We had again a terrorist attack in France yesterday. A teacher has been killed, because he wanted to show children what a caricature is.
So he showed a caricature of the prophet Mahomet. He asked muslim children to go out so that their feeling wouldn’t be heart.
How can you be so childish, immature, to go on a ramapge like this. They always say that France is racist and dicriminates against its muslim population, but they (some muslims) have problems and it is up to them to sort it out!
Free speech is under attack. And not just in France.
Good ideas can be defended by logic and reasonable persuasion. Bad ideas can only be defended with violence. Islam is so violent because it is such a very bad idea.
I agree, i think these people are nevrotic, immature and self entilted. I consider the muslim population in France as legitimately french (unlike others) but… a sizable portion of it doesn’t respect the social contract.
Truly they are chidren, they usually disparage anything that isn’t islamic but when it comes to them they became angry, pathetic!
I have made the point every time a Muslim comes here and claims the Koran is the perfect word of a perfect deity. If it’s so perfect then why do so many Muslims expend so much energy violently suppressing all criticisms of it? Surely these criticisms would be demonstrably ineffectual, against the words of an omniscient?
President Emmanuel Macron called Islam “a religion that is in crisis all over the world.” He faced strong backlash around the world, especially from Islamist leaders like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
My question… is this action of killing someone over a drawing OK?
If it’s OK with Muslims (regardless of moderate or extreme) then I’d say Macron has a valid point.
Where is the Muslim’s condemnation of this action?
Oh Muslims will condemn, to distance themselves of this act, not out of compassion for the victims.
Actually, some will, but a lot of muslims are ambivalent about violence.
I’m sure many do think it is OK.
Here is a blast from the past where a Muslim was trying to convince us here at AR that blood money (money paid from a murderer, to the family of their victim) is itself justice (and that no other legal action need be taken against a murderer).
Of course I broadly agree, but I’d phrase the question differently.
Does any Muslim think the act of caricaturing Mohammed is equally or even more morally bad than the murder of someone for doing it?
I think that answer would show whether the holder of the belief was in moral crisis as a result of that religious belief.
Yes … much better wording.
Go to google images and search for : “paintings of the Prophet Muhammad” The result will be dozens of not hundreds of images.
Depictions of the prophet have not always been forbidden.
The Quran says BOTH women and men should be modest in appearance. The wearing of burqa and niqab are tribal practices which predate Islam by centuries. Not sure from where the customs come. I think perhaps pre Islamic Persia. Same goes for the disgusting practice of female circumcision. I mean tribal, not necessarily Persian.
I will make no sweeping generalisations about Islam nor of Muslims.
"The prohibition against depiction didn’t stretch everywhere though - many Shia Muslims appear to have a slightly different view. Contemporary pictures of Muhammad are still available in some parts of the Muslim world, according to Hassan Yousefi Eshkavari, a former Iranian cleric, now based in Germany. He told the BBC that today, images of Muhammad hang in many Iranian homes: “From a religious point of view there is no prohibition on these pictures. These images exist in shops as well as houses. They aren’t seen as insulting, either from a religious or cultural viewpoint.”
If a deity with limitless power and knowledge exists, and doesn’t want anyone to caricature Mohammed, then why doesn’t it make every living person aware of its wishes directly? Why does it require the post ad hoc barbarity if one its adherents to punish someone after the fact?
I think most rational people have a pretty good idea why.
Like not existing? Probably.
Well there aren’t too many obvious conclusions. Either a) a deity exists, or b) a deity does not. So if its b), then that certainly provides a rational explanation for its reticence on this point. If however it is a), then I can’t fathom a rational explanation for it not directly informing every living human of its wishes.
I could buy the explanation that this god/deity/whatever does not care about what we think of it. Which to me, if there was such a creating “deity,” this would be the most likely situation, (in human terms it is roughly like being interested in the affairs of the billions of tiny living things you inhale every time you breath in.)
But then, what is the point of religion/worship?
It is just another huge, insurmountable hole in the whole god/religion concept that all the “believers” happily ignore.
Can I cut in?
Yes I ignored quite a bit until I educated myself right, and realized Christianity was one in many religions I found out. Then began to wonder if there was any actual evidence to backup Christianity.
(No) is the answer I came to as I pretty much realized there’s no evidence for a deity at all.
Shrugs watching The Amazing World Of Gumball.
And also high.
Yes of course, but then the claim it cares whether we caricature Mohammed would be negated of course. Also I try not to speculate aimlessly, and my suggestion of two scenarios in this context was merely to examine the rationale of the barbaric and violent reaction to creating an image and calling it Mohammed.
I didn’t know that, although I’m not surprised.
It’s my understanding that the prohibition is claimed to have come from Muhhammad to prevent idolatry. That suggests the prohibition is in an hadith. Although some cleric may have put a fatwah on the practice perhaps centuries ago(?). I’ll have a look around later if I remember.
Yep, combine lack of actual evidence for the idea with “why would such a powerful entity even care about humans” and the idea looks really sunk.
I would like to, as well, but all there is with any god concept, is just endless speculation, because well, as we all know, a completely unevidenced idea is open to endless speculation. I do some speculation because it just highlights how insane and unworkable the whole idea is.
If there was a fountain that turned water into wine instantly, and people pointed to that as evidence for their god idea, I could actually stop speculating and go and examine said fountain, and if this miracle was evidenced, then I would try to evidence it to any particular god idea. (If we move the fountain from one religiously signficant location to another, does it keep producing wine out of water?)
All your conversation are very interesting, as usual. I wonder why people get offended when we say something about their prophets and (G)gods. Seriously, by doing this justice, are they not blasphemating? Like an offense should be an affair between the “offender” and the god…
As for Mahomet, did it ever cross their minds that he is the perfect human only for them?