Thousands of Muslims gather outside Downing Street over Charlie Hebdo cartoonists - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Fetret;47113234]Says who? Why is it against free speech (whatever your definition of it is) to tell someone to remove their work? [/QUOTE] You answered your own question there. [QUOTE=Fetret;47113234] As I brought it up before in this thread, would you consider organising a boycott against content you disagree with (non-violently convincing other people to not buy the magazine for example) an attack against free speech, since getting enough people on your side would effectively end the content? If your answer is yes, then I have a follow-up question, do you believe "supporting their right to publish" means you have to buy the magazine as well?[/QUOTE] If you feel offended by that caricature then don't buy the paper. You don't even need to do a boycott, if you don't like the content don't consume it. Those people who feel offended wouldn't have paid a dime in the first place. There will still be enough people to buy it, so it's not ending anything. And no, just because you have a product that is somehow supporting a political message doesn't mean that it needs to be financially succesful. However, if you protest so others, who would normally see that caricature can't see it, because you feel offended, then yes, that affects not only you but others as well. And that is where I draw the line. You can bring up the same argument for Revolution 60 from Brianna Wu in regards to GamerGate. If barely anyone would buy it on steam, it's not because censorship or the patriarchy. It's simply because the market doesn't have any interest in it.

[QUOTE=uber.;47113220]Okay, just so I get this right. You're asking the same people, who literally are against publishing satire, to put up a sign that says they're in favor of publishing satire?[/QUOTE] No, you misunderstand. You're saying the right thing would be to say 'I don't like what you're publishing but you have the right to publish it'. Their website says that they respect that there is no law against offensive works, but that they morally oppose it. So, their website is pretty much saying exactly what you're asking- so what more do you expect? [QUOTE=uber.;47113324]If you feel offended by that caricature then don't buy the paper. [/QUOTE] And then, if you want, excercise your right to free speech to express why you won't buy the paper. It's not against free speech to express why you're offended and ask the creator to stop without threats or coercion. It's nothing more than a public statement.

[QUOTE=uber.;47113324]You answered your own question there. If you feel offended by that caricature then don't buy the paper. You don't even need to do a boycott, if you don't like the content don't consume it. Those people who feel offended wouldn't have paid a dime in the first place. There will still be enough people to buy it, so it's not ending anything. And no, just because you have a product that is somehow support a political message doesn't mean that it needs to be financially succesfull. You can bring up the same argument for Revolution 60 from Brianna Wu in regards to GamerGate. If barely anyone would buy it on steam, it's not because censorship or the patriarchy. It's simply because the market doesn't have any interest in it.[/QUOTE] No I'm specifically talking about organising a boycott (and great way of not addressing any of my other points). Getting enough people on your side to make a dent in content you do not agree with. And I never said anything about financial success, but if you were to gather enough support (again not going to happen with CH or this crowd of protestors) to make that content financially unviable, is that still against free speech? As I said (and as you said in this post) Charlie Hebdo is in no dire-straits of either giving in to these protesters or going under at the moment so if it is not ending anything why does the protest bother you so much?

So someone can draw Jesus taking a dump or whatever and nobody bats an eye, but as soon as Muhammad gets any visual representation, people go insane. I know it's against their ideology to have the guy illustrated or otherwise, but it feels like a double standard that everyone caters to. The sooner people realize nothing is sacred in a world of freedom of speak, the faster we can get the hell along.

Alright, that's my last post on this topic. [QUOTE=catbarf;47113349]No, you misunderstand. You're saying the right thing would be to say 'I don't like what you're publishing but you have the right to publish it'. Their website says that they respect that there is no law against offensive works, but that they morally oppose it. So, their website is pretty much saying exactly what you're asking- so what more do you expect?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Shaykh Noor Siddiqi, another MAF representative, said: “The actions of the UK media in [B]not publishing[/B] the cartoons is [B]highly appreciated[/B] by British Muslims and we hope that this kind of [B]self-restraint[/B] and mutual respect will ultimately lead to a harmonious society.”[/QUOTE] I'm asking them to tolerate satire. Protesting against the publication of satire is not tolerance. [QUOTE=catbarf;47113349] And then, if you want, excercise your right to free speech to express why you won't buy the paper. It's not against free speech to express why you're offended and ask the creator to stop without threats or coercion. It's nothing more than a public statement.[/QUOTE] If you want news outlets not to print satire because you feel offended then that is against free speech. Period. [QUOTE=Fetret;47113365]No I'm specifically talking about organising a boycott (and great way of not addressing any of my other points). Getting enough people on your side to make a dent in content you do not agree with. And I never said anything about financial success, but if you were to gather enough support (again not going to happen with CH or this crowd of protestors) to make that content financially unviable, is that still against free speech? As I said (and as you said in this post) Charlie Hebdo is in no dire-straits of either giving in to these protesters or going under at the moment so if it is not ending anything why does the protest bother you so much?[/QUOTE] You're looking at it the wrong way. Boycott can be tool of freedom of speech. But, nevertheless, can also be used it against it. The protests don't bother me, what bothers me is when I see people euphemise. [editline]10th February 2015[/editline] One more thing before I go, tho. I know this is a heavy topic. I usually avoid discussions like these because they regularly turn into shitfests but this was quite alright. Anyway, cheers.

I'm gonna be frank here. Islam is a pretty violent religion. At the very least, it's rooted in extremism. Mohammed raided villages with his followers and forced people to convert to Islam. The Quran also encourages the stoning of Jews and other people that don't convert. It's actually pretty barbaric. Sharia law is also pretty disgusting and uncivilized. For the record, I'm fine with people who practice a civilized form of Islam, just adopting the more positive and non-violent beliefs, like generosity. I don't absolutely hate the religion, but people need to stop acting like it's always been this "religion of peace".

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47114316]I'm gonna be frank here. Islam is a pretty violent religion. At the very least, it's rooted in extremism. Mohammed raided villages with his followers and forced people to convert to Islam. The Quran also encourages the stoning of Jews and other people that don't convert. It's actually pretty barbaric. Sharia law is also pretty disgusting and uncivilized. For the record, I'm fine with people who practice a civilized form of Islam, just adopting the more positive and non-violent beliefs, like generosity. I don't absolutely hate the religion, but people need to stop acting like it's always been this "religion of peace".[/QUOTE] b-but the crusades

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;47114316]I'm gonna be frank here. Islam is a pretty violent religion. At the very least, it's rooted in extremism. Mohammed raided villages with his followers and forced people to convert to Islam. The Quran also encourages the stoning of Jews and other people that don't convert. It's actually pretty barbaric. Sharia law is also pretty disgusting and uncivilized. For the record, I'm fine with people who practice a civilized form of Islam, just adopting the more positive and non-violent beliefs, like generosity. I don't absolutely hate the religion, but people need to stop acting like it's always been this "religion of peace".[/QUOTE] I just want to remind everyone that two guys stormed into a synagogue with axes and butchered the people there like animals while they were defenseless and praying. I have never heard of anything similar done by a Jew or christian in the 21st century. It seems to me that even the most radical and extreme Jews and Christians still do some cherry picking. Radical muslims on the other hand, stay true to the book. Which makes the radical Muslim minorities look extremely barbaric in comparison.

[QUOTE=Eva-1337;47113369]So someone can draw Jesus taking a dump or whatever and nobody bats an eye, but as soon as Muhammad gets any visual representation, people go insane. [B]I know it's against their ideology to have the guy illustrated[/B] or otherwise, but it feels like a double standard that everyone caters to. The sooner people realize nothing is sacred in a world of freedom of speak, the faster we can get the hell along.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is, nowhere in the quran it says that Muhammed can't be drawn. No where. It is a myth. [QUOTE] The Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam[/url] It is just some sort of power projection, telling other people what they are not allowed to do. And if they do it, they will die in the name of god.

[QUOTE=Impact1986;47114780]The funny thing is, nowhere in the quran it says that Muhammed can't be drawn. No where. It is a myth. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam[/url] It is just some sort of power projection, telling other people what they are not allowed to do. And if they do it, they will die in the name of god.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the restriction is written in the Hadith, not the Qur'an.

[QUOTE=Muskof;47114799]I'm pretty sure the restriction is written in the Hadith, not the Qur'an.[/QUOTE] Who wrote the Hadith? If the prophet didn't write it, what stops a common man from just telling what is sacred and what not?

[QUOTE=Impact1986;47115116]Who wrote the Hadith? If the prophet didn't write it, what stops a common man from just telling what is sacred and what not?[/QUOTE] I was just pointing out that it's in the Hadith ...

[QUOTE=Impact1986;47115116]Who wrote the Hadith? If the prophet didn't write it, what stops a common man from just telling what is sacred and what not?[/QUOTE] There is an entire Islamic science where the isnad is studied and verified to the greatest possible extent. An isnad is the chain of transmission of each hadith back to the prophet. Hadiths are rated on their authenticity, and different variables are examined such as the reliability of the witness and the historical circumstances of the time (the witness may have been reputed to be trustworthy, but he might have been in a different city at the time). The hadith is and always has been a major part of Islam - trying to downplay it because it's not from a holy book is stripping out a huge part of the religion. Many of the most important Islamic practices come from various hadith.

You know if it bothers you that much, maybe you can move to a country where those kinds of images are banned.

[QUOTE=uber.;47113673]If you want news outlets not to print satire because you feel offended then that is against free speech. Period.[/QUOTE] I am really at a loss as to how you can take 'Hey, we know you have every right to do this, but it's been contributing to violence and extremism so we'd appreciate if you didn't, it's your call' and turn it into 'WE'RE OFFENDED, BAN THIS SICK FILTH'. You even quoted this: [quote] “The actions of the UK media in not publishing the cartoons is highly appreciated by British Muslims and we hope that this kind of self-restraint and mutual respect will ultimately lead to a harmonious society.”[/quote] Like, if that's anti-free-speech Islamic censorship, then that's the kindest, most unassuming attempt at censorship I've ever seen. It's just saying that they appreciate that media outlets aren't inciting conflict by publishing the cartoons. By this logic, asking the KKK not to protest in Ferguson during rioting is an attack on freedom of assembly. By this logic, Robin Williams' family asking that the media give them space is an attack on freedom of the press. By this logic, asking the Westboro Baptist Church not to conduct their proselytizing by the funerals of dead soldiers is an attack on freedom of religion. Simply asking someone not to exercise a right, with no force or coercion, is only an attack on that right in the most exaggerated, pedantically literal sense.

I love how everyone goes "BUT THE ISLAM IS A BAD BAD VIOLENCE BAD" and completely ignores the fact that Sunni Islam (the main sect of the religion) is entirely based upon one's interpretation of Mohammed's teachings.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47116812]I love how everyone goes "BUT THE ISLAM IS A BAD BAD VIOLENCE BAD" and completely ignores the fact that Sunni Islam (the main sect of the religion) is entirely based upon one's interpretation of Mohammed's teachings.[/QUOTE] No it's not? Obviously any religion is based on your own interpretation, but Sunni Islam doesn't just allow anyone to interpret every sura or hadith as they see fit. I have no idea where you came up with this.

NSFW [URL="http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/"]http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/[/URL]

Well, they feel personally insulted and have every right to protest about it. Free speech is not consequence-free speech. Be a dick and people will get mad at you for being a dick. You have every right to publish whatever you want and you have every right to go out and hold a sign calling for people to stop publishing. Honestly, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the cartoonists if they were actually funny, but a lot of what I see just seems like dumb IRL trolling. If it weren't for the fact that they're pissing off Muslims and everyone is irrationally afraid that pissed off Muslims turn into suicide bombers, nobody would be paying attention to the cartoons.

Pretty irrational to get insulted over someone trying to poke fun at your irrational beliefs, will only cause further antagonism. Mohammed and his companions are literally the fuckheads that wrote the Quaran with such extremism throughout, drawing insulting pictures of him are absolutely justified. Modern day Muslims (the ones who aren't extremists) don't follow the Quaran word by word; same with every religion.

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47111283]Frankly it is a terrible religion. Why is it most of FP feels wholly comfortable with shitting on christianity, but go "ooo aah" when someone criticizes the oppressive and backwards aspects of Islam that are not only present in the ideology but also practiced by the majority of the countries it is dominant in? I can only think its because christianity is associated with being white (ignorantly so) while practicing Islam is associated with being a ~~minority~~ (again, ignorantly so) and therefore above any reproach or criticism. Most of the world is [B]sane[/B], friend. You don't have to be neurologically damaged to practice oppressive belief systems or commit acts of violence as an extension of the will of your preferred deity.[/QUOTE] Compared to Christians, Muslims are more stereotyped, more associated with a race or nationality, and garner a stronger negative reaction.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47110515]Why is this an argument? Some people consider Hitler to be sacred. What now? Should degrading Hitler be illegal or frowned upon?[/QUOTE] You sure love your analogie/comparisons with Hitler and his facist regime. Never fail to apply Godwin's Law.

[QUOTE=junker154;47118010]You sure love your analogie/comparisons with Hitler and his facist regime. Never fail to apply Godwin's Law.[/QUOTE] Not much of a difference between what Mohammed did and what Hitler did, both tried to destroy anything that's different to create a master race.

Ya protest them because being offended and being gunned down are two comparable situations I'll never get why Muslims treat their religion and by extension its texts as if they are a black box, unchanging, mystical and completely unknown in true origin. There are plenty of Christians that do this too, but catholicism and jewdism both have extensively cataloged the changes in the texts over time as well as spent considerable amounts of time and capital to find the true history through sponsored archeological digs and studying ancient texts. Muslims for the most part seem to not care about the historical context which is saddening because in many countries the radical groups have demolished priceless historical sites that shed light on the history of Islam Christianity, and other religions and how they interacted throughout the ages

[QUOTE=junker154;47118010]You sure love your analogie/comparisons with Hitler and his facist regime. Never fail to apply Godwin's Law.[/QUOTE] I could have said any other vaguely polarizing figure. I could have said "Abraham Lincoln" and my post would ring the same. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rubs10;47117941]Compared to Christians, Muslims are more stereotyped, more associated with a race or nationality, and garner a stronger negative reaction.[/QUOTE] This only rings true in (some) Western nations but it is manifestly false if you look at Muslim majority nations.

[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;47111570]It's a fucking drawing, fuck off.[/QUOTE] Depictions of him aren't allowed because they think he'll become idolized. What I don't get is why they can't just not idolize him? Just acknowledge that his picture means "Oh hey he's the guy that did stuff and said things" and it can't be that different from how they already do it, right? It's like their reasoning for punishing a woman for being raped. "She was tempting me!" And you were powerless to say "no"? I thought part of that whole religious spiel was to not be tempted?

[QUOTE=Muskof;47114704]I just want to remind everyone that two guys stormed into a synagogue with axes and butchered the people there like animals while they were defenseless and praying. I have never heard of anything similar done by a Jew or christian in the 21st century. It seems to me that even the most radical and extreme Jews and Christians still do some cherry picking. Radical muslims on the other hand, stay true to the book. Which makes the radical Muslim minorities look extremely barbaric in comparison.[/QUOTE] Granted you said 21th, but 1982 wasn't that long ago and it's a good example [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre[/url] Also: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles[/url] Anyways, for most of these radicals who carry out attacks there is a political reason behind it, but use religion to justify it. Most Christians live in developed nations with a strong economy and educational system. The last time Western Europe had a major war in it's territory was 70 years ago, obviously in a region constantly in upheaval you're going to find more radical beliefs. You can find extremism in all religions don't narrow it down to Islam, if the west was in a similar situation you would similar results. It's clear though that Muslims in Europe act differently then my friends and associates in Canada so it's not fair for me to completely compare the two.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47118151]Depictions of him aren't allowed because they think he'll become idolized. What I don't get is why they can't just not idolize him? Just acknowledge that his picture means "Oh hey he's the guy that did stuff and said things" and it can't be that different from how they already do it, right? It's like their reasoning for punishing a woman for being raped. "She was tempting me!" And you were powerless to say "no"? I thought part of that whole religious spiel was to not be tempted?[/QUOTE] No the idea is to have no other idols apart from God. You have to remember that apart from all of this ignorant shitslinging, Islam developed as an extension/revision of Christianity just as Christianity developed as an extension/revision of Judaism. One of the perceived problems was the fact that a human being (Jesus Christ) was being revered as God, which might or might not have happened after Jesus lived and died. By not allowing his pictures, statues or any likeness to be made, Muhammed initially tried to avoid any undue divinity and worship being placed on anything other than God (the same God of all Abrahamic religions mind you). It is not even expressly forbidden in the Quran as far as I know. It is just an extension of have no false idols. Also saying "well why can't they stop themselves from idolizing him" is not really a solution now is it? Unfortunately not many people (Muslims and non-Muslims) are aware of this nowadays. Obviously as he is the prophet of Islam Muhammed is very important and respected by Muslims, but the actual idea behind not allowing drawings was not out of respect but to make sure God was/is the only divinity and no false idols were worshipped. Finally not all denominations follow the no depiction rule. Some smaller sects do have paintings of Muhammed and the other caliphs that came after him. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] Sorry I just realized this was a bit vague, the main point is actually anything that might lead people follow a false idol is prohibited in Islam, and it is just that having drawings/statues/depictions of Muhammed is the one that would get most followers (with the hindsight of what happened in Christianity). If you were to get enough Muslims to revere a tree as divine that would be just as against Islam as depicting Muhammed with the intention of making him an idol.

[QUOTE=Fetret;47118429]No the idea is to have no other idols apart from God. You have to remember that apart from all of this ignorant shitslinging, Islam developed as an extension/revision of Christianity just as Christianity developed as an extension/revision of Judaism. One of the perceived problems was the fact that a human being (Jesus Christ) was being revered as God, which might or might not have happened after Jesus lived and died. By not allowing his pictures, statues or any likeness to be made, Muhammed initially tried to avoid any undue divinity and worship being placed on anything other than God (the same God of all Abrahamic religions mind you). It is not even expressly forbidden in the Quran as far as I know. It is just an extension of have no false idols. Also saying "well why can't they stop themselves from idolizing him" is not really a solution now is it? Unfortunately not many people (Muslims and non-Muslims) are aware of this nowadays. Obviously as he is the prophet of Islam Muhammed is very important and respected by Muslims, but the actual idea behind not allowing drawings was not out of respect but to make sure God was/is the only divinity and no false idols were worshipped. Finally not all denominations follow the no depiction rule. Some smaller sects do have paintings of Muhammed and the other caliphs that came after him. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] Sorry I just realized this was a bit vague, the main point is actually anything that might lead people follow a false idol is prohibited in Islam, and it is just that having drawings/statues/depictions of Muhammed is the one that would get most followers (with the hindsight of what happened in Christianity). If you were to get enough Muslims to revere a tree as divine that would be just as against Islam as depicting Muhammed with the intention of making him an idol.[/QUOTE] Sooo what you're saying is Muslims have no self-control?

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47111283]Frankly it is a terrible religion. Why is it most of FP feels wholly comfortable with shitting on christianity, but go "ooo aah" when someone criticizes the oppressive and backwards aspects of Islam that are not only present in the ideology but also practiced by the majority of the countries it is dominant in? I can only think its because christianity is associated with being white (ignorantly so) while practicing Islam is associated with being a ~~minority~~ (again, ignorantly so) and therefore above any reproach or criticism. Most of the world is [B]sane[/B], friend. You don't have to be neurologically damaged to practice oppressive belief systems or commit acts of violence as an extension of the will of your preferred deity.[/QUOTE] It's nice to see Islamaphobia is well alive on Facepunch and people justify it by calling anyone who calls them out a "stupid SJW". Islam is hardly the problem, it's people using the religion for their perverted ways and campaigns.