Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
String
Interact
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
Islamic Threat
Islam and Women
You Don't Have to be Ahmad
Female Circumcision
Circumcision
Islamic Golden Age
Allah's Alibi
Theocracy? No Thanks
Only the arrogant
Imagine There is No Religion
Should we Tolerate the Religious?
Swords, Prophets and the Weakness of Gods
No disrespect
Does Islam deserve respect?
There is big difference between commanding respect and deserving respect. Islam is very hot on demanding respect and many Islamists use violence and fear to get their way. This is the way of the bully. I have heard no end of stories of people being bullied by fathers and husbands and cowed into acquiescence. I see this as demanding respect. But such behaviour does not deserve respect. Many bullies, thugs, gang-leaders and warlords have this kind of respect. The respect of the feared and the hated. Such behaviour may command respect but it does not deserve it. If Islam pushes itself forward with tactics like these it invites a hostile response.
What victories has modern militant Islam achieved? I can think of none. Attacks have been made on New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid and London but nothing has been achieved except death, maiming and more hatred for Muslims and all their actions. US policy has hardened towards Islamic regimes, not softened and the resolve to resist is far tougher than it has ever been before. Nothing has happened to help the Palestinian people. No new Islamic regime has come to power (except in Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaida and everything to do with American actions) and no European country is any closer to converting to Islam than it ever has been. All that Islamic militant extremism has done is kill, maim and increase the sum total of hatred and fear in the world and in particular the hatred and fear of Muslims. Expecting more of the same to produce anything different is madness. There is no victory only death and suffering. Islam is hated by more people today than ever.
The Islamists see 9/11 as the story of a handful of glorious Islamic martyrs but they seem blind to the reality that if the concept of the martyr has any currency there were thousands of anti-Islamist martyrs created at the same time.
How is depicting Muhammad an offence against Islam?
Assume for a moment that there is a god and he has a messenger and this god forbids idolatry. Why does he forbid idolatry? Jealousy perhaps? Put that to one side. Idolatry is wrong therefore it is un-Islamic to make icons of Muhammad and worship them. Icons and idols. Surely that does not extend to illustrations in picture books, line drawings in encyclopaedias and cartoons in secular newspapers. Islam forbids Muslims from eating pork, granting women true equal rights, drinking alcohol and idolatry. Islam cannot impose duties upon people who are not adherents to their beliefs. They may think the entire universe is run by their god but the rest of humanity doesn't and must stand firm and say so.
There is not and cannot be any prohibition on non-Muslims depicting Muhammad. The writ of Islamic law does not run beyond those who adhere to the religion of Islam and who live in states that recognize such law. That is a statement of fact. If Islam says otherwise it is wrong. Proclaiming that Islamic law is superior and transcends any national law is in many countries effectively a form of treason.
Claiming that Islamic law justifies a universal ban on depicting Muhammad makes as much sense as suggesting Sharia law can close down every bar in Christendom. Muslims can't depict their prophet, anybody else can.
Deliberately insulting a religion is a hostile act but it is not a violent act. It is rude and insulting, but being rude and insulting are not and never should be criminal acts or legally valid excuses to justify acts of violence or incitement to commit acts of violence. “I had to smash that bottle over 'is 'ead cos 'e called me bird a minger” is never going to be taken as a plea of mitigation and neither should any comment about a religious belief or figure be accepted as an excuse for any act of violence.
If somebody expresses a personal view about religion that is their right. It only becomes a matter worthy of consideration for censorship if it is a direct incitement to violence. There is of course one major problem with this idea: some religions and especially Islam make statements which are unequivocally incitement to violence. It is more than a little galling to think the law protects Muslims calling for my death (it seems the police only take it seriously if they theaten people by name, threatening and promising to kill all Jews and kafirs apparently doesn't count as incitement to murder) and they want to have the law silence anybody who even makes a joke about their beliefs.
Intolerance should not be tolerated.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
If any gods exist they should be more than capable of punishing wrong-doing among mortals and of course any god should be big enough, man enough, to brush off anything that a mortal can say or do. Laws and punishments in this life should be limited to secular offences with human victims. It is highly suspicious to suggest that an all powerful god exists yet needs human help to punish men who insult his prophet. Why would an all powerful god need a prophet and why would he be incapable of looking after that prophet's interests? My explanation for this is very simple, there are no gods, gods cannot punish because they don't exist, blasphemy cannot insult non-existent gods or dead and/or semi-mythological prophets. Only religions can be insulted by blasphemy and religions invite such insults by their temerity to proclaim they alone know and represent the truth.
There should always be freedom to criticize beliefs, and no doubt many kinds of believers will always take any form of criticism of their beliefs as abuse. The freedom to say whatever you want as long as nobody takes offence is no freedom at all.
 |
I recently spent an extra 20 minutes shopping trying to buy as much Danish produce as possible. I'm not quite sure how buying extra Danish bacon and Carlsberg will help counteract a Muslim boycott though. The important thing everybody can do is buy Danish butter and cheese as these products have nothing to do with insulting anybody's religion.  |
The original Danish cartoons themselves were ill judged, calculated to insult Islamic immigrants and support the interests of the Danish right wing and most importantly of all they weren't funny. I support those Muslims who are peacefully demonstrating their anger at the original insult, at least their right to demonstrate that they have been offended, however that does not extend to a support for violence, calls for violence, calls for government censorship or a boycott of all things Danish. That is out of order. It is not within the power of the Danish state to censor free expression. The original cartoons were designed to offend but they were not designed to provoke violence.
It is not a testament to Muslim civilization that the company that sells the Baby Jesus Butt Plug, the Jackhammer Jesus, the Buddha's Delight Dildo and dildos in the shape of the Devil, Mary and Moses has an ominous gap in its product portfolio. I am quite sure that this gap has nothing to do with true respect for Islam or the Prophet, in fact I would say it is the exact opposite of respect.