Muslim Protestors Target Google

[remnant_phoenix]

I find it funny that people try to say that Christianity and Islam aren't so different.

People all over the world say horrible things about Jesus every day. Do Christians attack embassies and riot in response? No.

But when one upstart American douche-bag makes an anti-Islam video on YouTube, American embassies get attacked, shops get destroyed, and when questioned the rioters justify their behavior along the lines of "we will do whatever is necessary to defend the honor of our Prophet."

Yes, I know that not ALL Muslims behave this way, and yes, throughout history there have been many acts of wonton violence in the name of Christianity, but when see how these two groups act across the world today, and when you consider that the Koran says that violence in the name of Islam is condoned in some circumstances while the Bible says nothing comparable, by what basis can you say that the two faiths aren't so different?

EDIT: I realize that I trailed off from the topic at hand, so let me reign myself back in again.

How many videos that defame Jesus and Christianity do you think are on YouTube? Do you see Christians protesting outside Google to get those pulled? No.

It amazes me how blase the Muslim world is about censoring free speech if it breaks Sharia law. The whole thing reeks of imposing religious rules on the socio-political world. What other religion currently does this?

 

[Driekan]

okay we are arguing very loosely here, not even on the same points it seems like, i'm just going to have to agree to disagree about "letting up" on islam (this goes for everything, but islam in particular at the moment ), because when you target people entirely unrelated to the incident that you are bitching about, then i have no reason but to dislike you (not you in particular, the people who protested at google and that embassy situation)

I dislike the people who murdered folks at the embassy, too. Don't particularly dislike the peaceful protesters in the UK, but that is something I can go with us just disagreeing over.

But the thing to bear in mind, and it is something to take to heart, is that most muslims dislike those people, too. The rioters were pulled out of the embassy building not by state agents or security forces, but by civilians. There were even "anti-protests", where muslims filled the streets of the city with signs like "Don't judge us for this, this isn't us".

snip

Mate, if we're going to argue on specific interpretations of religious text, that is one dangerous, dangerous, dangerous road to start walking down. You can cover all three major monotheistic religions head to heel in shit very, very easily. Needless to say, that would add nothing to the discussion other than hurt feelings and resentments all around.

 

[Driekan]

Snip

That's because they really aren't. Both religions have been used as excuses for violence when the controlling political will was that violence should happen. Both were exploited in the same way, while both have rather explicit calls in text not to allow for that.

As for the Bible not condoning violence ever... Have you read the Old Testament much? Or like... At all?

And when one speaks of religions in this wide sense, auxiliary texts need to also be considered. Most of the calls to violence in Islam come from secondary sources - Fatwas and such. If you throw in secondary christian sources (Papal edicts, etc.), the shit hits the fan hard and fast.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

snip

Mate, if we're going to argue on specific interpretations of religious text, that is one dangerous, dangerous, dangerous road to start walking down. You can cover all three major monotheistic religions head to heel in shit very, very easily. Needless to say, that would add nothing to the discussion other than hurt feelings and resentments all around.

You're still not getting it.

"Interpretations" are not allowed in Islam. There are no "interpretations". There is no "analysis". It's like the Christian Bible, old testament, with no Luther and absolutely no illumination to base any discussion, doubts or reasonings on.

"Interpretations" do not exist. Just mentioning to want to interpret the Qur'an is sinful and asks for punishment. Yeah, it's not exactly my cup of tea either.

What boggles the mind a bit, though, is that Muhammad started out writing things down that made him look like a charming chap and a rather fun fellow. It was mostly about peace, ponies and love. Eventually, with age and success, he seems to have turned bitter, and the surahs turned more violent, darker and pretty much a cream filling of hatred (against Jews and Christians). I can't find equivalents in Christian or Jewish scripture, sorry. Care to point them out for me? I'd like to read them.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I find it amusing that the protesters are drawing attention to the thing they hate. I hadn't even heard of "The Innocence of Muslims" before this fiasco, so congrats protesters. You gave the thing free publicity and made yourselves look like goofs in the process.

 

[TeletubbiesGolfGun]

okay we are arguing very loosely here, not even on the same points it seems like, i'm just going to have to agree to disagree about "letting up" on islam (this goes for everything, but islam in particular at the moment ), because when you target people entirely unrelated to the incident that you are bitching about, then i have no reason but to dislike you (not you in particular, the people who protested at google and that embassy situation)

I dislike the people who murdered folks at the embassy, too. Don't particularly dislike the peaceful protesters in the UK, but that is something I can go with us just disagreeing over.

But the thing to bear in mind, and it is something to take to heart, is that most muslims dislike those people, too. The rioters were pulled out of the embassy building not by state agents or security forces, but by civilians. There were even "anti-protests", where muslims filled the streets of the city with signs like "Don't judge us for this, this isn't us".

the part i dislike is, that every time a religion thing happens, without even reading it, you know it's islam. seriously, grow a fucking backbone, judaism and christianity has been shit talked/blown over many times in movies/games/media, the most you ever hear about is your average grandma going "videogames are for the devil!" and that's that, it doesn't turn into some violent coalition. (i've killed the pope countless times in ACII, i never once have seen people getting pissed off about that.)

while yes, there is progressiveness, it is still stuck in the dark ages while the rest of the world is globalizing and moving on at a much faster rate, it's just extremely frustrating having the world crutched by one religion's fanatics.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

And when one speaks of religions in this wide sense, auxiliary texts need to also be considered. Most of the calls to violence in Islam come from secondary sources - Fatwas and such. If you throw in secondary christian sources (Papal edicts, etc.), the shit hits the fan hard and fast.

Sorry, not quite true.

The life and teachings of Muhammad are exemplary for all (male) human beings - he is the standard of how to behave properly. Just the Qu'ran and the Sunnah teach us about the merry joys of warfare, rape, superiority, violence, special taxes and talking donkeys. Then there's the Sharia law, which knows no ifs or buts. Then, and only then, there's the hadiths as a sort of checksum for integrity. And only after these sources are exhausted, we turn to beardymen to come up with some fatwa to make our lives easier, telling us what to do and what to think about it.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Snip

That's because they really aren't. Both religions have been used as excuses for violence when the controlling political will was that violence should happen. Both were exploited in the same way, while both have rather explicit calls in text not to allow for that.

As for the Bible not condoning violence ever... Have you read the Old Testament much? Or like... At all?

And when one speaks of religions in this wide sense, auxiliary texts need to also be considered. Most of the calls to violence in Islam come from secondary sources - Fatwas and such. If you throw in secondary christian sources (Papal edicts, etc.), the shit hits the fan hard and fast.

Miscommunication.

I, foolishly so, tend to throw around the word "Bible" to refer to the teachings of Jesus, who never explicitly condoned violence based on what he said as recorded on the Bible. Which IS quite dissimilar to the teachings of Muhammad, who said that violence against non-Muslims was acceptable under certain circumstances.

And yes, you're right, if one considers the entire history of Christian religion and the ancillary texts, especially concerning the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages/Reniassance, the lines between organized Christian religion and fundamentalist Islam get VERY blurry VERY fast.

I was specifically referring to the present-day incarnations of each religion. The worst of Islam results in death, destruction, and attempts to censor free expression, while the worst of Christianity gives us Westboro Baptist Church, a bunch of hate-mongering yahoos that are easily shunned and ignored. Not that similar if you ask me.

 

[Driekan]

snip

Mate, if we're going to argue on specific interpretations of religious text, that is one dangerous, dangerous, dangerous road to start walking down. You can cover all three major monotheistic religions head to heel in shit very, very easily. Needless to say, that would add nothing to the discussion other than hurt feelings and resentments all around.

You're still not getting it.

"Interpretations" are not allowed in Islam. There are no "interpretations". There is no "analysis". It's like the Christian Bible, old testament, with no Luther and absolutely no illumination to base any discussion, doubts or reasonings on.

"Interpretations" do not exist. Just mentioning to want to interpret the Qur'an is sinful and asks for punishment. Yeah, it's not exactly my cup of tea either.

What boggles the mind a bit, though, is that Muhammad started out writing things down that made him look like a charming chap and a rather fun fellow. It was mostly about peace, ponies and love. Eventually, with age and success, he seems to have turned bitter, and the surahs turned more violent, darker and pretty much a cream filling of hatred (against Jews and Christians). I can't find equivalents in Christian or Jewish scripture, sorry. Care to point them out for me? I'd like to read them.

Of course interpretation exists. What are all those mufti doing all day, twiddling their thumbs? Or are they arguing, discussing, studying scripture and pumping out fatwas? Fatwas that not all of them agree on? If there is no interpretation, how come there are different branches of islam? Different branches that during most of muslim history were quite satisfied to sit there in contact with each other with only rare antagonism?

Much like how religious leaders in christianity (Insofar as unified, structured christianity goes) sat discussing and studying and writing books on theology, edicts, etc.

Much like how rabbis study the Torah and interpret, expand and apply it to the modern world. The result is called the Talmud, by the way.

There's nothing special and unique about any of them, there's no magic evil-sauce going into any of those three mixes. It's theology. Everyone does it.

If you pore through the theology of any of them, you'll find things to disagree with.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm really fed up with this. What about freedom of expression? What about logic and reason? All the religions are getting in on this act, they seem to have figured out how potent religious bigotry over mild free expression can be.

Not every country has those rights.

Every human has those rights to freedom... whether governments chose to recognise those rights or not.

 

[VanTesla]

"desecrating the sanctity of the Holy Prophet Mohammad peace be upon Him"

That is one thing that always bugs me is in reality he was a bad man that would kill anyone that had a different view than him and take whatever he wanted by force be it woman, children, and etc... I mean he is not the only one in religious text that is glorified for doing heinous acts, but to be held so highly is just beyond my reason to comprehend... I will give another example of a religious figure that is praised, but was a bad person in most aspects and that was King David of Israel, but he seemed to be somewhat regretful for som of the decisions later in his life. By the way I am not trying to dam the islam faith for it has some good in it, but that the prophet they covet is not a good example to follow as a human being.

 

[AlwaysPractical]

'Campaign for Global Civility.'

Right... "Civility"... because being civil is the same in all cultures, yeah. More like Global Islam.

Stories like this just make me sad. I for one stick with Google and the freedom of speech. They'd also keep a video on YouTube if it was strongly anti-Christian as long as it wasn't hate-speech. The video doesn't call for violence against Muslims, yet the protesters take it as call to arms.

Also, "Muslim Action Forum"? From what I remember, I seriously doubt the Muslim community is so politically inactive that they need an action forum.

 

[chadachada123]

THE PROTESTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GODDAMN YOUTUBE VIDEO.

Maybe the fucking London riots do, but the riots in Libya and Egypt have NOTHING to do with the fucking video, and this is common knowledge among people that pay attention to world affairs.

The four deaths in Libya are the result of the United States bombing thousands of innocent people every year, and even the United States government has finally acknowledged this.

The riots in Egypt are, at least partially, related to our imprisonment of some blind religious figure. The rioters themselves have SAID this, but the US media kept going on and on about this Youtube bullshit which is a tertiary concern for the rioters at BEST.

 

[cainx10a]

I used to defend Islam/Muslims then I took an ... nah ... I discovered Hitchens.

Seriously, I'm tired of my "brethren".

 

[chadachada123]

I find it amusing that the protesters are drawing attention to the thing they hate. I hadn't even heard of "The Innocence of Muslims" before this fiasco, so congrats protesters. You gave the thing free publicity and made yourselves look like goofs in the process.

The riots (in Libya and Egypt at least) have nothing to do with the Youtube video. The Youtube video was the scapegoat made by the US to cover the fact that it was a planned demonstration set to happen on 9/11 (on purpose) that was infiltrated by several violent extremists (who, as far as I've seen, did the actual killing).

The riots were meant to show the world how pissed off Libya/Egypt was the the United States keeps BOMBING EVERYTHING, and were meant to be peaceful.

Unfortunately, the author of the article hasn't been keeping up with world affairs, and clearly doesn't know this fact.

If you'd like, I can provide sources, but even the President himself has acknowledged now that the riots are unrelated to the Youtube video (in Libya/Egypt, the same can't necessarily be said for London).

 

[Callate]

At this point, what can I say but, "Yes, you have a right to protest peacefully and to express that you are offended by these materials. That same right gives those who display those materials the right to continue to do so."

I'm glad that the UK protesters at least confined their anger to peaceful protest. But powers, this whole business is starting to make the Muslim community as a whole look bad. The whole sordid business could have gone away by now if people weren't so determined to yell about it; instead, they've made thousands of people curious about the content of the movie, and suggested to some that those who criticize Islam have the right of it.

In short, they're playing right into the movie-maker's hands.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html]

Kind of interesting how governments are using things like this as an excuse to bring in laws that give themselves wide-reaching new powers, huh? Blasphemy laws, the ability to imprison whistleblowers, it's getting so you can't say something without getting yourself arrested!

 

[Thyunda]

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html]

Kind of interesting how governments are using things like this as an excuse to bring in laws that give themselves wide-reaching new powers, huh? Blasphemy laws, the ability to imprison whistleblowers, it's getting so you can't say something without getting yourself arrested!

It's been like that in the UK for a while...

 

[Driekan]

-Partial snip for brevity-

while yes, there is progressiveness, it is still stuck in the dark ages while the rest of the world is globalizing and moving on at a much faster rate, it's just extremely frustrating having the world crutched by one religion's fanatics.

You seem to have this social darwinist view that human history is a straight line starting in the caveman years and pointing towards you as the end-result of evolution.

It's not. It cannot be said that someone is "stuck" somewhere, while someone else is "moving on" (Emphasis on the on, that implies forward direction). Two people are moving in different directions. That's it. Your direction is not absolutely, objectively superior. You are not inherently a better human being.

As for judaism and christianity being shit talked and blown over and nothing happening... That's not quite true. In a lot of "Western" countries, if you publish a work of fiction that takes Holocaust revisionist views and portrays a Nazi character (An individual, not the ideology. No need to go that far) in a positive light, you're quite likely very, very fucked. In a lot of countries, you'll be arrested outright (Looking at you, France and Germany), in others you'll be sued, in all you will be screamed down - even if there was no malice whatsoever and you were just working on what you saw as a silly piece of fiction.

That's a reaction. What is the difference? It is an effective reaction, from a group that have the power, coordination and know-how to defend themselves. Christianity, in a similar way, can defend itself when pushed. You may have heard about the US presidential elections and how a guy who stands for many "Traditional Christian Beliefs" seems to be winning.

Our society tends to offer protection and shelter for those who don't need it, while refusing it for those who do need it. This is just one more example. Because muslims are vilified and disenfranchised (And in many case, newcomers to this game), they cannot defend themselves. Thus they don't get defended.

-Partial Snip for brevity-
I was specifically referring to the present-day incarnations of each religion. The worst of Islam results in death, destruction, and attempts to censor free expression, while the worst of Christianity gives us Westboro Baptist Church, a bunch of hate-mongering yahoos that are easily shunned and ignored. Not that similar if you ask me.

You do realize that, by your own words, you are analyzing a very specific subset of both religions, right? Namely, what is observable (One restriction) at this very instant in time (another restriction).

Any conclusion you derive from this analysis cannot be said to be a good conclusion concerning the whole of the religion. It is the blind man touching an elephant's legs and assuming he is touching a tree trunk.

What I think we can both, very conclusively, extract from this is that neither religion is inherently bad, or evil, or any other term we choose for "stuff we dislike", rather that all can be employed in that way, and that this one currently is being, to some degree, in some places - and those places are highly visible.

The life and teachings of Muhammad are exemplary for all (male) human beings - he is the standard of how to behave properly. Just the Qu'ran and the Sunnah teach us about the merry joys of warfare, rape, superiority, violence, special taxes and talking donkeys. Then there's the Sharia law, which knows no ifs or buts. Then, and only then, there's the hadiths as a sort of checksum for integrity. And only after these sources are exhausted, we turn to beardymen to come up with some fatwa to make our lives easier, telling us what to do and what to think about it.

And Joshua gave us those same merry joys of warfare, superiority, violence, etc. with a fine after-taste of genocide. So did Moses before him. Considering both texts (And individuals) are upheld in christianity as well, it applies.

For the second level (people interpreting it), again - we can look to secondary sources where you will find lots of fun things judaic and christian thinkers have said over the millenia. Maimonides pointing out that blacks are closer to apes than full humans, popes calling for crusades, all that fun stuff.

And for the third level (more direct contact with religious leaders), there is no need to look further than Jonestown ("Drink the kool-aid") , Avichai Rontzki ("Those who show mercy are damned"), or Ovadia Yosef ("The sole purpose of non-jews is to serve Jews").

I will now use my great, god-given powers of foresight. I anticipate a "No True Scotsman" argument coming in 10, 9, 8...

 

[Product Placement]

Well snip

Not really. He produced the film under an alias and when he was found out, he went into hiding. He's currently in jail.

Thanks for the info, I think that info made my night.

I feel compelled to add that he's being arrested for crimes that are semi unrelated to the film. He was already on probation for major fraud, where he was forced to obey various rules, including checking regularly in with a probation office, not leave his city of residence and never ever use the Internet, ever again (which he used to scam people). He was arrested on suspect of having broken his probation and was under investigation before that 10 minute trailer popped up.

Seen once by an audience of ten people? The hell? they are overreacting like there's no tomorrow. and what about freedom of speech? ok maybe some people take advantage of it to insult religions and all that crap. i just contradicted myself. thankyou common sense!

Here's the thing. Allot of the protesters have been lied to or at very least grossly misinformed. Many of the countries operating under Sharia law forbid anyone from making a film unless the script is presented before a moral code comity, that needs to greenlight it. If the comity sees something wrong with the film, you can't make it. Allot of the protesters live in countries that have this law. They think it's the same everywhere else. Hence, they believe that the Innocence of Muslims was greenlighted by the American government.

It's mind-numbingly stupid, but try telling that to a mob of crazy people, out to get your heathen, Muhammad hating blood.