Draw Muhammed Day

Pertaining to any discovery, principle, or aspect of science and/or technology. Open debates and discussions are welcome. Also now dealing with any happening in the news.

Moderator: Geeks United

User avatar
zeid
Chaos Rift Junior
Chaos Rift Junior
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:58 pm

Re: Draw Muhammed Day

Post by zeid »

as for your little list. really, did you even look at it.
Yes I did, and saw a lot of ones that werent really just strange, but it's on wikipedia and I don't make a habit of looking to far for something like that. I just needed a quick sample to show what I meant and there are certainly terms on there people would find very offensive so that is why I used it.
soon enough we are gonna start killing people because we think lady gaga has a lollypop and not a muffin.
hehehe. I had a little chuckle over that.

On a final note I think everyone who can be considered sensible is on the same page, fighting (getting violent) over this is just plain stupid. It has been said earlier, and deserves to be said again; People should be entitled to their rights, so long as they violate the rights of others, or bring to harm others.
Axolotl Pop!
Image
Or, try it for free.

For many more free games online visit www.sam-zeid.com
User avatar
EccentricDuck
Chaos Rift Junior
Chaos Rift Junior
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:18 pm
Current Project: Isometric "2.5D" Airship Game
Favorite Gaming Platforms: PS2, SNES, GBA, PC
Programming Language of Choice: C#, Python, JScript
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

Re: Draw Muhammed Day

Post by EccentricDuck »

zeid wrote:
soon enough we are gonna start killing people because we think lady gaga has a lollypop and not a muffin.
hehehe. I had a little chuckle over that.

On a final note I think everyone who can be considered sensible is on the same page, fighting (getting violent) over this is just plain stupid. It has been said earlier, and deserves to be said again; People should be entitled to their rights, so long as they [don't] violate the rights of others, or bring to harm others.[sic]
I assume you meant "don't" so I added that in there. But I have some serious questions. Do you believe that a man should be entitled to his full rights when he responds to "nushuz" (translated to disloyalty, disobedience, opposition, and several other related terms that are debated) by beating his wife violently? It has many interpretations, and apparently many scholars say that it should refer to a light beating that is without pain, bruising, etc (does this still make it okay, really?), but that doesn't seem to persuade many islamic courts when their husband gets let off the hook for violently beating his wife, and she gets thrown out into the streets, in prison, or further punishment for her refusal to treat her husband as her superior (however nushuz is translated, there's a place it's used in the Quran where it's used to clearly refer to a woman thinking she is not subordinate to her husband - it refers to a woman not being allowed to refuse having intercourse with her husband).

We're talking about the religion, so we have to look at what's in the book (in this case the Quran). You know what though, I still don't think what's written in the book is enough, so I think we should also look at what's practiced since much of what is in writing can be left up to interpretation. Having said that, I feel that what is practiced is often very much in the vein of violation of individual rights. The fact is that domestic violence is incredibly high in places like Afghanistan (and unfortunately, we don't have accurate statistics for many other islamic countries), women are routinely treated as second class citizens by Islamic legal systems, and many of the controversial passages in the Quran that we consider archaic and existent in other religions (the Bible has a lot of pretty screwed up stuff too) are practiced whereas they aren't typically in most other major religions (and where they are and violate individual freedoms those practices should be abolished, according to what you said above - and I would happen to agree). What do you think about this:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... ome.regcon

A girl got raped by 5 men, became pregnant, and got 100 lashes and a year in jail for adultery and subsequently seeking an abortion. Keep in mind that Saudi Arabia ranks as one of the more developed Islamic countries. What are your opinions on arranged marriages for girls at the age of 6 or 7, to be married by the age of 9 or 10 (without choice and consumated at that time) - because that is legally allowed under Islamic Law. I'm posing these questions because the answers, if they're in a fully tolerant vein, seem to clash with what you said about people being entitled to their rights unless they violate the rights of others. It's a bit of a juxtaposition.
User avatar
zeid
Chaos Rift Junior
Chaos Rift Junior
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:58 pm

Re: Draw Muhammed Day

Post by zeid »

Yeah I did mean to say "don't".
Do you believe that a man should be entitled to his full rights when he responds to "nushuz" (translated to disloyalty, disobedience, opposition, and several other related terms that are debated) by beating his wife violently?
Firstly I would like to say that this is a law based on someones (not everyones) interpretation of the religion. It is also localised to a particular area, there are practicing Muslims in America who would consider such things as barbaric.

Secondly when I am saying you should be entitled to your rights, I am refering to basic human rights.

As I am talking about human rights, and not the legal rights of that area;
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
The man would be in direct violation of that right, as he is treating the woman as inequal, without dignity and is not acting in conscience with a spirit of brotherhood.

I was not referring to the law of any country or all countries. I am well aware that many laws or (perhaps all) justice systems in areas could be considered directly in conflict with human rights; and that many of these laws are derrived from the religions that were prominate at the time of the laws creation. It's also important to remember people flat out ignore parts of the Bible and other religious texts as well as laws to better support the ideals of modern times.
...Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. [1 Timothy, chapter 2]
In this quote from the Bible, the religon most of the western world's laws were heavily influenced by, sexism is being promoted. Of course as a whole we don't advocate such things. I could throw out numerous quotes from the bible that are just bizzare or seem to condone; slavery, sexism, ethnic cleansing, etc. But we (as a whole) don't follow these quotes as we have evolved as a society and strive to live by the premise that every man, woman and child; regardless of race or religion should be treated as equals. Remember how women had to 'win' their right to vote. This demonstrates how the inequality that was once so prominent is progressively becoming less so. It also shows that peoples values change over time and that the writtings of someone, however long ago it may be, do not necassarily reflect the views of it's reader.

A state law from Illinois;
A man's female companion shall call him "master" while out on a date. The law does not apply to married couples.
This law is not upheld for obvious reasons. But many such laws exist in America and other parts of the world, and are merely ignored either because they are dated or just strange due to the reason behind them being long forgotten.
New York;
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll.

So in short, no I don't condone the beating of a women, or treatment of a women as an inferior in any regard. If you feel your religion condones such a thing then your interpretation of your religion is wrong. Regardless of whether the religion at it's core is 'violent' you are the only one who can control how you read the religous text, and chose to follow it (or whether to follow it at all).

So again:
It is the interpretations people bring to their religions that promote violence, whether or not the religion is violent at it's core.
Axolotl Pop!
Image
Or, try it for free.

For many more free games online visit www.sam-zeid.com
User avatar
EccentricDuck
Chaos Rift Junior
Chaos Rift Junior
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:18 pm
Current Project: Isometric "2.5D" Airship Game
Favorite Gaming Platforms: PS2, SNES, GBA, PC
Programming Language of Choice: C#, Python, JScript
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

Re: Draw Muhammed Day

Post by EccentricDuck »

I get what you're saying and I agree with you, but it still stands that Sharia Law, which forms the foundation of all Islamic legal systems (being divided primarily in Sunni and Shi'a, both of which tend to interpet what we're talking about in similar ways) tends to advocate those things that we'd consider in violation of basic human rights (I'd say not as much in places like Indonesia, but it's definitely true in countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and often in the Emirates). It is not just a collection of archaic passages that are outdated and not practiced. I realize that the majority of people who practice Islam in the West do not abide by those interpretations and would say that those passages are outdated or are "wrongly interpreted", though in general, Islam seems to be interpreted more strictly and absolutely than the Bible (though there are exceptions to this too, but there's generally a much stronger division between Church and State - and I take a similar stance when people's rights are threatened under any religious pretenses).

I know this is a slight tangent from the original topic, but I think it's an important point to bring up. There's a lot of resentment for Islam's human rights record through out the Middle East - and the aforementioned countries which operate under Islamic legal systems (I know that list isn't exhaustive, but they're the ones that came to mind) often turn a blind eye or even support those abuses. Not only that, but the issue is even more complex in several parts of Europe where many Muslim communities want to set up Shariah Law for their community (or wider scale in some cases), operating within the bounds of their own laws - and given the examples set by the many of the existing systems it's a heated topic for good reason. The idea of another cultural group setting up a micro legal system, or integrating their legal system with yours, in your country raises massive concerns as it is - but when that legal system has a history of human rights abuse (by the rights that you and I consider to be inaliable human rights) it really challenges the idea of open acceptance and integration that is a hallmark of most modern Western societies.

I don't know whether cartoons are really a good idea or not. On one hand I say "way to stand up for your rights and concerns"; but I think that a better approach would be to raise topics like this explicitly (the problem of course being that if people aren't getting offended or hurt in some way then the media never latches onto it and these issues get shrugged off anyway).
Post Reply