Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Recently I have seen a lot of discussion around some radicals threatening assassination over the following image/video:


I was just curious as to why people are willing to escalate from a simple picture and video to something as horrible as threats of murder.

I am also a bit curious as to why the publicized outrage is so one sided. Is it a case of the media not advertising the rational Muslims speaking out against the radicals, or is it a case of many Muslims actually supporting not just censorship but capital punishment for violation of said censorship?

Furthermore, while I know what many of my friends and the locals would say in response to this, I am interested in a more diverse pool:

Where do people stand on issues like the inherent human rights to free speech and religion? Do you not believe in these ideals? Do you believe there are limits?

Just trying to open up a line of discourse and hopefully we can all walk away a little more informed about the world we live in.

[ozymandias]

Why cause offence? We Muslims feel as thoug respect our religion and we won't disturb you.


If someone walks a mile to cause offense,expect a harsh response from us.

That's just the thing. I look at that picture, and not only do I not see anything that could be construed as offensive, I see an image that you would have to walk a thousand miles to take offense from.

The only thing I find offensive over the whole issue is someone who infringes on other people's right to free speech.

If you even watched the episode that is from, you would have seen that they treated Islam with kid gloves, and openly flamed other religions. I would say that they actually treated Islam with quite a bit more respect than other religions -- and got death threats over it.

Do you, or do you not think that was an uncalled for over-reaction?

[Badlun]

We need to strenghten the hands of those are against radical Muslims. All these Taliban and Salafis must be stopped from their barbaric ways not to to ridicule Islam and humanity in this modern world. We need to educate these radicals and teach them that they must be moderate and not extremists.

However others may also not injure sentiments of Muslims by publishing such material which may not be of any use but may let the radicals to have an excuse for terrorism and creating law and order situation where innocent people suffer.

[ozymandias]

We need to strenghten the hands of those are against radical Muslims. All these Taliban and Salafis must be stopped from their barbaric ways not to to ridicule Islam and humanity in this modern world. We need to educate these radicals and teach them that they must be moderate and not extremists.

I agree with this whole-heartedly -- and not just for Muslims, but also for people of all faiths and creeds, including christians and atheists.

However others may also not injure sentiments of Muslims by publishing such material which may not be of any use but may let the radicals to have an excuse for terrorism and creating law and order situation where innocent people suffer.

This, I have a hard time with. I have a hard time understanding why someone should be prohibited, by law or fear, from exercising free speech. I feel strongly that avoiding the exercise of rights through fear is a terrible thing. It is the fault of the terrorists that they cause innocents to suffer -- not the person speaking freely -- and that fear is all the more reason to protect the free speech, not shy away from it. If people were not afraid to speak out against some of these terrorists, we would have an educated world population that would not tolerate terrorism, and the terrorists would slowly die out.

[ozymandias]

HI, Ozymandias.
Welcome to PF.


Well, Yes I do agree that the image is not offensive. But the Muslim world is very sensitive after the cartoons of Mohammad.

I would argue that they were overly sensitive before the Jyllands-Posten incident -- that is why it became an incident, with riots and death threats over a few innocent cartoons. The appropriate reaction to a few political cartoons is not violence!

don't you think that was a bit ridiculous? I mean, Why do such a thing?

Not really, especially in contrast to the images of Jesus (watching internet porn) and Buddha (snorting coke). Of the three depictions, I can see 2 of them offensive -- and one of them as a very pointed political commentary, especially when all three are together.

The only thing ridiculous is threatening to kill over a cartoon of a bear -- that is even more absurd than the original Jyllands-Posten incident -- at least Jyllands-Posten showed cartoons of Mohammed -- and satirical ones at that.

Do you find it offensive that I place this image here?

What if I tell you that that is an image of Mohammed? That's what South Park did. They took a secular image and simply labeled it as Mohammed -- and were threatened with death over it.



Look! he does magic, too!

Looking forward to replies -- opening lines of communication is the first step to healing this world.

[ozymandias]

Ozy,
we as followers take more offense.

cause it has a divine meaning to us as compared to Christians who do not care as much as us.

And that is exactly the point.

Have non Muslims ran out of ideas to irritate us? They want to pick on our holy significant figures? It's deemed to cause offence what positive does one gain?

The positive? Seriously? You have to ask why exercising free speech is a good thing? Why giving up your rights through fear is a bad thing?

I guess we have a larger gulf to bridge here. Free speech is one of the most important things, as it allows you the right to speak out against atrocities and to try and correct the issue. It is the one tool that is most important in defending all other rights. This cartoon was more about how absurd it is to get offended by something not-in-the-least offensive and a poke at free speech -- and these radicals took the bait.

What positive do these people gain by sending death threats? The responded to a soft-ball joke with deadly serious threats...

[ozymandias]

Ozy,
the same way you can't say **** the twin towers death to Obama and depicting the USA in a negative manner without being sent to Cuba the same way we don't want to be demonized.

But I can. That's what free speech is. Well, assuming I am speaking figuratively and not making realistic, believable death threats.

Respect us, we will respect them.

A man in a bear suit offends you? More than death threats over trivial things would?

I respect people of all faiths, until they give me reasons not to respect them. Making death threats over trivial things -- or defending those that make threats is a pretty good reason to not respect someone.

It's not even retaliation, the pure intention was to cause offense.

I disagree. The pure intention was to point out how absurd the idea that that is offensive was the point. Look at what they did to all the other religious figures -- what they did was an attempt to point out how crazy the situation is. They took an absurd situation (being fearful of displaying images of a religious figure) and took it to absurd lengths to accent the absurdity -- and evidently they did not take it to absurd enough lengths as someone still threatened them with torture and death.




Here is is rocking out!

[Master Khan]

Oh yeah thats South Park.
They got balls for doing that I must say. well they not showing our prophet but still I don't like them puting our prophet in a comedy cartoon.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

The point you seem to fail to graps on is that doing such a thing causes offense to a Muslim.

No, what I don't understand is why a little offense is worth a death threat -- and why more people are not outraged.

It offends me that someone is trying to limit free speech -- but I am not threatening torture and death over it.

I respect freedom of speech,

Not if you are defending death threats over a silly cartoon.

but to what extend do you describe freedom of speech?

Always and forever -- with the single exception that when you restrict other's rights, or cause measurable and deliberate harm. Shouting 'fire' in a theater? Not free speech. Threatening death? Not free speech. Political or religious commentary? Free speech.

[/quote]

In what context. It is more then obvious that disrespecting Islam and using the freedom of speech is clear that anyone is attempting to stirr up controversy.

[/quote]

.... so? Controversy is not even bad -- especially if it is used in a way that promotes freedom. It was controversial to end racist policies in America -- or allow women to vote. That doesn't make it bad. It might be controversial to show a cartoon bear, but if it points out the absurdity of radicals and extremists, and makes it harder for their ideas to spread its great.

[/quote]

It's a way to gain attention, that is how I see it.[/QUOTE]

Again, so? Just because it was just to gain attention doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.

[Palwasha]

I haven't watched the episode neither have I heard anything about this whole thing until now, but here’s my intake anyhow.

I don’t support the death threats, I think it should be handled in a more civilised manner. However, Muslims don’t have much media influence in the West, thus they don’t have as many means of expressing their responses or anger.

I understand that you fail to understand why Muslims respond in such a livid manner. Firstly, remember that those who threaten don’t necessarily represent all Muslims, they act on their own behalf. So don’t generalise that every Muslim wants the perpetrators dead.

Please forgive me for using such an example, my intention is not to offend, rather it’s just for the sake of argument; if someone was to illustrate your mother (or someone dear to you), as a prostitute and printed it in national newspaper, how would you react..? Muhammad (PBUH)’s followers love him and value him immensely, to insult him would be seen as worse than if one’s own relatives were being made a fool of. Therefore, naturally they would go far to defend his honour.

When you offend someone you’re essentially attacking them, so don’t be surprised if a few of those people are upset enough to respond or cause a commotion. If you hit someone, they’ll hit back.

I would argue that they were overly sensitive before the Jyllands-Posten incident -- that is why it became an incident, with riots and death threats over a few innocent cartoons. The appropriate reaction to a few political cartoons is not violence!

Innocent cartoons? Since when did depicting a dead man, a leader of faith, as a terrorist become innocent? What was the pure intention behind creating those.. maybe one or two will laugh, but two billion are also being offended, so it kinda makes you question the whole point of it all. Also, why is it free speech only when the Muslims are being offended; mentioning the holocaust is ‘anti-Semitic’, talking against gays is ‘homophobic ‘, but insulting Islam seems to be the trend and the only way to exemplify free speech.

Not really, especially in contrast to the images of Jesus (watching internet porn) and Buddha (snorting coke).

Followers of this religion are themselves disrespecting their own leaders of faith, when they sell pictures of them for money and recreate images which end up anywhere. Muslims have gone out of their way not to treat Muhammad (PBUH) in such a manner, we deliberately choose not to replicate any portraits of him out of respect. You don’t see the Islamic media ever publishing cartoons insulting other religions, why can’t we be shown the same courtesy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the calls for murder, just understand it from another perspective as well.

By the way, welcome and why don’t you also introduce yourself a little, it’ll make it easier for us to know in which best way to reply to you.

[Azmatullah]

It is the duty of every Muslim to defend the honour of our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He is dearer to us more than our families, our own selves and everything else.

Why publish/broadcast such images in the first place if you know they will cause offense to the majority of Muslims? Is this suppose to bring some benefit to you?

[pir_Rokhan]

Ozy

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of character assasination. You may diasgree with certain actions or views of Muhammad or even refute all of them,you may also express your disagreement in an academic style but it is immoral to humiliate someone based on difference of opinion.

Having said that,the penalty of death for any such mistake is another extreme. However if you know the basics of human psychology, then it is easy to understand that human beings are fond of idealising as well as idolising things.They unconsciously assign all aspects and attributes of beauty and perfection to a certain character and start loving it.

Till the time they do not have the knowledge to critically scrutinise their hero worship,their love is all emotional and not rational. History has seen this in case of Jesus. The Crusades and dark ages of Europe are on record.

Muslims are still going through an unconscious blind love not based on rationality in case of their prophet. So expecting emotional reaction from muslims in blashphemy of Muhammad is but natural.

In case you have any rational objection over the religion presented by Muahammad or over some aspects of his personality or his views about life and universe ,we could critically analyse them.

Muhammad has intellectual fans both in orient and occident. Personalites like H.G.Wells,Micheal Hart,M.N.Roy,Gandhi etc all have paid tributes to him.

[ozymandias]

Ozy,
wrora,

What is wrong with leaving us Muslims alone to let us worship what we want? Why do they have to jump in and create controversy?

Absolutely nothing. What's wrong with letting non-muslims in the free world exercise their rights without death threats?

[ozymandias]

Hi Ozymandias!! Welcome here. Make yourself home.

Dear,
I think you are thinking of this in a way extreme mindset, It is a simple request that Muslim have, Do not disrespect our religion.


Live your life, drink your beer, smoke your weed but leave our religion out of it. We simply ask people to gain publicity in other ways.

So you are saying threatening *DEATH* and *TORTURE* is not an extremist action in your faith? I can understand asking for respect as non-extremist, but the reaction can only be described as extremist if it involves riots, terrorism, and legitimately feared claims of homicide.

"Please respect our XXX" Is not extremist. "Respect our XXX, or with will torture, kill, and riot" to me is a very extremist reaction. The fact that people on this forum cannot see the difference between the two reactions terrifies me.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias, you are dealing with misconceptions. we will help you.

What misconception do I have? It's been all over the news that these death threats have been made. About the only misconception I might have is that it is only the extremists that support death threats over this -- and it is starting to become clear that either there are more extremists here, or more than just extremists support such a terrible response.