"Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article? This is not the way of modern western countries. If this were about a perceived insult to the Catholic Church or a Pentecostal Church, I have no doubt we would have been given the bald facts - including what was actually said that caused offence. We should stop tip-toeing around Islam."
That's the top comment on the Washington Post article, "Muslim nations slam India over insulting remarks about Islam." I read that comment after reading the article, paragraph by paragraph, getting more and more exasperated by the lack of any quote of the "insulting remarks."
পোস্টগুলি
১০৭টি মন্তব্য:
""Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article?"
Everybody knows why, but they won't say that, either.
a non-Mohammedan to quote QUrran verbatim is an insult to the Prophet = for defiling the Divine Language
But they have no problem calling half the country RACISTS. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”-Kevin Alfred Strom.
Critical Muslim Theory - It's an insult until I say it isn't.
If you don't buy the Constitution, you can't be an American, is a good rule for immigration. It's not enforced, so if you insult Islam you get shot. So editors tend to pussyfoot.
Trust the offended. They can't be wrong. They tell you so!
"Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article?"
Might be because no one wants the last works they hear to be allahu akbar.
The bully principle works in international affairs. The two biggest actors on this are Islam and China. Watch how the Biden Administration kowtow’s to China. Trump never did this. I miss him on the global stage.
Oh good lord. She quoted the Hadith about Alisha being 6 when Mo married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage. That and the quotes about the earth being flat and Mo riding a “ magic steed” (winged horse like creature) on the night journey. These are standard, Rock hard beliefs in Islamic theology - and remember - the Quran and Hadith are never wrong! ( it tells you that, so you can’t play word games)
The usual suspects don’t like their dirty laundry being exposed - especially the Alisha one because that’s the child bride ticket.
Don’t offend - by not quoting their own scripture ?
"Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article? This is not the way of modern western countries. If this were about a perceived insult to the Catholic Church or a Pentecostal Church, I have no doubt we would have been given the bald facts - including what was actually said that caused offence. We should stop tip-toeing around Islam"
WHy reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate? If someone made a slur against judaism would you want it reprinted? That Catholics and Christians are such cucks, and don't mind blasphemy, doesn't mean Jews and Muslims have to be.
any different from BBC altering words of the rape victim? about the rapist?
Phobia - an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
"Islamophobia" is an oxymoron; it is rational to fear or be averse to Islam. The news media folks obviously fear Islam, and rationally so, which is why they won't even quote the comments made about the so-called "Prophet". The murderous Islamic attack on Charlie Hebdo was 7 years ago, but it is not forgotten. Cartoons mocking the "Prophet" can get you killed.
I tried using Google to come up with the quote, but haven't found it yet. The world of journalism doesn't seem to display much bravery.
Well, it the WP, who is OK with genital mutilation, grooming gangs, and keeping women as cattle if you're a member of the 'correct' religion.
A real-life 'Handmaid's Tale' and they've never noticed...
Why should the complainers supply any information that could be used against them? This is all about Taking Offense: an exercise in emotional theater, not based on reason but in fact on the absence of reason. It would distract the audience and weaken the presentation if the actual text were available. The audience would be able to compare the words with the reaction to them and evaluate if the reaction was reasonable. We can't have that! The whole project is about winding the volume to 11 and forcing concessions!
"Well if we told you what they were you might not think they were insulting at all. Can't have that now, can we?"
But it is the way of modern western countries. There are certain words we do not use and cannot repeat even in an academic context. Someone who repeats certain words or even alludes to those words in a particular (e.g. the "one letter" word) way will be publicly excoriated and hounded from his/her/their job, etc.
Those words to which I refer primarily have to do with race and ethnicity but recently there are words in the gender category that also cannot be used or repeated, regardless of the intent.
Why does it matter what the supposedly offensive remark was anyway?
I suppose it's like the 'n-word'.
Not repeating it gives more power to use it over the people who are insulted by it.
Rational fear and the bonus effect of taking a glancing shot at western culture.
Other articles about this reference the "derogatory references to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad". As if we're supposed to accept as fact that that particular Muhammad was not just a prophet, but the Prophet. When writing about Jesus has a news source ever called Him Jesus Christ the Lord?
In the USA there are insulting remarks which no newspaper dares to quote. Not even Althouse will quote them.
Pentecostal aren't known to saw the heads off people who insult them.
There is nothing, nothing, that is beyond satire. Nothing. That you may find x, y, or z as sacred to you in no way binds or restricts me.
The foregoing is the not the way of Muslims as they practice their political system which masquerades under a veneer of religion. Under their system (the Shariah) I and every other non-Muslim must be bound by Islamic strictures and precepts.
No way, Jose.
I think it was Tim Blair (Australia) who once said (in effect IIRC) "If Presbyterians began cutting off heads if their beliefs were insulted, their religion would gain a bit more respect."
One wonders how a religion that has been around since the 7th century has made it this far avoiding insult. No. Not avoiding insult. Demanding no insult.
One would think that after all of these centuries it's glory would be obvious and they would not have to demand a halt to insults. I mean it's one thing to object to bad things being said about you, it's another to behead people over it. It's an interesting approach to recruitment.
In 2010 there was a controversy where threats were made against the television cartoon series South Park for insulting Muhammad. That controversy led to a situation where Facebook allowed its members to insult Muhammad freely for 24 hours.
I remember the enormous landslide of insults -- many were quite vulgar -- that happened on Facebook during that day.
For sure, Facebook would not allow such insults again.
However, that day did put an end to the threats against South Park.
"This is not the way of modern western countries."
Au contraire
The reason no one will use the actual words is that they don't want their heads cut off.
The Religion of Peace at work.
Churchill pegged Islam correctly. It is the most retrograde force in the world.
The global double standard at work. Fuck Muslim nations.
Following up my previous comment.
That day was called Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
Eventually, the guy who threatened South Park was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
No one is afraid Catholics or Pentecostals are going to murder them over a perceived insult. That's why.
"Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article?"
Seriously? Muslims kill people who offend them. Check out thereligionofpeace.com for a sample of the atrocities.
Lefties ignore Muslim mass killings, particularly shootings, because the latter blow up their gun control blather.
BBC News had the same vacuous comments about Islam today. "Nupur Sharma: Prophet Muhammad controversy tests India-Islamic world ties"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61701908
Adherents to Islam have employed international violence against speech since Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses (1988) and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. These were followed by Sept 11, the Dutch media killings, and umpteen other violent acts.
It is similar Christian violence of 500 to 1,500 years ago. Crusades. "Kill them all, God will know his own." With religion, moderation often requires centuries. Many wars and conflicts happen during eras with clashes between zealots.
The vague media descriptions are a therefore a turning phase away from the utopian, Pollyannaish post WW2 Western media. Today media is driven by fear and tribalism rather than its "liberal" principles and universalism. The next generation is therefore bound to be taught nationalistic and conservative values.
>"Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article? This is not the way of modern western countries.<
Oh but it most certainly is. Try repeating the (actual) "N-word" in a news article...
Someone in India probably also formed a mental picture of Mohamed.
Fatwah to follow.
The Wikipedia article about Everybody Draw Mohammed Day includes the following paragraph.
Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse rejected the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day idea because depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. James Taranto, writing in the "Best of the Web Today" column at The Wall Street Journal, also objected to the idea, not only because depicting Mohammed "is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others", but also because "it defines those others—Muslims—as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders." Bill Walsh of Bedford Minuteman wrote critically of the initiative, which seemed "petulant and childish" to him: "It attempts to battle religious zealotry with rudeness and sacrilege, and we can only wait to see what happens, but I fear it won’t be good." Janet Albrechtsen wrote in The Australian, "As a cartoon, it was mildly amusing. As a campaign, it's crass and gratuitously offensive." Writing for New York University's Center for Religion and Media publication, The Revealer, Jeremy F. Walton called the event a "blasphemous faux holiday", which would "only serve to reinforce broader American misunderstandings of Islam and Muslims"
Included in the broad category of "insults to Islam" is the truth. Cite an Islamic source, including their Qur'an and hadiths. If your citing some passage that puts Islam or a Muslim in a bad light, bad light as determined by Muslims, that's an insult justifying some anti-social behavior, including murder, on the part of Muslims.
Example, that their Mohammad is a pedophile. He married a 6-year old, a fact widely known in Islam.
All the kowtowing and coddling of Islam by the D-party -especially after 9/11 — is why I stopped voting D.
Included in the broad category of "insults to Islam" is the truth. Cite an Islamic source, including their Qur'an and hadiths. If your citing some passage that puts Islam or a Muslim in a bad light, bad light as determined by Muslims, that's an insult justifying some anti-social behavior, including murder, on the part of Muslims.
Example, that their Mohammad is a pedophile. He married a 6-year old, a fact widely known in Islam.
The act of non belief in the Muslim religion is insulting to Islam. They should be insulted.
Oh, the reason is simple- Muslims will cut your head off with a knife for insulting their religion, a Christian won't.
On June 1, Delhi Delhi BJP spokesperson Naveen Kumar Jindal wrote in a tweet on his official account on Twitter, asking why the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was not yet 20-year-old.
https://www.siasat.com/arab-citizens-reject-indian-officials-insult-to-prophet-muhammad-2342500/
Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article?
Maybe they called them the en-word??
(Professor Althouse? you know how hard it was for me Not to use the word that cannot be repeated even in a news article. But, i understand, that since your blog is owned and operated by the Google Corp, you Must OBEY)
Another, and worse, example:
I was watching TV news about the shooting at the Catholic Church in Nigeria. The commenter said, "Nigeria is known for having gangs." And that was it. Literally "known for having gangs." On to the next subject.
Now they might not know for sure who was responsible. But what kind of gang shoots parishioners at a Catholic Mass? In a country with Boko Haram and other Islamic groups? Remember "bring back our girls"? Let's take a wild guess at the motive.
Another, and worse, example:
I was watching TV news about the shooting at the Catholic Church in Nigeria. The commenter said, "Nigeria is known for having gangs." And that was it. Literally "known for having gangs." On to the next subject.
Now they might not know for sure who was responsible. But what kind of gang shoots parishioners at a Catholic Mass? In a country with Boko Haram and other Islamic groups? Remember "bring back our girls"? Let's take a wild guess at the motive.
Howard: "The act of non belief in the Muslim religion is insulting to Islam. They should be insulted."
LOL
You have been one of the biggest islamic supremacist suckups over many years at Althouse blog. ALL of your criticisms of religion have been singularly focused on Christians.
Without exception.
So spare us your "brave" hot takes now. You could no more insult an islamic supremacist than you could cut off your own arm.
Just finished Radical Eye for the Infidel Guy: Inside the Strange World of Militant Islam
by Kevin Ryan
The Author does a Very thorough job of showing just How Peaceful, the Religion of Peace IS.
I recommend it to anyone with questions. i HIGHLY recommend it to anyone without questions.
Tim Blair, daily reading turned to haven't thought of him for years. It shows what a paywall can do for you.
Just like you are not allowed to say the “N word”, you are not allowed to repeat any “derogatory” comment about Islam.
rcocean said "Why reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate?"
The problem is that the reader may not agree that the comment in fact is an insult, or Islamophobic, or transphobic, etc. Without knowing what was said, one can't have an intelligent opinion on the dispute at issue.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not a good idea. = 444 comments
Our reflexive response to 'Everybody Draw Mohammad Day'... was sympathetic. But Althouse prompted us to reconsider. = 339 comments
This controversy happened before I began commenting here.
I always wonder what the "racial slur" against American Indians was in news articles. A list is needed so one can be imagined for the case at hand.
In other religious news, today's SF Chronicle features a column encouraging city leaders to create a Drag Laureate - citing the more famous drag personalities like Peaches Christ and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Clever, yes, but were they names poking fun at Islam imagine the resulting fury. But Catholics are taught to turn the other cheek, that is, the one next to your mouth.
Muslims don't take public insults with a smile and good humor. They're not interested in playing the "We're so great, we can take a few insults" "Look at us, we're so broad-minded, we don't mind others shitting on our religion".
As for it "Not being the way of Western democracies". Do you want me to list all the "protected groups" in the USA that you can't insult with being banned, censored, or deplatformed?
Christians aren't "Protected" because they're losers. Its one reason why Church attendance has fallen dramatically. who wants to be part of religion that doesn't care about blasphemy or even someone burning down their churches?
Muslims want to avoid that.
"WHy reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate?"
The purpose it serves is to reveal what somebody unreasonably treats as an insult.
"Why? Are we so afraid of offending Muslims that the words cannot be repeated even in a news article?"
No. it's because the complaint is garbage, and printing what was actually said would let everyone know that the complaint is garbage.
It's a hard and fast rule: any relevant information that is left out of an article is because the writers are dishonest hacks, and the information would disprove their claims.
"X said something bad!" Do they include what the "something bad" is? No? Then it's not actually bad.
Always
Islam literally calls for harm and damage to Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc. If the KKK or somesuch had such a specific and literal call to harm others who didn't believe the "correct" religion, there would be a firestorm of outrage. Muslims let you know that you will be harmed if you say things they don't like. It's time to outlaw Islam in the same way any extremist ideology is outlawed.
You are discovering the difference between an oppressed minority and an oppressive minority.
I realize that the Web culture is evolving and is highly decentralized: sort of like a language emerging under extreme pressure to handle novel phenomena for which words are needed, and where those words, even if acknowledged, will differ from one place to another and will need (secondary) review and adjudication.
But could somebody please tell me when Althouse World will engage systematically with the linguistic-adaptive process, so we can all be recognized and comment? IMHO the recognition is less important than the commenting, but then I'm old fashioned.
rcocean said..
WHy reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate?
Well, people who aren't morons understand that just because someone claims person X said something bad, does not mean that what person X said is actually bad.
If you don't have enough of a mind to be able to independently judge, and / or you lack the willingness to use your ind to judge, what your'e saying is that you have no useful place in any discussion.
Besides which, "the Streisand effect" is a strong positive effect on society, letting bullies and thugs know there will be a high cost for their thuggishness
In the beginning was the word…
Jesus died on the cross so we wouldn’t get our head chopped off for saying something.
#StuffJPmightSayAboutThisPost
The reason there are insults to Catholics and Pentecostals is that no one gets his head cut off for doing so. Easy decision.
In 10 minutes, I've read three articles which elided important facts or concepts: the topic of this post; an article about the 50 Christians murdered in Nigeria (by whom? article doesn't say); and a page about an upcoming RPG which has this beautiful phrase:
The goal here is to establish that an android, a hyena person, a plant person, and a standard human, etc. are not the same, without giving in to biological determinism.
Heaven forfend that you recognize biological determinism by calling it by that word: it might offend the plant people!
Seeing a lot of BS in the comments.
If an article says "he said 'all [n-word] must die!" then we know what was said, and can judge how bad it was or wasn't.
Because if someone is upset at the sentence "the offered payment was niggardly", and claims that's just like using the n-word, then again we have the information we need to judge that person, as a loser.
If you refuse to report "Muslims are upset because person X pointed out that the Quran states that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old", and just say "the reacted to an insult to Islam, then you are the enemy of truth and of understanding.
There is nothing praiseworthy about such a choice
It started when one woman said something about a shivling in the Wazookhana, which I think is kind of like an Indian in the woodpile. I could be wrong about that.
And then another guy brought up the 9 year-old and, well, that escalated quickly.
In video's it all sounds like a family argument behind the counter at the Kwik-E-Mart.
Well, WaPo and their ilk aren't really for free speech, so...
Muslims are the rednecks of the major religions. Quick to anger, easy to offense, violent, will destroy themselves in the feud over what educated people consider something minor. Christians who were like that were/are denigrated, ridiculed, considered uneducated. Certainly not something the credentialed class would tolerate. But for a believer in Islam, the credentialed class support this behavior as appropriate. The educated Muslim whose faith doesn't teeter on the knife edge of insult is considered the oddity. hmmm?
Dr. Mahmet Oz, the Republican nominee for the senate in PA, is a Muslim who holds dual citizenship in Turkey and the US. Just something to keep in mind. You can bet if he were running as a Dem, many of the commenters here would hammer away at those facts.
WHy reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate?
The purpose is to allow readers to use the "reasonable person" test. If the journalist were to do the job of a journalist, the reader would know not only what was said but the contextual information needed in order to decide for oneself whether the level of anger seems appropriate to the level of insult.
Naturally that's not a perfect system. A non-Catholic won't be as offended by desecration of the consecrated host as a devout Catholic, even if the significance of the consecrated host is laid out with precision and accuracy. But the non-Catholic reader could at least then intellectually understand its importance to the devout Catholic and try to use empathy to assess whether the devout Catholic's angry response makes sense in context.
Of course, Christians are supposed to forgive all. Muslims aren't. This is also important context. So there's that.
Mike Sylvester. I have no idea of the motivation behind Draw Mohammed Day. But one result might be, or be hoped for, is that you can say bad stuff about somebody's religion and those who use violence to protest will be prosecuted. It's not the pig's head on the mosque steps every third year, which nobody thinks is a good idea.
You're not special. You're like every other faith tradition in the US. Got that?
" rhhardin said...
I always wonder what the "racial slur" against American Indians was in news articles. A list is needed so one can be imagined for the case at hand."
My partner (native American woman) favors "wagon burner", or if she is feeling particularly uncharitable she goes with "gut eater". I won't touch the second one myself...
It seems to me that kowtowing to Islam with regard to not "defaming" it was when free speech no longer seemed so important to many elites in the West. Not everybody defended Salmam Rushdie. Fewer people defended Ayann Hirsi Ali.
From Wikipedia: "On 27 May 2022, Sharma participated in a debate on the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute on the Times Now channel, during which she commented that the Islamic prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old bride (Aisha) and had sex with her when she was nine years old."
See also, Criticism of Jesus.
Catholics and other Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists don't cut off heads in retaliation.
The insulting remarks are very inside baseball, apparently.
"What did Nupur Sharma say against Prophet Muhammad?
Nupur Sharma had allegedly made controversial comments against Prophet Muhammad during a TV debate on the ongoing Gyanvapi masjid row. Sharma had reportedly said that certain things from Islamic religious books could also be mocked by people. The BJP leader, as per reports, also said that Muslims are mocking the Hindu faith and calling the 'Shivling' claimed to have been found inside the mosque complex a fountain."
https://zeenews.india.com/india/saudi-arabia-bahrain-join-other-arab-nations-to-flay-nupur-sharmas-controversial-remarks-on-prophet-muhammad-top-points-2470887.html
pious agnostic: "In 10 minutes, I've read three articles which elided important facts or concepts: the topic of this post; an article about the 50 Christians murdered in Nigeria (by whom? article doesn't say);..."
Hausa-Fulani and/or Boko Haram carried out the killings.
"Indian giver" is offensive. Hat tip: Seinfeld.
I hope the Muslims will reciprocate their being consistently offended by learning what offends other cultures. The Golden Rule and all that.
WHy reprint an insult?
So the audience can judge for themselves the nature of a claim of insult.
A lot of "insults" these days are simple expressions of counter-opinion, and the claim itself is offensive, particularly when associated with some hinted enforcement action.
Some are ill-reasoned slurs which tar the speaker far more than the target.
If it's news that some group has been insulted, it's crucial to understand the nature of the claimed insult.
If the insult was not news, as it seldom is, then there is no reason to repeat the insult.
Marrying a six year old a millennium and a half ago might not be necessarily mean having sex with her, and the origins of religions are so shrouded in legends that it's hard to say what's true and what isn't. Sure, it shouldn't be a fighting matter or an international crisis, but it's not the sort of thing people in responsible positions should say.
It's nothing worth losing your head over.
I'm glad Drago I can get distracted by his penchant for lying rather than subject us to his Louis CK routine pleasuring himself over his creepy grooming fantasies and aborted dody parts.
We haven't yet used (or even mentioned) the distinction between "Use" of a term or insult, versus the "Mention" of a term or insult.
Should a law professor discussing an assault or duel resulting from an exchange of insults refrain from "mentioning" the terms "used"?
The southerner said the northerner called (a slave) his equal, and spoke the truth.
The northerner said the southerner (spoke untruly) and was also (a renegade soldier)
Scallywags and Klansmen and (N-word) ...
Surely any historical record or report about an offender who USES the insult should MENTION the insult.
I'm Jewish, people offend us all the time, and we seem to be able to live with that.
Of course, American Jews--you offend us, what are we going to do? The threat of panel discussions doesn't scare anyone. The threat of violence does.
what the "racial slur" against American Indians was
Apache, Anasazi, Navajo, Cherokee, etc., when they were not. Diversity [dogma] (e.g. color blocs) is fertile ground for explicit (e.g. "people of color") and inferred (e.g. denial of dignity and agency) insults.
If you're not going to tell the readers what the offense was, why even report on it.
And in other news today, someone did something to someone. And now on to the weather....
I fell into this rabbit hole this morning, and went looking for anything that specified the "insult". Kind of an interesting story.
In 1991, India passed the Religious Practices Act, saying that nobody could change the religious nature of sites from what they were at the time of independence (15 August 1947). That same year (1991), a suit was filed, seeking permission for Hindu worship at the Gyanvapi Mosque. That suit is still open. The site was to be surveyed, as part of the suit. A higher court put a stay in the survey in 2019.
Last month, a video survey was ordered by what seems to be yet another court. The petitioners (Hindus who wish to worship there) say that the video reveals the presence of a Shivling, a representation of Lord Shiva. The Muslim side of the suit say that what was filmed was simply part of a fountain.
The BJP member who has been suspended, in her apology, says that she was outraged that the claim that the Shivling was part of a fountain, was an insult to her religion.
Meanwhile, there is now a petition before a court to ban Muslims from entering the Mosque in dispute. And a Swami is on a hunger strike.
Lest you think that a suit from 1991 has dragged on for a long time, you should be made aware that the Hindus say that the Mosque was built in the site of a pre-existing temple, in the 16th century.
I omitted the many links. Those who want to drop into the rabbit hole can start by googling Gyanvapi Mosque Row, and/or by visiting boomlive.in
I fell into this rabbit hole this morning, and went looking for anything that specified the "insult". Kind of an interesting story.
In 1991, India passed the Religious Practices Act, saying that nobody could change the religious nature of sites from what they were at the time of independence (15 August 1947). That same year (1991), a suit was filed, seeking permission for Hindu worship at the Gyanvapi Mosque. That suit is still open. The site was to be surveyed, as part of the suit. A higher court put a stay in the survey in 2019.
Last month, a video survey was ordered by what seems to be yet another court. The petitioners (Hindus who wish to worship there) say that the video reveals the presence of a Shivling, a representation of Lord Shiva. The Muslim side of the suit say that what was filmed was simply part of a fountain.
The BJP member who has been suspended, in her apology, says that she was outraged that the claim that the Shivling was part of a fountain, was an insult to her religion.
Meanwhile, there is now a petition before a court to ban Muslims from entering the Mosque in dispute. And a Swami is on a hunger strike.
Lest you think that a suit from 1991 has dragged on for a long time, you should be made aware that the Hindus say that the Mosque was built in the site of a pre-existing temple, in the 16th century.
I omitted the many links. Those who want to drop into the rabbit hole can start by googling Gyanvapi Mosque Row, and/or by visiting boomlive.in
Trust AA commenters to suss out the basis for the uproar--well trod ground about the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Modi has kind of a Biden problem. He needs to make nice with mideast autocracies even if that does not make him popular with his base.
rcocean: "WHy reprint an insult?"
To determine, fairly, whether it was an insult. For starters.
"If someone made a slur against judaism would you want it reprinted? "
The use-vs-reference distinction is important here. Reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the deliberately mistranslated Hungarian phrasebook.
Ironically it is now Pride Month, when corporations change their logos to rainbows all over the world. Except the Muslim world. These two stories are related, aren't they?
"Christians are supposed to forgive all. Muslims aren't."
'Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but the pain of an insult endures forever.'
"Islamaphobia" is not irrational, because there is a long track record of harm befalling "those who slander the Prophet," and we all know it. There can be no fear of Islam's adherents that I would term irrational, for the wide variety of evils they are willing to do in the name of their religion including rape and torture outweigh any sensitivities I might normally reserve for "religions."
Howard: "I'm glad Drago I can get distracted by his penchant for lying rather than subject us to his Louis CK routine pleasuring himself over his creepy grooming fantasies and aborted dody parts."
I'm guessing there were at least 4 Talking Point Magic 8-balls used to create that jumbled missive.
Or perhaps your bot algorithm is on the fritz.
Either way had you ever posted anything at all negative about islamic supremacists you could have sinply linked to it.
But you didn't, did you?
Meanwhile your boy Biden is busy ensuring your islamic supremacist pals in Tehran get their hands on a nuke at warp speed, which coincidently also ensures Putin and Xi get additional revenues.
As predicted.
Its interesting that even after the exposure of the democraticals child sexualization and grooming programs, and a majority of democraticals supporting the the DeSantis legislation in Florida, Howard decides now would be a good time to triple down on his hilarious lies that these grooming efforts dont even exist!
Of course, Howards support for child sexualization and grooming in the US mirrors that of many islamic societies.
"Unexpectedly".
One person's "why reprint an insult?" is another person's "why reprint a punchline?"
Islam is a fossil, incapable of creative growth or reform, and civilized people should be thinking of ways to limit the effects of its further decay on us. First step is not to tiptoe around the obvious.
"WHy reprint an insult? What purpose does it serve, except to spread hate? If someone made a slur against judaism would you want it reprinted?"
RC, every word you type is a slur and an insult. So kindly stop typing. No more typing, got it? We don't want to hear any more out of you. I'm sure you'll be happy to oblige, now that I've Islamsplained the matter.
one account, from a source financed by prince talal,
https://web.archive.org/web/20180904081445/http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e14?_hi=2&_pos=1
Prophet Muhammad and Aisha
It would be fascinating to compare Judaic and Islamic law traditions.
It is not unusual for disputing Muslims to seek out Jewish rabbinical arbitrators
Islam is a very legalistic religion According to the Sharee'ah (Islamic law), there is no legal adoption. It is prohibited for a person to legally adopt a son or a daughter of whom he is not the biological father.
I spent the last hour and a half trying to figure out what the actual insult was that was expressed by Nujur Sharma of the BJP party in India. No luck LOL. I suspect that it had something to do with Mohammed's child bride Aisha, with whom he consummated the marriage when she was nine years old.
whats that line, no one gets angry when the wookie winds, prince talal is a supporter of salafis like the late jamal khashoggi, against secularists as far as such a thing exists in saudi, like prince salman, whose side is the administration on, do you have to ask, this atttitude pushed by the likes of rob malley is largely why india is on the fence, in the current dust up
I read several articles this morning, trying to figure out what was said. A couple of them danced around it close enough for me to guess, but I'm still not sure.
I am less concerned about a man marrying a child bride hundreds of years ago than I am about it still being done now. There was a news story last year about a 9-year-old who was sold by her family. Then, after backlash, she was returned to them (although the man who bought her made a profit off the whole deal.) I wonder if any reporters have checked with Parwana Malik's family to see if she's still living with them or has been sold again.
Rollo said...
Marrying a six year old a millennium and a half ago might not be necessarily mean having sex with her, and the origins of religions are so shrouded in legends that it's hard to say what's true and what isn't.
I guess you're ready to have your head chopped off for insulting Islam, yes?
Because that information is taken from the Quran, which Muslims hold to be the inerrant Word of God.
As such, what you said is blasphemy, and worthy of execution
Sure, it shouldn't be a fighting matter or an international crisis, but it's not the sort of thing people in responsible positions should say.
Why not? Apparently Muslims were attacking the Hindu religion, and so a Hindu returned the favor.
What your claim boils down to is Islam is entitled to treatment that no other religion is entitled to.
GFY
Blogger Howard said...
I'm glad Drago I can get distracted by his penchant for lying rather than subject us to his Louis CK routine pleasuring himself over his creepy grooming fantasies and aborted dody parts.
I think Howard must be into grooming since he gets so excited. Did I see your photo in there, Howard?
If the Defenders of Islam wanted to find a way to tell the world that the Koran really does contain passages about the Prophet Mohammad marrying a 6-year old and consumating the marriage when she was 9, they could not have done better than this.
But I do not think that educating the world about anything other than "We will kill you if you do not submit" is the point.
It's usually the Aisha story.
Muhammad's biographer Rodinson notices that in some cases Muhammad seemed very unwilling to do Allah's will, and in other cases he prayed to be shown what it was. Sometimes he waited patiently for guidance when he really really wanted to do something, as in the case of young Aisha, and when he did the Big Guy always came through eventually, with a wink.
If free speech is not worth dying for… it might explain the hesitant Uvalde police.
No, that doesn't come from the Koran, but from the Hadith, a set of reports about Mohammed. It isn't regarded as inspired, and scholars have disagreed about whether it should be regarded as factual or authoritative. So yes, it's part of those legends that grow up around the founders of a religion.
And yes, people do say a lot of nasty things about other religions, but one expects authorized spokesmen to refrain from responding to provocations.
Sure, Islam is a bully and China is a bully. Western culture and the US have also been bullies.
"If someone made a slur against judaism would you want it reprinted? "
"And then he repeated the blood slur against Jews, claiming that made matzah out of the block of dead Gentiles"
What sane pro-Jewish person has a problem with that reporting?
Here, let's turn it around, tell us what "slur against judaism" is so horrible that the fact that it was made can only be reported at the risk of harming Jews?
Rollo said...
And yes, people do say a lot of nasty things about other religions, but one expects authorized spokesmen to refrain from responding to provocations.
Only if one is a moron or a pathetic loser. Or an utter ignoramus who knows nothing about the "authorized spokesmen" of the other side (or is it that for you they ARE your side?).
Sure, Islam is a bully and China is a bully. Western culture and the US have also been bullies.
Yep, and the US is called out when it does wrong. Just as the others should be called at, and ARE called out by the decent human beings who aren't cowards
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন