially in homes is prohibited.

Ok so I'm more mystified than before, apparently if you're a devout (Sunni) Muslim, no family pics etc at home or you're in trouble.




links: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

[Gary L]

Try his other name. Muhammad.

Originally Posted by techguyone

I was genuinely curious & mystified as to why it's bad to depict Mohammed, here's what I found.

it's not bad at all in the Qur’an.. BUT Sunni Muslims (the majority) also follow something called hadiths, which are the next best thing after the Qur’an and in there it says. any pictures of people or animals, especially in homes is prohibited.

Ok so I'm more mystified than before, apparently if you're a devout (Sunni) Muslim, no family pics etc at home or you're in trouble.




links: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

The reason is to prevent followers worshipping Mohamed as a god ,in Christianity Idolatry is banned and Muslims see pictures of Mohamed as much the same thing

[Sirius]

So does this mean that the BBC will follow the same rules for any of the mainstream religions and there representatives. Or is it only those who call out the name of there god or representative before killing in his name ???

Originally Posted by Sirius

So does this mean that the BBC will follow the same rules for any of the mainstream religions and there representatives. Or is it only those who call out the name of there god or representative before killing in his name ???

It means the BBC will show a bit of common sense and not set out to deliberately antagonise Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

It means the BBC will show a bit of common sense and not set out to deliberately antagonise Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

Ok, just checking as i don't watch the BBC.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by martyh

It means the BBC will show a bit of common sense and not set out to deliberately antagonise Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

This is what I think is key to how things go from here.

On one hand publications and broadcasters generally won't want to be seen as intimidated by what happened so will likely not back down from showing more religious satire however there may well be a feeling of wanting to do it more as some kind of show of strength but that might be taken as antagonising or 'revenge' from fundamentalists, potential terrorists and others who supported the killings.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the feeling it's all going to kick off this year.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

99% of Muslims in the UK or France or any other Western country are not offended by the country they live in and lets face it ,you yourself have not been over generous in your views of the country you live in .

78% of British Muslims asked thought those who made the Danish cartoons in 2005 should've been prosecuted for causing them offence and indeed blaspheming against them.

That is actually from a survey, not pulled from my hindmost.

78% of British Muslims find the idea of free speech, which isn't causing anyone any physical harm or putting them in danger, offensive, because Sunni Islam tells them to.

In common with the vast majority of the UK I do not share those beliefs, in common with much of the UK while I have no problem with those holding them I do not respect those beliefs as I find all religions absurd to one degree or another.

Our society doesn't give offence, people choose to take it. Are we to pander to this and indefinitely modify our own laws, as we have been, whenever enough decide to take offence at something?

How many other religions do anything beyond rolling their eyes when they are criticised, parodied or mocked, and what makes this one so special that the BBC should go out of its way to explicitly avoid offending it beyond threats of violence anyone in the public eye questioning it seem to get?

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

This is what I think is key to how things go from here.

On one hand publications and broadcasters generally won't want to be seen as intimidated by what happened so will likely not back down from showing more religious satire however there may well be a feeling of wanting to do it more as some kind of show of strength but that might be taken as antagonising or 'revenge' from fundamentalists, potential terrorists and others who supported the killings.

As I mentioned earlier, I have the feeling it's all going to kick off this year.

They had a chance to all stand together and publish cartoons on the day after the attack and all bottled it.

I have no idea why our press are so much more cowardly than those in Germany and other European nations.

I'm concerned that, rather than kicking off, Labour will come into power and bend over backwards to impose their multicultural, ultra-PC view of how the UK should be with a string of illiberal laws to go alongside the existing set making even the rather weak shadow of freedom of speech we have now seem like the panacea of fredom.

We need a written constitution with freedom of speech that does not endanger life and limb, and I don't consider nutters taking offence and going on a murderous rampage as being included in that, absolutely codified in it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Deliberately insulting Muslims is not the same not backing down to terrorists .Going on a shooting spree because a magazine took the pee out of Islam is way OTT ,that does not mean anyone has the right to go around deliberately insulting Muslims

But we can deliberately take the piddle though can't we?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

99% of Muslims in the UK or France or any other Western country are not offended by the country they live in and lets face it ,you yourself have not been over generous in your views of the country you live in .

Now now, don't throw around statistics and percentages you have no way of substantiating.

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

It means the BBC will show a bit of common sense and not set out to deliberately antagonise Muslims, extremist or otherwise.

That's fine for the BBC, but anyone else is free to antagonise Muslims as much as they want.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

They had a chance to all stand together and publish cartoons on the day after the attack and all bottled it.

Thing is, and I'm not saying I think it's right or wrong but there's a difference between standing together and being antagonistic - where the line is differs from person to person. Some will say we're not doing enough, others will say it's too much and this is what I think the basis for it all kicking off will be.

---------- Post added at 16:39 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

That's fine for the BBC, but anyone else is free to antagonise Muslims as much as they want.

And people obviously will. All I'd say about it is if people deliberately antagonise someone (whether a person, section of society, a community, country, region, religion etc) then they have to be aware of reprisals.

No I'm not saying people deserve it, far from it and neither am I advising anyone to not antagonise or whatever. But those it's aimed at are unlikely to just shrug their shoulders and walk away, as much as we know they should.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

but there's a difference between standing together and being antagonistic

They should have been antagonistic, the free press should have collectively raised their kilts and waved their cocks in the face of radical Islam.

---------- Post added at 15:43 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

And people obviously will. All I'd say about it is if people deliberately antagonise someone (whether a section of society, a community, country, region, religion etc) then they have to be aware of reprisals.

Why should they?

I don't want to come across as all UKIP-y, but one of the foundations of our society is that we have the right to offend, and the right to be offended.

If you don't like the rules don't live here.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

They should have been antagonistic, the free press should have collectively raised their kilts and waved their cocks in the face of radical Islam.

I get what you're saying and I agree in principle but do you really think that won't lead to reprisals? Again I'm not saying it should - but given how the nutters enjoy taking action do you think they'd just walk away?

Why do you think they didn't?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why should they?

I don't want to come across as all UKIP-y, but one of the foundations of our society is that we have the right to offend, and the right to be offended.

If you don't like the rules don't live here.

Again I agree completely (although I wouldn't support a right to deliberately offend) but these people have clearly shown they aren't reasonable humans.

[nomadking]

People have no qualms about offending Christianity.

Surely the rules for offence at images of Mohammed are just for other Muslims and not for other beliefs or non-beliefs. There has to be a sense of proportion at having been offended.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

People have no qualms about offending Christianity.

Surely the rules for offence at images of Mohammed are just for other Muslims and not for other beliefs or non-beliefs. There has to be a sense of proportion at having been offended.

Absolutely there does - I agree with everyone who says they ought to lighten up however are they really going to listen to us?