Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Joker

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. That's an interesting question. I look forward to seeing the response. I suspect our current government in the UK would rely on public condemnation to deter the publishers, but they might do things differently in the US.
  2. In all our exchanges, you have been the one to push the envelope with ever more intemperate language, 'beyond ridiculous' being only the latest upping of the ante. Feel free to argue otherwise if you like, but there is a function called 'Ignore' for occasions when you think that another poster's words don't suit your palate. You won't need to suffer my 'venom' at all, and I promise not to take any offence.
  3. It might be deemed petty to question if there is a way to use 'your rights to hurt others' properly, but if people have a right to not be insulted, given that the level of offence felt is a personal thing, who is in a postion to judge when offence is given? Not me, as I have already made clear. It is common for the authorities to hold that if someone feels that they have been racially abused, then they have been, but it's a slippery slope. If such a 'right' were applied to religion, 'The Last Temptation Of Christ' and 'Jerry Springer, The Musical' could neve have been made. Good, some would say, but it certainly wouldn't have stopped there. I think that a 'right' to not be insulted is a nebulous concept, but that doesn't mean that I think there should be no way of achieving redress if one feels slandered. This whole childrens' versus adults' free speech thing is interesting, though. In Britain, generally, we have a clear distinction between what is acceptable for each group to read, and the latter have much more freedom. I suspect that for Muslims, either a publication can be read by all, or none. Very different cultures.
  4. I haven't labelled you as an enemy, just someone stuck in a rut and apparently unaware of it. The way you do keep misrepresenting me, even though I have pointed it out more than once, and the 'your very words are dripping with venom' line, don't encourage any other impression of your attitude towards me. I think there is a debate to be had here, but the two of us won't be having it, obviously.
  5. 4000 American Deaths In Iraq And Afghanistan

    Ah, good to see no venom dripping around here, anyway...
  6. Yes, Dot's original post was a perfect example of 'humble Islam' in practise. As was the second post, with it's reference to a price being put on Rushdie's head, and I had quite forgotten that it also higlighted the equation of bin Laden with a man who had supposedly earned a horrible death. Thanks for pointing that out. You feel I'm venomous, and it's your right to feel that way, just as it's my right to feel that you have a huge chip on your shoulder, and have to keep bringing it back to what you claim I'm 'trying' to do. Of course, anything I say that you don't agree with (which seems to be everything) will be viewed as venomous by you. Your persistent attempts to misrepresent my opinions is less open to interpretation. If you stop thinking of me as an enemy, a bug to be squashed, you might aquire some objectivity, and make some headway in this discussion. Consider the beam in your own eye, style'o'thing (see, religion can teach us something, atheists as well as devotees).
  7. Why do you end your posts with the word 'Salam', when you are apparently trying to pick a fight? I never said the words which you call 'an absurd generalisation'. There are a number of issues raised by Rushdie's knighthood. One of them has been that it somehow justifies more killings. That he has been just as responsible for inciting violence as bin Laden. You seem to be desperate for this to be about non-Muslims telling Muslims how to feel, and complain when I bring it to a solid, factual basis of how people who claim to be Muslims act. If we can't debate what might be a reasonable response to Rushdie's book, there certainly is no point in debating at all. And I always like to think there is a point in debating.
  8. That's the first thing that ocurred to me when I heard about the fuss. Mind you, the scholars who awarded Osama bin Laden the 'Sword of Allah' must regard a knighthood as comparable to that honour, and bin Laden's actions, and their effects on Christians among others, on a par with the violation felt by Muslims. It seems to me like an odd alignment for that reason.
  9. I'll say again, I'm not going to tell anyone what they should regard as insulting to themselves. Whether you think it's germane or not, though, the response to the perception of insult is relevant. Do you tolerate the actions of people who commit murder in the name of your religion, or judge them to be giving devout Muslims a bad name? I would like to hear your key notes on the merit of 'Mein Kampf', though, although technically, it's no more of a work of fiction than 'A Guide For The Perplexed'. It was intended by Hitler to foster extremism. Kind of a 'Feel the Fanaticism And Do It Anyway' style'o'thing..
  10. Well, if it helps, I've certainly been proven to be not as exact with my language as I might have been. I should have said 'a similar chorus of revulsion'. For all the protests in India, do you think a film version of 'The Satanic Verses' would attract no more animosity? That the producers could find actors prepared to take the risk of appearing in it? Can you really see such a movie being made?
  11. Yes, I saw the quote about the Da Vinci Code protests later in the thread, but I also noted that they were taking place in India. Christian or Islamic, they seem to regard a perception of people taking liberties with their beliefs a lot more seriously in 'The East'. On the other hand, the violent Rushdie protests (including book burnings) reached Britain. Partly because Rushdie was taking shelter in Britain, of course, but might there not have been an element of using the issue to rally Muslims to an extremist banner? And neither the Pope, nor any other Christian leader, has called for Dan Brown's execution.
  12. As long as people assert that a book is anti-Islamic, obviously. I have seen a few assertions on this thread that suggest that the chief objectors are not taking the trouble to read and comprehend exactly what the 'defenders' are saying, though. I see very little of Muslims being told what they should be offended by, for example. I would say, how you feel about the book is your own business (though it would be a plus if it was an informed opinion, as hopefully it will be soon), but the public response to the book is another matter. I wonder, does the book become more insulting in proportion to the number of people who are killed by protestors, or does a lengthening death toll detract from the moral argument against the book, because the killing is un-Islamic? Or is such slaughter un-Islamic? This doesn't answer my question, though, which is: have memberships been terminated because of this thread?
  13. See where I highlighted. Unless Abbas himself denies his own claim, admitting that he was relying on his recollection of a translation he heard a few weeks previously, Haaretz has no reason to refute the story. A newspaper can quote any old nonsense, as long as the source raises no objections.
  14. What does that mean? That people voluntarily terminated their membership?
  15. I don't know what an auteur-extraordinaire is, but 'pompous ######' seems like a more useful phrase. Can anyone 'insult' a great religion?