Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

In response to Charlie Hedbo Shooting

UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 5:57:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol.

It's correct about western and Muslim culture being in significant contrast with each other. While a portion of Muslims have condemned the attack, I've actually been slightly surprised by the amount (that live in the west) that have actually tried to justify it. Somehow they view the two terrorists as "martyrs" who were simply trying to defend Muhammad, completely overlooking the fact that 12 innocent people were killed; a few of which weren't even involved in the newspaper.

What should be highlighted (particularly to Muslims) is that Charlie Hebdo did not exclusively feature cartoons of Muhammad/Islam, it satirized both Judaism and Christianity, including the prophet Moses, Jesus, Mary, etc. The difference is that Jews and Christians do not take it upon themselves to go and murder 12 people on the basis of mere offense. Another examples would be the French president, who's been endlessly ridiculed. The west needs to maintain its right to freedom of expression (France in particular has a rich history of satire) so I hope the newspaper receives further support and continues with its publications. The ironic thing is that instead of stopping satirical cartoons of Muhammad, the attackers have ensured Charlie Hebdo has gained extensive publicity, financial assistance, and more followers.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 8:00:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...

Yes the problem is of course a shock between two very different cultures. But as for the third group of individuals "a faction using the attack as proof to say islam is a violent ideology", I find quite amazing that they need a terrorist attack to justify that. One only has to read the Quran to realize that islam is a violent doctrine, you don't have to wait for terrorists to attack a target. But fortunately, most muslims do not follow Islam to the point, if it were the case, muslim society would have auto-destructed itself long ago.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:00:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 8:00:00 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...

Yes the problem is of course a shock between two very different cultures. But as for the third group of individuals "a faction using the attack as proof to say islam is a violent ideology", I find quite amazing that they need a terrorist attack to justify that. One only has to read the Quran to realize that islam is a violent doctrine, you don't have to wait for terrorists to attack a target. But fortunately, most muslims do not follow Islam to the point, if it were the case, muslim society would have auto-destructed itself long ago.

Would you like to elaborate on which verses prove your statement?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 12:11:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 5:57:22 AM, Emilrose wrote:
Lol.

It's correct about western and Muslim culture being in significant contrast with each other. While a portion of Muslims have condemned the attack, I've actually been slightly surprised by the amount (that live in the west) that have actually tried to justify it. Somehow they view the two terrorists as "martyrs" who were simply trying to defend Muhammad, completely overlooking the fact that 12 innocent people were killed; a few of which weren't even involved in the newspaper.

What should be highlighted (particularly to Muslims) is that Charlie Hebdo did not exclusively feature cartoons of Muhammad/Islam, it satirized both Judaism and Christianity, including the prophet Moses, Jesus, Mary, etc. The difference is that Jews and Christians do not take it upon themselves to go and murder 12 people on the basis of mere offense. Another examples would be the French president, who's been endlessly ridiculed. The west needs to maintain its right to freedom of expression (France in particular has a rich history of satire) so I hope the newspaper receives further support and continues with its publications. The ironic thing is that instead of stopping satirical cartoons of Muhammad, the attackers have ensured Charlie Hebdo has gained extensive publicity, financial assistance, and more followers.

Yes you make a point however (correct if I am wrong) Christianity and Judiasim doesn't have a great stigma towards the drawings of their Prophets. Though once more ( I know this has been said over and over again but the message needs to get through) The shooters do not truly represent the Muslim population as they are being condemned by a majority of the Muslims. Also what is to be noted from this is that the shooters may not have done this solely out of being offended (Killing civilians in Islam is haram). CaspainReport did an interesting video on it showing how their may have been far more subtle effects that happened as a result of the attack. Remember that terrorist do not aim for sole purpose of causing destruction and death, they aim mostly for the psychological effects of the population after the attack. The humongous out uproar and protests after the attack were exactly what they aimed for, because it is through reactions like these in which the governments and the people begin to make more irrational decisions based more of emotion then rationality (Take for example how the American government used 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq). This is the actual video, its pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com...
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:00:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 12:00:56 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/15/2015 8:00:00 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...

Yes the problem is of course a shock between two very different cultures. But as for the third group of individuals "a faction using the attack as proof to say islam is a violent ideology", I find quite amazing that they need a terrorist attack to justify that. One only has to read the Quran to realize that islam is a violent doctrine, you don't have to wait for terrorists to attack a target. But fortunately, most muslims do not follow Islam to the point, if it were the case, muslim society would have auto-destructed itself long ago.

Would you like to elaborate on which verses prove your statement?

Sure. Here you have an extensive list of violent verses in the quran that involve, among others: killing non-believers, christians and jews, and very prevalent war advocation (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...)

There are also verses unrelated to war, but related to violence: excesive punishments for minimum offenses (24:2 and many others), gender inequality (4:34), pedophilia (65.4), slavery (33:50), torture (22:19-22), slaughtering (8:67), homophobia (7:80"84), etc.

I can understand ancient civilizations morality was not the same as today's morality, but remember that what's written in the Quran is presented as an atemporal truth, and thus historical context doesn't really matter (sadly).
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:25:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 3:00:13 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:00:56 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/15/2015 8:00:00 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...

Yes the problem is of course a shock between two very different cultures. But as for the third group of individuals "a faction using the attack as proof to say islam is a violent ideology", I find quite amazing that they need a terrorist attack to justify that. One only has to read the Quran to realize that islam is a violent doctrine, you don't have to wait for terrorists to attack a target. But fortunately, most muslims do not follow Islam to the point, if it were the case, muslim society would have auto-destructed itself long ago.

Would you like to elaborate on which verses prove your statement?

Sure. Here you have an extensive list of violent verses in the quran that involve, among others: killing non-believers, christians and jews, and very prevalent war advocation (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...)

There are also verses unrelated to war, but related to violence: excesive punishments for minimum offenses (24:2 and many others), gender inequality (4:34), pedophilia (65.4), slavery (33:50), torture (22:19-22), slaughtering (8:67), homophobia (7:80"84), etc.

I can understand ancient civilizations morality was not the same as today's morality, but remember that what's written in the Quran is presented as an atemporal truth, and thus historical context doesn't really matter (sadly).

Actually the fact that the Quran is presented in an atemporal fashion is actually what negates the credibility of your argument. For example the accusation of pedophilia. Now during the time in which the Prophet was alive he was accused of many insults by the Quraysh this included the accusation of lying or being a magician. However amongst all of the criticism the accusation of pedophilia was in fact inconceivable as Bedouin culture at the time did not hold underaged marriage to the same level of taboo as today. However 1400 years later and the accusation that the Prophet was a sorcerer seems absurd to most but was common 1400 years ago. Once more this can be seen when you pointed out Surat'ul Noor Ayat 2 as "an excessive punishment for minimal offences" .that is because western culture does not hold unmarried sex to as high of a taboo degree as Islamic culture (Usually in Islam the culture is changed to befit the religion and not the other way around).

Because using that logic then I could use the argument that Western Law could cruel and unusual given its legalization of abortion all because I take western law from a different cultural perspective.

Also in regards to the source you used (" thereligionofpeace.com " ) I very much question its credibility given its obvious anti Muslim bias
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:39:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 3:25:50 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/15/2015 3:00:13 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 12:00:56 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/15/2015 8:00:00 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 1:09:17 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
(Original title was meant to be"In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting: Why Muslims are 'butthurt'" But I couldnt fit that title when typing this topic.
PS: I am not trying to in any way justify the actions of the shooter so please do not accuse me of such.)

It is often when controversial media is released that offends the Muslim population large uproars may happen in parts of the Middle East or Muslim world such as the protests that occurred in Benghazi following the release of the video "The Innocence of Muslims".

And then an interesting thing begins to occur in which you have three groups addressing the topic in different ways. one group claims that Muslims are "butthurt" and offended too easily (such as this debate that satirically addresses the topic: http://www.debate.org......), Then you have another group (tend to Muslims) that condemn the attacks or protest that occur (Such as this lecture by Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi: https://www.youtube.com......)
and then you have a last faction using such attacks as proof that Islam is violent or terrorist Ideology (Such as the claims made by Ayaan Hirsi, an activist and former Muslim: http://townhall.com......)

So then the question comes following the Charlie Hedbo shooting; why? Why would Muslims be so offended when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is drawn or portrayed in an offensive way?

Once more like I mentioned before three camps appear that always gives the same answer: One claiming Muslims are too butthurt and offended easily, one group claiming that does not accurately representing Islam then a last group using it as an opportunity to demonize Islam.

But to stop beating around the bush here is my opinion: It mostly has to do with culture shock. In Islam and Islamic culture (well mostly amongst the Sunni population) it is extremly taboo to draw any of the Prophets, especially Muhammad (pbuh). This video sums it up so I don't go off on a tangent again: https://www.youtube.com...... .

Now it would seem strange to a lot of people that Muslims would get so offended when Non-Muslims do this, once more an example of culture shock. Western culture and values contrast greatly with Muslim culture and values. Therefore a westerner may inadvertently offend a Muslim and a Muslim may inadvertently offend a westerner because both cultures glorify and condemn different things. There are things that a westerner may not ever truly understand about Muslims like how Muslims are offended over cartoons or why Muslims have gender segregation in Mosques. And as a Muslim myself there are things about Western culture that make me perplexed despite living in one myself for example why is western culture so individualistic or why things that I consider to be blatant hate speech are instead glorified as "free expression" and by saying this I might inadvertently offend someone by saying that. This could be a result of the internet or globalization as you have the world becoming more and more interconnected you have more and more people of different cultures and beliefs having more and more interaction and therefore may accidentally offend someone else.

I honestly do not know how to conclude this post so here is a gif of Pickachu rubbing his cheeks: http://i392.photobucket.com...

Yes the problem is of course a shock between two very different cultures. But as for the third group of individuals "a faction using the attack as proof to say islam is a violent ideology", I find quite amazing that they need a terrorist attack to justify that. One only has to read the Quran to realize that islam is a violent doctrine, you don't have to wait for terrorists to attack a target. But fortunately, most muslims do not follow Islam to the point, if it were the case, muslim society would have auto-destructed itself long ago.

Would you like to elaborate on which verses prove your statement?

Sure. Here you have an extensive list of violent verses in the quran that involve, among others: killing non-believers, christians and jews, and very prevalent war advocation (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...)

There are also verses unrelated to war, but related to violence: excesive punishments for minimum offenses (24:2 and many others), gender inequality (4:34), pedophilia (65.4), slavery (33:50), torture (22:19-22), slaughtering (8:67), homophobia (7:80"84), etc.

I can understand ancient civilizations morality was not the same as today's morality, but remember that what's written in the Quran is presented as an atemporal truth, and thus historical context doesn't really matter (sadly).

Actually the fact that the Quran is presented in an atemporal fashion is actually what negates the credibility of your argument. For example the accusation of pedophilia. Now during the time in which the Prophet was alive he was accused of many insults by the Quraysh this included the accusation of lying or being a magician. However amongst all of the criticism the accusation of pedophilia was in fact inconceivable as Bedouin culture at the time did not hold underaged marriage to the same level of taboo as today. However 1400 years later and the accusation that the Prophet was a sorcerer seems absurd to most but was common 1400 years ago. Once more this can be seen when you pointed out Surat'ul Noor Ayat 2 as "an excessive punishment for minimal offences" .that is because western culture does not hold unmarried sex to as high of a taboo degree as Islamic culture (Usually in Islam the culture is changed to befit the religion and not the other way around).

Because using that logic then I could use the argument that Western Law could cruel and unusual given its legalization of abortion all because I take western law from a different cultural perspective.

The problem is, juridic laws are of course subject to what society of a particular time thinks. Holy laws are not subjected to change through time. When you do that, you are simply cherry picking the verses you like, and distorting the verses you don't like in order to make them fit within today's standards. This is a sign of you being a sensible person, and a sign of muslims being responsible, but by no means it is a sign of islam being peaceful. Islam won't be peaceful unless Quran is completely rewritten.

Also in regards to the source you used (" thereligionofpeace.com " ) I very much question its credibility given its obvious anti Muslim bias

And I encourage you to question it, but also to check the autenticity of the verses in there using your own copy of the Quran or using this webpage: http://quran.com...
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually the fact that the Quran is presented in an atemporal fashion is actually what negates the credibility of your argument. For example the accusation of pedophilia. Now during the time in which the Prophet was alive he was accused of many insults by the Quraysh this included the accusation of lying or being a magician. However amongst all of the criticism the accusation of pedophilia was in fact inconceivable as Bedouin culture at the time did not hold underaged marriage to the same level of taboo as today. However 1400 years later and the accusation that the Prophet was a sorcerer seems absurd to most but was common 1400 years ago. Once more this can be seen when you pointed out Surat'ul Noor Ayat 2 as "an excessive punishment for minimal offences" .that is because western culture does not hold unmarried sex to as high of a taboo degree as Islamic culture (Usually in Islam the culture is changed to befit the religion and not the other way around).

Because using that logic then I could use the argument that Western Law could cruel and unusual given its legalization of abortion all because I take western law from a different cultural perspective.

The problem is, juridic laws are of course subject to what society of a particular time thinks. Holy laws are not subjected to change through time. When you do that, you are simply cherry picking the verses you like, and distorting the verses you don't like in order to make them fit within today's standards. This is a sign of you being a sensible person, and a sign of muslims being responsible, but by no means it is a sign of islam being peaceful. Islam won't be peaceful unless Quran is completely rewritten.

However I wasn't cherry picking the verses, I directly explained a few of the verses you used as an example, if I was cherry picking I would have only confronted the verses that would be seen as peaceful If the Quran was rewritten that would completely contradict the original values of Islam that the words of the Quran were to remain eternal and unchanging, it is blatant shirk in Islam. Like I mentioned before in Islam the culture of the person shouldn't alter their religion but rather their religion changes their culture to befit their religion. When the Arabian Peninsula became Muslim the culture of the region changed greatly to befit the religion and not vice versa. However when someone with such values moves to a western country then culture shock is almost inevitable and is in my opinion the root of the rising tensions between Europeans and Muslim immigrants.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 3:52:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And I encourage you to question it, but also to check the autenticity of the verses in there using your own copy of the Quran or using this webpage: http://quran.com...

I can agree with you on that about.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:23:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 3:51:31 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Actually the fact that the Quran is presented in an atemporal fashion is actually what negates the credibility of your argument. For example the accusation of pedophilia. Now during the time in which the Prophet was alive he was accused of many insults by the Quraysh this included the accusation of lying or being a magician. However amongst all of the criticism the accusation of pedophilia was in fact inconceivable as Bedouin culture at the time did not hold underaged marriage to the same level of taboo as today. However 1400 years later and the accusation that the Prophet was a sorcerer seems absurd to most but was common 1400 years ago. Once more this can be seen when you pointed out Surat'ul Noor Ayat 2 as "an excessive punishment for minimal offences" .that is because western culture does not hold unmarried sex to as high of a taboo degree as Islamic culture (Usually in Islam the culture is changed to befit the religion and not the other way around).

Because using that logic then I could use the argument that Western Law could cruel and unusual given its legalization of abortion all because I take western law from a different cultural perspective.

The problem is, juridic laws are of course subject to what society of a particular time thinks. Holy laws are not subjected to change through time. When you do that, you are simply cherry picking the verses you like, and distorting the verses you don't like in order to make them fit within today's standards. This is a sign of you being a sensible person, and a sign of muslims being responsible, but by no means it is a sign of islam being peaceful. Islam won't be peaceful unless Quran is completely rewritten.

However I wasn't cherry picking the verses, I directly explained a few of the verses you used as an example, if I was cherry picking I would have only confronted the verses that would be seen as peaceful If the Quran was rewritten that would completely contradict the original values of Islam that the words of the Quran were to remain eternal and unchanging, it is blatant shirk in Islam. Like I mentioned before in Islam the culture of the person shouldn't alter their religion but rather their religion changes their culture to befit their religion. When the Arabian Peninsula became Muslim the culture of the region changed greatly to befit the religion and not vice versa. However when someone with such values moves to a western country then culture shock is almost inevitable and is in my opinion the root of the rising tensions between Europeans and Muslim immigrants.

As I have said, I also think a cultural clash is the root of the tension between two different civilizations as Eruope and the Muslim world. But you have to accept that the Quran has too many violent verses. Yes you can try to justify those verses by saying they were more appropiate on the era they were written, but the problem is they are being read on a different era, an era in which they are not appropiate at all. Also there's no verse on the Quran that warns that the word of Allah is a word that should only be taken as valid for people of a specific time and place. If that verse existed, attacks on Islam would be ridiculous, but sadly it doesn't exist.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:33:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 4:23:24 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/15/2015 3:51:31 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
Actually the fact that the Quran is presented in an atemporal fashion is actually what negates the credibility of your argument. For example the accusation of pedophilia. Now during the time in which the Prophet was alive he was accused of many insults by the Quraysh this included the accusation of lying or being a magician. However amongst all of the criticism the accusation of pedophilia was in fact inconceivable as Bedouin culture at the time did not hold underaged marriage to the same level of taboo as today. However 1400 years later and the accusation that the Prophet was a sorcerer seems absurd to most but was common 1400 years ago. Once more this can be seen when you pointed out Surat'ul Noor Ayat 2 as "an excessive punishment for minimal offences" .that is because western culture does not hold unmarried sex to as high of a taboo degree as Islamic culture (Usually in Islam the culture is changed to befit the religion and not the other way around).

Because using that logic then I could use the argument that Western Law could cruel and unusual given its legalization of abortion all because I take western law from a different cultural perspective.

The problem is, juridic laws are of course subject to what society of a particular time thinks. Holy laws are not subjected to change through time. When you do that, you are simply cherry picking the verses you like, and distorting the verses you don't like in order to make them fit within today's standards. This is a sign of you being a sensible person, and a sign of muslims being responsible, but by no means it is a sign of islam being peaceful. Islam won't be peaceful unless Quran is completely rewritten.

However I wasn't cherry picking the verses, I directly explained a few of the verses you used as an example, if I was cherry picking I would have only confronted the verses that would be seen as peaceful If the Quran was rewritten that would completely contradict the original values of Islam that the words of the Quran were to remain eternal and unchanging, it is blatant shirk in Islam. Like I mentioned before in Islam the culture of the person shouldn't alter their religion but rather their religion changes their culture to befit their religion. When the Arabian Peninsula became Muslim the culture of the region changed greatly to befit the religion and not vice versa. However when someone with such values moves to a western country then culture shock is almost inevitable and is in my opinion the root of the rising tensions between Europeans and Muslim immigrants.

As I have said, I also think a cultural clash is the root of the tension between two different civilizations as Eruope and the Muslim world. But you have to accept that the Quran has too many violent verses. Yes you can try to justify those verses by saying they were more appropiate on the era they were written, but the problem is they are being read on a different era, an era in which they are not appropiate at all. Also there's no verse on the Quran that warns that the word of Allah is a word that should only be taken as valid for people of a specific time and place. If that verse existed, attacks on Islam would be ridiculous, but sadly it doesn't exist.

This is a subject I think may be best discussed in a debate as when you said that the Quran has "too many violent" verses I would consider that to be a debatable topic as there are too many verses to actually discuss (and ask if they would be considered a "violent verse") to sufficiently do so in a forum, I have ran out of arguments I just for a moment felt as though this discussion was beginning to go around in circles. However this was a very interesting discussion.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I have said, I also think a cultural clash is the root of the tension between two different civilizations as Eruope and the Muslim world. But you have to accept that the Quran has too many violent verses. Yes you can try to justify those verses by saying they were more appropiate on the era they were written, but the problem is they are being read on a different era, an era in which they are not appropiate at all. Also there's no verse on the Quran that warns that the word of Allah is a word that should only be taken as valid for people of a specific time and place. If that verse existed, attacks on Islam would be ridiculous, but sadly it doesn't exist.

This is a subject I think may be best discussed in a debate as when you said that the Quran has "too many violent" verses I would consider that to be a debatable topic as there are too many verses to actually discuss (and ask if they would be considered a "violent verse") to sufficiently do so in a forum, I have ran out of arguments I just for a moment felt as though this discussion was beginning to go around in circles. However this was a very interesting discussion.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 4:45:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 4:34:21 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
As I have said, I also think a cultural clash is the root of the tension between two different civilizations as Eruope and the Muslim world. But you have to accept that the Quran has too many violent verses. Yes you can try to justify those verses by saying they were more appropiate on the era they were written, but the problem is they are being read on a different era, an era in which they are not appropiate at all. Also there's no verse on the Quran that warns that the word of Allah is a word that should only be taken as valid for people of a specific time and place. If that verse existed, attacks on Islam would be ridiculous, but sadly it doesn't exist.

This is a subject I think may be best discussed in a debate as when you said that the Quran has "too many violent" verses I would consider that to be a debatable topic as there are too many verses to actually discuss (and ask if they would be considered a "violent verse") to sufficiently do so in a forum, I have ran out of arguments I just for a moment felt as though this discussion was beginning to go around in circles. However this was a very interesting discussion.

Also I don't exactly regard Islam as a religion of peace, as the claim did not originate in any of the Quran or Hadith and the original controversy has political origins rooted from after the 9/11 attacks ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) However neither would I consider Islam to be a religion of violence or terrorism as many hadith disprove that, such as the hadith from Abu Dawud in his sixth book of hadith: ""Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person."
So I would consider Islam more of a middle path than religion of peace or violence.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 5:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/15/2015 4:45:48 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 1/15/2015 4:34:21 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
As I have said, I also think a cultural clash is the root of the tension between two different civilizations as Eruope and the Muslim world. But you have to accept that the Quran has too many violent verses. Yes you can try to justify those verses by saying they were more appropiate on the era they were written, but the problem is they are being read on a different era, an era in which they are not appropiate at all. Also there's no verse on the Quran that warns that the word of Allah is a word that should only be taken as valid for people of a specific time and place. If that verse existed, attacks on Islam would be ridiculous, but sadly it doesn't exist.

This is a subject I think may be best discussed in a debate as when you said that the Quran has "too many violent" verses I would consider that to be a debatable topic as there are too many verses to actually discuss (and ask if they would be considered a "violent verse") to sufficiently do so in a forum, I have ran out of arguments I just for a moment felt as though this discussion was beginning to go around in circles. However this was a very interesting discussion.

Also I don't exactly regard Islam as a religion of peace, as the claim did not originate in any of the Quran or Hadith and the original controversy has political origins rooted from after the 9/11 attacks ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) However neither would I consider Islam to be a religion of violence or terrorism as many hadith disprove that, such as the hadith from Abu Dawud in his sixth book of hadith: ""Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person."
So I would consider Islam more of a middle path than religion of peace or violence.

I believe that most religions have verses that appeal to different people. Religions, in my opinion, are products aimed at the masses, and thus they need to have a mixture of values that often contradict each other, in order to appeal to the biggest number of people possible. Because of this, you have in the Quran verses that condemn murder, but in the next page verses that encourage you to murder.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2015 5:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And as for Quran being a religion of "terrorism". No, I don't believe there's any verse on the Quran that encourages specifically to commit what we consider terrorism.