WHY NORTHERN NIGERIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST ANTI-MUHAMMED FILM "INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS"
58 views
Skip to first unread message
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 12, 2012, 5:53:30 PM9/12/12
to yanarewa, Raayi, usaafricadialogue, ya
WHY NORTHERN NIGERIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE ANTI-MUHAMMED FILM "INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS"
Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju
I suggest Muslims need to emphasize the transcendence of Allah, rather than struggle to defend the creator of the universe by killing other people, a move that reinforces a widespread view of their religion as barbaric.
Islam means 'submission to Allah'. Allah is understood as the creator of the universe. In its ideal sense, Islam is not a force that needs defense by killing people who see it differently from many Muslims or who criticize it.
Does the Creator need people to be killed to defend Him or His message?
Does He need such defense? If His message cannot withstand criticism, then what is the point of a message from the Creator of the Universe, the One Without Beginning or End?
If a film is made criticizing Muhammad and Islam, make your own film to counter that one.
If a book is written criticizing Muhammad and Islam, write your own book countering that one.
There are many rich Muslims.
They can sponsor such activities.
There are many Muslim scholars and intellectuals.
I am yet to learn of:
A famous book by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
A famous film by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
A famous cartoon series or comic book challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
A famous Facebook page challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
All I read is that Muslims are killing people for challenging Muhammad and Islam.
The more they kill, the more these challenges will emerge because such barbaric behavior suggests the critics are right,and those critics will therefore be further emboldened.
Some Nigerian Muslims are calling for demonstrations to protest the film.
What will that achieve?
People have already been killed by Islamists in the name of this protest. Even killing people with no connection to the film. Islam's name has been further sullied, its reputation further denigrated in protesting against a film about Islam.
The world knows of this and is digesting it.
Keeping in mind that such demonstrations in the North, often if not always, lead to killings of Christians and Southerners in the North and the bombing of churches, I urge that such demonstrations should not take place.
The North has suffered more than enough and Northern Muslims are bearing the collateral damage of having the same religion as the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram that says it is defending Muslims.
It would be more helpful if Muslims were to launch a campaign of education about Islam, challenging the views of Muhammad in the film.
It would impress people more if Nigerian Muslims gave a global press conference reading out a refutation of the film by Islamic thinkers. While this is done and after, Muslim leaders should urge peace to their followers and the need to project Islam as a faith meant to show human beings a way superior to limited human thinking and living, not one where killing of people is the image in terms of which the religion is now known to many all over the world, while security is stepped up all over the North, particularly around churches and Christian communities, without impinging on people's rights.
We are used to such activities as the called for demonstrations. While they take place, everyone, particularly Christians, and other observers will have their hearts in their mouths, waiting to see if, as usual, any bad news will come out of the demonstrations.
I suggest Muslims in general and Nigerian Muslims in particular change their strategy from protests demonstrations and killing people in defense of Islam to educating people about their understanding of Islam.
Also posted on
Blogger : Exploring Islam
Scribd
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 12, 2012, 7:14:36 PM9/12/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
"I am yet to learn of:
A* famous book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
A* famous film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
A* famous cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of
Muhammad or
Islam.
A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam."
There are many, many outstanding books covering that area of ignorance
and I could suppply you on request, a very fundamental list of such
formidable literature, in print, beginning with some stuff by the late
great Usman Dan Fodio, your countryman....
On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
<toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> WHY NORTHERN NIGERIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE
> ANTI-MUHAMMED FILM "INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS" *
>
> Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju
>
> I suggest Muslims need to emphasize the transcendence of Allah, rather
> than struggle to defend the creator of the universe by killing other
> people, a move that reinforces a widespread view of their religion as
> barbaric.
>
> Islam means 'submission to Allah'. Allah is understood as the creator of
> the universe. In its ideal sense, Islam is not a force that needs defense
> by killing people who see it differently from many Muslims or who
> criticize it.
>
> Does the Creator need people to be killed to defend Him or His message?
>
> Does He need such defense? If His message cannot withstand criticism, then
> what is the point of a message from the Creator of the Universe, the One
> Without Beginning or End?
>
> If a film is made criticizing Muhammad and Islam, make your own film to
> counter that one.
>
> If a book is written criticizing Muhammad and Islam, write your own book
> countering that one.
>
> There are many rich Muslims.
>
> They can sponsor such activities.
>
> There are many Muslim scholars and intellectuals.
>
> I am yet to learn of:
>
> A* famous book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
> Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju
>
> I suggest Muslims need to emphasize the transcendence of Allah, rather
> than struggle to defend the creator of the universe by killing other
> people, a move that reinforces a widespread view of their religion as
> barbaric.
>
> Islam means 'submission to Allah'. Allah is understood as the creator of
> the universe. In its ideal sense, Islam is not a force that needs defense
> by killing people who see it differently from many Muslims or who
> criticize it.
>
> Does the Creator need people to be killed to defend Him or His message?
>
> Does He need such defense? If His message cannot withstand criticism, then
> what is the point of a message from the Creator of the Universe, the One
> Without Beginning or End?
>
> If a film is made criticizing Muhammad and Islam, make your own film to
> counter that one.
>
> If a book is written criticizing Muhammad and Islam, write your own book
> countering that one.
>
> There are many rich Muslims.
>
> They can sponsor such activities.
>
> There are many Muslim scholars and intellectuals.
>
> I am yet to learn of:
>
>
> A* famous film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
>
> A* famous cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
> Islam.
>
> A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam.
>
> Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/notes/oluwatoyin-vincent-adepoju/why-norther...>
>
> Scribd
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/105750212/Why-Northern-Nigerian-Muslims-Sho...>
>
> WHY NORTHERN NIGERIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST ANTI-MUHAMMED FILM "INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS" .doc
> 37KViewDownload
>
> WHY NORTHERN NIGERIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AGAINST ANTI-MUHAMMED FILM _INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS_ .pdf
> 55KViewDownload
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 13, 2012, 3:20:15 AM9/13/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Corneluis,
Without endorsing the recent career choice of the person I quote, I respond to you beginning with an expression attributed to the Nigerian journalist Reuben Abati by his students when he was a youth corper at the University of Benin:
"We are not here to carry dead wood"
If these examples you have in mind are so famous, why cant you quote them from memory?
Why must you come back later?
On the contrary, the recent works critical of Islam are like a brilliant necklace in global public memory. I composed that list of possible creative Muslim response to criticism based on the well known list in recent years of works critical of Islam
The idea of a* famous book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam is composed in response to Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses on account of which so many died in relation to Muslim protests or outright massacres or assassinations by Muslims.
The idea of a famous film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam composed in response to Innocence of Muslims, the film for which Islamists killed the US embassy staff and Submissions, for which latter a Muslim killed the film maker.
The idea of a* famous cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam is composed in relation to the Danish anti-Muhammed cartoons on account of which so many died at the hands of Muslims, including in such distant places from Denmark as Nigeria.
The idea of a*famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam" is composed in response to the fact that Facebook is central to the current global currency of information dissemination.
The idea of a famous film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam composed in response to Innocence of Muslims, the film for which Islamists killed the US embassy staff and Submissions, for which latter a Muslim killed the film maker.
The idea of a* famous cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam is composed in relation to the Danish anti-Muhammed cartoons on account of which so many died at the hands of Muslims, including in such distant places from Denmark as Nigeria.
The idea of a*famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam" is composed in response to the fact that Facebook is central to the current global currency of information dissemination.
We are not referring to the world of Uthman Dan Fodio.
You might have done better to refer to the poetry of Jalal Ud Din Rumi which sells very well to non-Muslims and the work of Ibn Arabi, who has an intercontinental reputation.
Muslims need to hold up as examples great figures like this, who spoke of themselves thus ' My heart has become a temple for Muslims and pagans...'
thanks
toyin
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 13, 2012, 9:28:49 AM9/13/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
This is embarrassing.
This is what I said: “There are many, many outstanding books covering
that area of ignorance
that I could supply you with, on request...” That was an honourable
Yoruba man talking after studying Islam for eight years. You have not
made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
Who told you that I can't quote “them” from memory?
I can quote all of them from memory and these are not secret pages or
secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
AbdolKarim Soroush?
The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
monkeys can be taught to read – so is it merely a matter of reading?
The first word in the Quranic revelation is IQRA which means READ, and
reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
your heart in the evolution from animal to - since mention Rumi – to
“For the next time I shall die
Bring forth wings and feathers like angels
After that soaring higher than angels
What you cannot imagine I shall be that.”
The first thing that you have to understand is that a Muslim is not a
real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
“You ever seen a ghost? No
But you have heard of them”
The film in question which smears the reputation of the Prophet of
Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
media.
I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
“After greetings, he asked Rumi pointing to the books (manuscripts)
what was it. Rumi answered interrogatively ' what would you know ? '
The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
him back in Runi's own words, " What would you know " and left. “
http://shamsitabriz.net/shamsitabriz.html
Now there you go talking about “ famous” books and I suppose that you
have thoroughly studied the Quran and are personally familiar with its
outer and inner meanings – or the famous books that you have read
about Tibetan Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism or Sufism are your main claim
to knowledge about all the esoteric matters that you write about so
profusely?
My friend Parvez Manzoor who speaks the same language as you, has
taken up some of these malicious, anti-Islam issues in his website ,
here:
http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/Index1.html
PS. If you insist I could furnish you with a list of at lesat 20 books
countering the anti Islam thrusts....the miracle could take a little
longer.....
On 13 Sep, 09:20, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
This is embarrassing.
This is what I said: “There are many, many outstanding books covering
that area of ignorance
that I could supply you with, on request...” That was an honourable
Yoruba man talking after studying Islam for eight years. You have not
made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
Who told you that I can't quote “them” from memory?
I can quote all of them from memory and these are not secret pages or
secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
AbdolKarim Soroush?
The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
monkeys can be taught to read – so is it merely a matter of reading?
The first word in the Quranic revelation is IQRA which means READ, and
reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
your heart in the evolution from animal to - since mention Rumi – to
“For the next time I shall die
Bring forth wings and feathers like angels
After that soaring higher than angels
What you cannot imagine I shall be that.”
The first thing that you have to understand is that a Muslim is not a
real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
“You ever seen a ghost? No
But you have heard of them”
The film in question which smears the reputation of the Prophet of
Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
media.
I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
“After greetings, he asked Rumi pointing to the books (manuscripts)
what was it. Rumi answered interrogatively ' what would you know ? '
The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
him back in Runi's own words, " What would you know " and left. “
http://shamsitabriz.net/shamsitabriz.html
Now there you go talking about “ famous” books and I suppose that you
have thoroughly studied the Quran and are personally familiar with its
outer and inner meanings – or the famous books that you have read
about Tibetan Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism or Sufism are your main claim
to knowledge about all the esoteric matters that you write about so
profusely?
My friend Parvez Manzoor who speaks the same language as you, has
taken up some of these malicious, anti-Islam issues in his website ,
here:
http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/Index1.html
PS. If you insist I could furnish you with a list of at lesat 20 books
countering the anti Islam thrusts....the miracle could take a little
longer.....
On 13 Sep, 09:20, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lateef Adetona
Sep 13, 2012, 3:43:26 PM9/13/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise. More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as affront which must be confronted. The response of the latter group is what we have seen in Egypt and Algeria and may just be starting. The Muslim intellectuals may have no reasons to respond to malicious activities against the Prophet in any form-be it in cartoon, play, book
or whatever but no one will be able to stop the emotional Muslims from reacting emotionally when provoked. The answer to this question is an enlightenment to those who provoke others to stop the provocation. This may appear crude but it is the truth of the matter.
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 8:21:49 AM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Sir,
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
“Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
“transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for “ holy envy”
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying – I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction - no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ
SuperStar” after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
“Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
“transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for “ holy envy”
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying – I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction - no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ
SuperStar” after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 14, 2012, 8:48:11 AM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
Jaye Gaskia
Sep 14, 2012, 10:51:04 AM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
I am really worried and perturbed by this notion of insult and provocation. What is to constitute insult or provocation to a religion in any given time and place? The calling of other religions and their adherents animists? Kaffirs? Unbelievers? The desecration of their Gods as idols?
Let us broaden the debate beyond the three religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism!
And i am equally minded to ask, beyond the point where someone outrightly goes out to mock; why should the re-intepreteation of other religions and their religious figures be more acceptable than for any of these three?
For as long as religion continues to be an integral fabric of human experience for so long will religions be subject to re-intepretations in the light of new knowledge! And what is more for so long will religions like every other aspect of the human experience be subjected to even jokes and fictional
depictions!
Regards,
Jaye Gaskia
kenneth harrow
Sep 14, 2012, 12:30:02 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
moses
there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
--shouting fire in a theatre
--what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the person by the expression of false information
--what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american notions of free speech!
as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an additional motivation of hatred for a group.
now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech that incites the lynching.
in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if not genocides.
no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or disempowered.
lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
ken
there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
--shouting fire in a theatre
--what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the person by the expression of false information
--what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american notions of free speech!
as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an additional motivation of hatred for a group.
now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech that incites the lynching.
in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if not genocides.
no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or disempowered.
lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
ken
On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary Clinton
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir,
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP �THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
speech�, �artistic licence�, �� freedom of artistic expression �,
�Human Rights�etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
�transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year �at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for � holy envy�
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet �and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that �Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad orIslam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying � I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, �this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction �- no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ
SuperStar� after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
On Sep 13, 9:43�pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise. More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as affront which must be confronted. The response of the latter group is what we have seen in Egypt and Algeria and may just be starting. The Muslim intellectuals may have no reasons to respond to malicious activities against the Prophet in any form-be it in cartoon, play, book or whatever but no one will be able to stop the emotional Muslims from reacting emotionally when provoked. The answer
> �to this question is an enlightenment to those who provoke others to stop the provocation. This may appear crude but it is the truth of the matter.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 2:13:00 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Human Rights
freedom of speech
the first amendment
Tears and American compassion,
Human Rights,
Freedom of speech,
The first amendment,
1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
crying?'
Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
Ishmael Reed:
“Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; “?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/01/14/ma-and-pa-clinton-flog-uppity-black-man/
> > *"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults.
> > *
>
> read more »
freedom of speech
the first amendment
Tears and American compassion,
Human Rights,
Freedom of speech,
The first amendment,
1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
crying?'
Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
Ishmael Reed:
“Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; “?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/01/14/ma-and-pa-clinton-flog-uppity-black-man/
> > They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence,
> > then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the
> > opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary Clinton**
> > then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the
> > *
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg
> > <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com <mailto:corneliushamelb...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
>
> > Sir,
>
> > I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> > effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> > Sir,
>
> > I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
>
> > On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> > Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> > destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> > provocations.
> > https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro...
> > On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> > Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> > destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> > provocations.
>
> > The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> > on 11th September of course:
> > https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> > The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> > on 11th September of course:
>
> > The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> > disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
> > speech�, �artistic licence�, � freedom of artistic expression �,
> > The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> > disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
> > �Human Rights�etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> > determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> > to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
> > Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> > vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> > every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> > salaam.
>
> > And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> > I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> > the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> > �transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> > theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> > existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> > ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> > Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> > of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> > year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> > determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> > to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
> > Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> > vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> > every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> > salaam.
>
> > And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> > I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> > the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> > �transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> > theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> > existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> > ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> > Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> > of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> > all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> > As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> > some room for � holy envy�
>
> > https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
>
> > As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> > some room for � holy envy�
>
>
> > Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> > Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> > demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> > quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
> > Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> > Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> > demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> > Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> > The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> > alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> > In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> > An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> > compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
>
> > The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> > alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> > In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> > An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> > book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
> > film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
> > cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
> > slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
> > the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying � I guess
> > that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous
> > film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
> > cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
> > slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
> > the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying � I guess
> > books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
> > countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
> > be happy with that kind of passive reaction - no literary fatwas, no
> > countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
> > price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
> > no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
> > they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
> > of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ
> > SuperStar� after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
> > relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even
> > no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
> > they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
> > of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ
> > SuperStar� after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
> > consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
> > suckers pay....
>
> > suckers pay....
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:43 pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:adeton...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > > It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on
> > the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise.
> > More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their
> > faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who
> > wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and
> > provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am
> > certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action
> > as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather
> > in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as
> > affront which must be
>
> ...
> > > It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on
> > the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise.
> > More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their
> > faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who
> > wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and
> > provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am
> > certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action
> > as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather
> > in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as
> > affront which must be
>
>
> read more »
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 14, 2012, 2:44:32 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted the points
'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive reaction -
no literary fatwas,
no price on anyone's head,
no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed
and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ SuperStar” after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
toyin
'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive reaction -
no literary fatwas,
no price on anyone's head,
no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed
and before we know it
toyin
kenneth harrow
Sep 14, 2012, 2:32:18 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
dear all,
this answer of cornelius is worthy of al-hallaj whose famous line, my
favorite,is ana al-haq, i am the truth.
like the line in our jewish shabbat prayer, ani adonei elochehum, i am
the lord our god; the mystic's identification with the spiritual, that
is what i get from cornelius's wonderful line below,
I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ?
what cornelius (and i) want to insist upon is that islam is not all
encompassed in the image of jihadi killings, but of a spiritualism that
is ethereal, a tradition of writings and authors and nabi, whose works
and words soar. every religion has its lowest element, and i can't
understand why we humans have to be so intolerant of others as to want
to impose our views by force.
but old bones can remember the words of yeats i quoted earlier about the
golden bird that sings, which we want so much to be heard.
for me, attar's Conference of Birds is one of those places to go to hear
that bird
thanks cornelius
ken
On 9/13/12 9:28 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
>
> This is embarrassing.
>
> This is what I said: �There are many, many outstanding books covering
> that area of ignorance
> that I could supply you with, on request...� That was an honourable
>
> �For the next time I shall die
> But you have heard of them�
>
> http://shamsitabriz.net/shamsitabriz.html
>
> Now there you go talking about � famous� books and I suppose that you
this answer of cornelius is worthy of al-hallaj whose famous line, my
favorite,is ana al-haq, i am the truth.
like the line in our jewish shabbat prayer, ani adonei elochehum, i am
the lord our god; the mystic's identification with the spiritual, that
is what i get from cornelius's wonderful line below,
I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ?
encompassed in the image of jihadi killings, but of a spiritualism that
is ethereal, a tradition of writings and authors and nabi, whose works
and words soar. every religion has its lowest element, and i can't
understand why we humans have to be so intolerant of others as to want
to impose our views by force.
but old bones can remember the words of yeats i quoted earlier about the
golden bird that sings, which we want so much to be heard.
for me, attar's Conference of Birds is one of those places to go to hear
that bird
thanks cornelius
ken
On 9/13/12 9:28 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
>
> This is embarrassing.
>
> that area of ignorance
> that I could supply you with, on request...� That was an honourable
> Yoruba man talking after studying Islam for eight years. You have not
> made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
> Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
>
> Who told you that I can't quote �them� from memory?
> made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
> Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
>
> I can quote all of them from memory and these are not secret pages or
> secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
> of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
> you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
> find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
> Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
> AbdolKarim Soroush?
>
> The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
> against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
> The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
> undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
> succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
> as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
>
> Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
> monkeys can be taught to read � so is it merely a matter of reading?
> secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
> of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
> you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
> find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
> Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
> AbdolKarim Soroush?
>
> The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
> against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
> The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
> undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
> succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
> as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
>
> Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
> The first word in the Quranic revelation is IQRA which means READ, and
> reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
> your heart in the evolution from animal to - since mention Rumi � to
> reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
>
> �For the next time I shall die
> Bring forth wings and feathers like angels
> After that soaring higher than angels
> What you cannot imagine I shall be that.�
> After that soaring higher than angels
>
> The first thing that you have to understand is that a Muslim is not a
> real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
> the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
>
> I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
> have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
>
> �You ever seen a ghost? No
> The first thing that you have to understand is that a Muslim is not a
> real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
> the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
>
> I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
> have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
>
> But you have heard of them�
>
> The film in question which smears the reputation of the Prophet of
> Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
> history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
> all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
> reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
> media.
>
> I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
> of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
> the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
>
> You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
>
> �After greetings, he asked Rumi pointing to the books (manuscripts)
> The film in question which smears the reputation of the Prophet of
> Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
> history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
> all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
> reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
> media.
>
> I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
> of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
> the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
>
> You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
>
> what was it. Rumi answered interrogatively ' what would you know ? '
> The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
> water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
> upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
> the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
> A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
> him back in Runi's own words, " What would you know " and left. �
> The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
> water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
> upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
> the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
> A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
>
> http://shamsitabriz.net/shamsitabriz.html
>
> Now there you go talking about � famous� books and I suppose that you
> have thoroughly studied the Quran and are personally familiar with its
> outer and inner meanings � or the famous books that you have read
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 14, 2012, 2:19:08 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Ken,
We all know about the "fire in the theatre" exception to free speech. But, and this is a big but, there is a huge grey area here; it is not clear-cut. It often requires judicial mediation to determine what constitutes crying "fire" in a theater. Even in seemingly clear cases of "fire" in the theatre, the prosecuting authority still has to prove its case that the fire didn't exist or that the person yelling fire had no reasonable grounds or protected right to yell "fire." Hate speech, which this film clearly is, is protected under US law. I am not an expert on libel, but insulting a group or religion does not constitute "incitement," which is the exception in free speech--unless you can prove that the purpose of the material was to incite, which is impossible since intention is a tough thing to prove. Incitement is a high legal bar and is almost impossible to prove. There are many cases in the US and other Western countries where those who sought to prove incitement were unsuccessful. You'd have to prove that someone willingly put out material they KNEW would incite people or cause them to react violently. The lawyers can chime in here, but my understanding is that you cannot libel a group, that only individuals can be libeled or slandered. If this is true, then your notion of the film committing libel against Muslims is untenable. And even if this were so, is violence the appropriate response?
The case of Hutu genocidal propaganda is clear-cut. I mean, you had people yelling "cut them," "kill the cockroaches," "burn their homes," kill their children," etc on radio. The film in question does no such thing, as abhorrent as its message is.
The film is a poorly made, poorly delivered bigoted artistic product that insults a religion and its key figure, something that has been done to many organized religions for centuries and have not always generated violent backlash.
Ultimately, the appropriate response to hate speech is counter-speech, a peaceful demonstration to register disapproval, or a boycott of the medium and messenger of the hate speech. It is not to hurt innocents and engage in violence, which then validates the caricatures inherent in the said hate speech.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
moses
there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
--shouting fire in a theatre
--what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the person by the expression of false information
--what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american notions of free speech!
as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an additional motivation of hatred for a group.
now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech that incites the lynching.
in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if not genocides.
no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or disempowered.
lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
ken
On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
"…the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable” – Hillary Clinton
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir,
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
“Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
“transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for “ holy envy”
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad orIslam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying – I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction - no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ
SuperStar” after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
On Sep 13, 9:43 pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise. More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as affront which must be confronted. The response of the latter group is what we have seen in Egypt and Algeria and may just be starting. The Muslim intellectuals may have no reasons to respond to malicious activities against the Prophet in any form-be it in cartoon, play, book or whatever but no one will be able to stop the emotional Muslims from reacting emotionally when provoked. The answer
> to this question is an enlightenment to those who provoke others to stop the provocation. This may appear crude but it is the truth of the matter.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
kenneth harrow
Sep 14, 2012, 3:17:37 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
dear moses
i am not speaking directly about the video when i cite the rwandan case which you state is clear-cut.
i am simply trying to sort out the principle. in the case of rwanda, the conditions did not permit a response to radio milles collines by boycotting--after all, it was aimed at hutus, not tutsis; nor by a peaceful protest. it was inciting killing, not making philosophical observations about another people.
in this case of the video, it is complicated. as you say, a grey area. i don't think it would constitute an incitement in the u.s., partly because the conditions would not enable the people expressing their hatred in this film to generate acts of violence. but� you can imagine a film, better made, inciting its viewers to attack muslims, and which could well result in death or property being burnt. i would have a hard time understanding this as a speech act separate from a physical act.
in our world today, the exhibition of a film can't be easily delimited.
so, an example of what i find troubling circumstances, on a smaller scale, but just like this film
in my own little neighborhood in east lansing our street abuts a mosque. last year a local bigot tore up the pages of a koran, burnt and defiled them, and then scattered them around the neighborhood. a kind neighbor tried to gather them up, and returned them to the people at the mosque. it got into the papers. the man responsible was apprehended, but not charged with anything as the prosecutor said that no crime had been committed. the leaders of the mosque just wanted it all to be forgotten, and we had the usual community-let's-all-come-together type event.
word got out, to afghanistan, to india. there were attacks, without deaths, in afghanistan, and then it blew over and was forgotten. in india, someone was killed. don't remember who, but probably a christian.
then it was forgotten.
but that poor family in india lost someone because of this person, whose act was considered anodyne, here in east lansing.
the local authorities and community really didn't have much feeling for the one killed in india, but it seems to me, if acts are to have consequences, if we are responsible for our acts, that this man, who deliberately set out to incite hatred and arouse muslims, bore some responsibility for what ensued.
i am not prescribing the punishment, simply affirming the belief that there was a real connection, in blood and death, between what he did and the person in india who died.
you can be sure if that person had been an american the consequences would have been considerably greater
ken
i am not speaking directly about the video when i cite the rwandan case which you state is clear-cut.
i am simply trying to sort out the principle. in the case of rwanda, the conditions did not permit a response to radio milles collines by boycotting--after all, it was aimed at hutus, not tutsis; nor by a peaceful protest. it was inciting killing, not making philosophical observations about another people.
in this case of the video, it is complicated. as you say, a grey area. i don't think it would constitute an incitement in the u.s., partly because the conditions would not enable the people expressing their hatred in this film to generate acts of violence. but� you can imagine a film, better made, inciting its viewers to attack muslims, and which could well result in death or property being burnt. i would have a hard time understanding this as a speech act separate from a physical act.
in our world today, the exhibition of a film can't be easily delimited.
so, an example of what i find troubling circumstances, on a smaller scale, but just like this film
in my own little neighborhood in east lansing our street abuts a mosque. last year a local bigot tore up the pages of a koran, burnt and defiled them, and then scattered them around the neighborhood. a kind neighbor tried to gather them up, and returned them to the people at the mosque. it got into the papers. the man responsible was apprehended, but not charged with anything as the prosecutor said that no crime had been committed. the leaders of the mosque just wanted it all to be forgotten, and we had the usual community-let's-all-come-together type event.
word got out, to afghanistan, to india. there were attacks, without deaths, in afghanistan, and then it blew over and was forgotten. in india, someone was killed. don't remember who, but probably a christian.
then it was forgotten.
but that poor family in india lost someone because of this person, whose act was considered anodyne, here in east lansing.
the local authorities and community really didn't have much feeling for the one killed in india, but it seems to me, if acts are to have consequences, if we are responsible for our acts, that this man, who deliberately set out to incite hatred and arouse muslims, bore some responsibility for what ensued.
i am not prescribing the punishment, simply affirming the belief that there was a real connection, in blood and death, between what he did and the person in india who died.
you can be sure if that person had been an american the consequences would have been considerably greater
ken
On 9/14/12 2:19 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
Ken,
We all know about the "fire in the theatre" exception to free speech. But, and this is a big but, there is a huge grey area here; it is not clear-cut. It often requires judicial mediation to determine what constitutes crying "fire" in a theater. Even in seemingly clear cases of "fire" in the theatre, the prosecuting authority still has to prove its case that the fire didn't exist or that the person yelling fire had no reasonable grounds or protected right to yell "fire." �Hate speech, which this film clearly is, is protected under US law. I am not an expert on libel, but insulting a group or religion does not constitute "incitement," which is the exception in free speech--unless you can prove that the purpose of the material was to incite, which is impossible since intention is a tough thing to prove. Incitement is a high legal bar and is almost impossible to prove. There are many cases in the US and other Western countries where those who sought to prove incitement were unsuccessful. You'd have to prove that someone willingly put out material they KNEW would incite people or cause them to react violently. The lawyers can chime in here, but my understanding is that you cannot libel a group, that only individuals can be libeled or slandered. If this is true, then your notion of the film committing libel against Muslims is untenable. And even if this were so, is violence the appropriate response?
The case of Hutu genocidal propaganda is clear-cut. I mean, you had people yelling "cut them," "kill the cockroaches," "burn their homes," kill their children," etc on radio. The film in question does no such thing, as abhorrent as its message is.
The film is a poorly made, poorly delivered bigoted artistic product that insults a religion and its key figure, something that has been done to many organized religions for centuries and have not always generated violent backlash.
Ultimately, the appropriate response to hate speech is counter-speech, a peaceful demonstration to register disapproval, or a boycott of the medium and messenger of the hate speech. It is not to hurt innocents and engage in violence, which then validates the caricatures inherent in the said hate speech.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
moses
there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
--shouting fire in a theatre
--what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the person by the expression of false information
--what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american notions of free speech!
as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an additional motivation of hatred for a group.
now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech that incites the lynching.
in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if not genocides.
no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or disempowered.
lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
ken
On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary Clinton
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir,
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP �THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
speech�, �artistic licence�, �� freedom of artistic expression �,
�Human Rights�etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
�transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year �at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for � holy envy�
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet �and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that �Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad orIslam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying � I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, �this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction �- no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ
SuperStar� after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
On Sep 13, 9:43�pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise. More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as affront which must be confronted. The response of the latter group is what we have seen in Egypt and Algeria and may just be starting. The Muslim intellectuals may have no reasons to respond to malicious activities against the Prophet in any form-be it in cartoon, play, book or whatever but no one will be able to stop the emotional Muslims from reacting emotionally when provoked. The answer
> �to this question is an enlightenment to those who provoke others to stop the provocation. This may appear crude but it is the truth of the matter.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 3:31:56 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
To moses,
re "intention is a tough thing to prove."
The effect/s, calculated or not is surely a measure of intent/
intention?
In the case of the Danish cartoons, Lars Vilks, we have already seen
the effects and those who follow their footsteps know that they are
sure to wind up in the same hole...
> > *"…the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They
> > *
>
> read more »
re "intention is a tough thing to prove."
The effect/s, calculated or not is surely a measure of intent/
intention?
In the case of the Danish cartoons, Lars Vilks, we have already seen
the effects and those who follow their footsteps know that they are
sure to wind up in the same hole...
> > have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is
> > not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a
> > sign that one's faith is unshakable” – Hillary Clinton**
> > not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a
> > *
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
> > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sir,
>
> >> I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> >> effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> >> On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> >> Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> >> destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> >> provocations.
>
> >>https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro...
> > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sir,
>
> >> I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> >> effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> >> On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> >> Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> >> destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> >> provocations.
>
>
> >> The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> >> on 11th September of course:
>
> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> >> The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> >> on 11th September of course:
>
>
> >> The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> >> disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
> >> speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
> >> “Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> >> determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> >> to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
> >> Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> >> vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> >> every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> >> salaam.
>
> >> And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> >> I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> >> the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> >> “transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> >> theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> >> existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> >> ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> >> Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> >> of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> >> year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> >> all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> >> As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> >> some room for “ holy envy”
>
> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> >> The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> >> disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
> >> speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
> >> “Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> >> determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> >> to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
> >> Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> >> vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> >> every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> >> salaam.
>
> >> And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> >> I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> >> the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> >> “transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> >> theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> >> existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> >> ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> >> Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> >> of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> >> year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> >> all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> >> As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> >> some room for “ holy envy”
>
>
> >> Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> >> Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> >> demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> >> quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
> >> Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> >> The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> >> alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> >> In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> >> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> >> compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin
>
> ...
> >> Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> >> Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> >> demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> >> quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
> >> Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> >> The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> >> alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> >> In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> >> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> >> compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin
>
>
> read more »
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 14, 2012, 3:26:14 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Please....
The response to so called incitement is not an automatic, reflex response.
Muslims should come off this notion that they are religious robots who are set off by anything about their religion and go killing.
The world should place the burden of responsibility on Muslims to practice the reflexivity that makes people human,not automatons or zombies.
toyin
The response to so called incitement is not an automatic, reflex response.
Muslims should come off this notion that they are religious robots who are set off by anything about their religion and go killing.
The world should place the burden of responsibility on Muslims to practice the reflexivity that makes people human,not automatons or zombies.
toyin
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
dear moses
i am not speaking directly about the video when i cite the rwandan case which you state is clear-cut.
i am simply trying to sort out the principle. in the case of rwanda, the conditions did not permit a response to radio milles collines by boycotting--after all, it was aimed at hutus, not tutsis; nor by a peaceful protest. it was inciting killing, not making philosophical observations about another people.
in this case of the video, it is complicated. as you say, a grey area. i don't think it would constitute an incitement in the u.s., partly because the conditions would not enable the people expressing their hatred in this film to generate acts of violence. but you can imagine a film, better made, inciting its viewers to attack muslims, and which could well result in death or property being burnt. i would have a hard time understanding this as a speech act separate from a physical act.
in our world today, the exhibition of a film can't be easily delimited.
so, an example of what i find troubling circumstances, on a smaller scale, but just like this film
in my own little neighborhood in east lansing our street abuts a mosque. last year a local bigot tore up the pages of a koran, burnt and defiled them, and then scattered them around the neighborhood. a kind neighbor tried to gather them up, and returned them to the people at the mosque. it got into the papers. the man responsible was apprehended, but not charged with anything as the prosecutor said that no crime had been committed. the leaders of the mosque just wanted it all to be forgotten, and we had the usual community-let's-all-come-together type event.
word got out, to afghanistan, to india. there were attacks, without deaths, in afghanistan, and then it blew over and was forgotten. in india, someone was killed. don't remember who, but probably a christian.
then it was forgotten.
but that poor family in india lost someone because of this person, whose act was considered anodyne, here in east lansing.
the local authorities and community really didn't have much feeling for the one killed in india, but it seems to me, if acts are to have consequences, if we are responsible for our acts, that this man, who deliberately set out to incite hatred and arouse muslims, bore some responsibility for what ensued.
i am not prescribing the punishment, simply affirming the belief that there was a real connection, in blood and death, between what he did and the person in india who died.
you can be sure if that person had been an american the consequences would have been considerably greater
ken
On 9/14/12 2:19 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Ken,
We all know about the "fire in the theatre" exception to free speech. But, and this is a big but, there is a huge grey area here; it is not clear-cut. It often requires judicial mediation to determine what constitutes crying "fire" in a theater. Even in seemingly clear cases of "fire" in the theatre, the prosecuting authority still has to prove its case that the fire didn't exist or that the person yelling fire had no reasonable grounds or protected right to yell "fire." Hate speech, which this film clearly is, is protected under US law. I am not an expert on libel, but insulting a group or religion does not constitute "incitement," which is the exception in free speech--unless you can prove that the purpose of the material was to incite, which is impossible since intention is a tough thing to prove. Incitement is a high legal bar and is almost impossible to prove. There are many cases in the US and other Western countries where those who sought to prove incitement were unsuccessful. You'd have to prove that someone willingly put out material they KNEW would incite people or cause them to react violently. The lawyers can chime in here, but my understanding is that you cannot libel a group, that only individuals can be libeled or slandered. If this is true, then your notion of the film committing libel against Muslims is untenable. And even if this were so, is violence the appropriate response?
The case of Hutu genocidal propaganda is clear-cut. I mean, you had people yelling "cut them," "kill the cockroaches," "burn their homes," kill their children," etc on radio. The film in question does no such thing, as abhorrent as its message is.
The film is a poorly made, poorly delivered bigoted artistic product that insults a religion and its key figure, something that has been done to many organized religions for centuries and have not always generated violent backlash.
Ultimately, the appropriate response to hate speech is counter-speech, a peaceful demonstration to register disapproval, or a boycott of the medium and messenger of the hate speech. It is not to hurt innocents and engage in violence, which then validates the caricatures inherent in the said hate speech.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
moses
there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
--shouting fire in a theatre
--what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the person by the expression of false information
--what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american notions of free speech!
as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an additional motivation of hatred for a group.
now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech that incites the lynching.
in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if not genocides.
no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or disempowered.
lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
ken
On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
"…the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable” – Hillary Clinton
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir,
I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
provocations.
https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks
The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
on 11th September of course:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA
The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of “freedom of
speech”, “artistic licence”, “ freedom of artistic expression “,
“Human Rights”etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world’s
Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
salaam.
And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
“transcendental” (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
all, people prepared to die for their faith....
As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
some room for “ holy envy”
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad orIslam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying – I guess
that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous
books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
countering detractors' lies and deceit. They (Islam's enemies) would
be happy with that kind of passive reaction - no literary fatwas, no
price on anyone's head, no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
no executions for such crimes being committed and before we know it
they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version
of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ
SuperStar” after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic
relations with those who show it and some OPEC countries might even
consider doing a repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil
suckers pay....
On Sep 13, 9:43 pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise. More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as affront which must be confronted. The response of the latter group is what we have seen in Egypt and Algeria and may just be starting. The Muslim intellectuals may have no reasons to respond to malicious activities against the Prophet in any form-be it in cartoon, play, book or whatever but no one will be able to stop the emotional Muslims from reacting emotionally when provoked. The answer
> to this question is an enlightenment to those who provoke others to stop the provocation. This may appear crude but it is the truth of the matter.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 3:25:49 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
little i (me) or capital I ( the surviving ego)
has not breathed "ana al-haq"
there was me and Muhammad
On Sep 14, 8:56 pm, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> dear all,
> this answer of cornelius is worthy of al-hallaj whose famous line, my
> favorite,is ana al-haq, i am the truth.
> like the line in our jewish shabbat prayer, ani adonei elochehum, i am
> the lord our god; the mystic's identification with the spiritual, that
> is what i get from cornelius's wonderful line below,
>
> I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ?
>
> what cornelius (and i) want to insist upon is that islam is not all
> encompassed in the image of jihadi killings, but of a spiritualism that
> is ethereal, a tradition of writings and authors and nabi, whose works
> and words soar. every religion has its lowest element, and i can't
> understand why we humans have to be so intolerant of others as to want
> to impose our views by force.
> but old bones can remember the words of yeats i quoted earlier about the
> golden bird that sings, which we want so much to be heard.
> for me, attar's Conference of Birds is one of those places to go to hear
> that bird
> thanks cornelius
> ken
>
> On 9/13/12 9:28 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
>
> > This is embarrassing.
>
> > This is what I said: There are many, many outstanding books covering
> > that area of ignorance
> > that I could supply you with, on request... That was an honourable
>
> > Now there you go talking about famous books and I suppose that you
> ...
>
> read more »
has not breathed "ana al-haq"
there was me and Muhammad
On Sep 14, 8:56 pm, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> dear all,
> this answer of cornelius is worthy of al-hallaj whose famous line, my
> favorite,is ana al-haq, i am the truth.
> like the line in our jewish shabbat prayer, ani adonei elochehum, i am
> the lord our god; the mystic's identification with the spiritual, that
> is what i get from cornelius's wonderful line below,
>
> I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ?
>
> what cornelius (and i) want to insist upon is that islam is not all
> encompassed in the image of jihadi killings, but of a spiritualism that
> is ethereal, a tradition of writings and authors and nabi, whose works
> and words soar. every religion has its lowest element, and i can't
> understand why we humans have to be so intolerant of others as to want
> to impose our views by force.
> but old bones can remember the words of yeats i quoted earlier about the
> golden bird that sings, which we want so much to be heard.
> for me, attar's Conference of Birds is one of those places to go to hear
> that bird
> thanks cornelius
> ken
>
> On 9/13/12 9:28 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
>
> > This is embarrassing.
>
> > that area of ignorance
> > that I could supply you with, on request... That was an honourable
> > Yoruba man talking after studying Islam for eight years. You have not
> > made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
> > Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
>
> > Who told you that I can't quote them from memory?
> > made such a request - and as for me, following the advice of Idries
> > Shah, I resist the urge to teach.
>
> > I can quote all of them from memory and these are not secret pages or
> > secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
> > of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
> > you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
> > find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
> > Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
> > AbdolKarim Soroush?
>
> > The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
> > against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
> > The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
> > undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
> > succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
> > as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
>
> > Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
> > monkeys can be taught to read so is it merely a matter of reading?
> > secret books, some of the authors of their pages are personal friends
> > of mine, people I meet , have met, communicate with, if need be. If
> > you too search the subject matter we are discussing then you should
> > find them, since some of them are public figures AND famous. Seyyed
> > Hossein Nasr for example is reasonably well known, isn't he? Isn't
> > AbdolKarim Soroush?
>
> > The only thing is that I do not want to start puffing myself up
> > against an amateur or poseur who wants to represent Islam, negatively.
> > The enemies of Islam would like to destroy that religion, by trying to
> > undermine the integrity of that great religion, but they won't
> > succeed. As for that other bigoted idiot Rev. Jones, he can go and rot
> > as well and wait to see if he resurrects or not...
>
> > Yes Sir, donkeys can carry whole libraries on their backs and even
> > The first word in the Quranic revelation is IQRA which means READ, and
> > reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
> > your heart in the evolution from animal to - since mention Rumi to
> > reading is an early stage of the journey when you set out to cultivate
>
> > For the next time I shall die
> > Bring forth wings and feathers like angels
> > After that soaring higher than angels
> > What you cannot imagine I shall be that.
>
> > For the next time I shall die
> > Bring forth wings and feathers like angels
> > After that soaring higher than angels
> > What you cannot imagine I shall be that.
>
> > The first thing that you have to understand is that a Muslim is not a
> > real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
> > the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
>
> > I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> > Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
> > have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
>
> > real Muslim if that Muslim does not love, honour, respect and venerate
> > the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam.
>
> > I have met the prophet of Islam, Rasulullah, Muhammad Ibn
> > Abdallah,salallahu alaihi wa salaam. Have you ? No I guess that you
> > have only read about him ( Like Dylan singing,
>
> > You ever seen a ghost? No
> > But you have heard of them
>
> > But you have heard of them
>
> > The film in question which smears the reputation of the Prophet of
> > Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
> > history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
> > all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
> > reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
> > media.
>
> > I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
> > of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
> > the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
>
> > You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
>
> > Islam and that Channel 4 attempt which wants to cast doubt on the
> > history of early Islam and therefore to negate the hadiths, these are
> > all calculated to provoke Muslims worldwide - into the kinds of
> > reactions that you have been watching on TV and reading about in the
> > media.
>
> > I am not here to teach anyone (I'm still teaching myself) - and much
> > of the travelling that a salik does is not from page one to the end of
> > the kinds of books that I have read in their hundreds.
>
> > You know that first meeting between Rumi and Shams of Tabriz
>
> > After greetings, he asked Rumi pointing to the books (manuscripts)
> > what was it. Rumi answered interrogatively ' what would you know ? '
> > The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
> > water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
> > upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
> > the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
> > A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
> > him back in Runi's own words, " What would you know " and left.
>
> >http://shamsitabriz.net/shamsitabriz.html
> > what was it. Rumi answered interrogatively ' what would you know ? '
> > The visitor reached for the the pile of books and threw them in the
> > water. These were Rumi's hand written manuscripts and he was greatly
> > upset by the unexpected rage of the unknown man. Shams bent down to
> > the water, restoring the pile of books with no sign of water on them.
> > A bewildered Rumi managed to ask, " what was it ? " and Shams answered
> > him back in Runi's own words, " What would you know " and left.
>
>
> > Now there you go talking about famous books and I suppose that you
> > have thoroughly studied the Quran and are personally familiar with its
> > outer and inner meanings or the famous books that you have read
>
> read more »
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 14, 2012, 3:52:45 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius,
Are you supporting this strategy of Muslims using murder as deterrent?
Your comments suggest that.
Harrow, you dont seem to have picked up this line in Cornelius;' responses.
I would like a response on this from you too.
toyin
Are you supporting this strategy of Muslims using murder as deterrent?
Your comments suggest that.
Harrow, you dont seem to have picked up this line in Cornelius;' responses.
I would like a response on this from you too.
toyin
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 4:57:51 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Toyin,
,
As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called “art” I guess
that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
for that’s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
people actually arriving there, “abruptly”
Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
womanising Muhammad who said, "I was made to love three things from
your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
clash right there on your front door....
I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) does not do “a repeat
of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....”, because
we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
Stockholm underground – cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
OPEC raised their oil price - the cost of living soared.....the cost
of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+and+perfume&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
,
As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called “art” I guess
that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
for that’s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
people actually arriving there, “abruptly”
Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
womanising Muhammad who said, "I was made to love three things from
your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
clash right there on your front door....
I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) does not do “a repeat
of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....”, because
we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
Stockholm underground – cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
OPEC raised their oil price - the cost of living soared.....the cost
of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+and+perfume&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted the
> points
>
> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive reaction -
>
> no literary fatwas,
>
> no price on anyone's head,
>
> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> and before we know it
>
> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ SuperStar”
> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> those who show it and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> toyin
>
> points
>
> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive reaction -
>
> no literary fatwas,
>
> no price on anyone's head,
>
> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> and before we know it
>
> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ SuperStar”
> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> those who show it and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> toyin
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Human Rights
> > freedom of speech
> > the first amendment
> > Tears and American compassion,
> > Human Rights,
> > Freedom of speech,
> > The first amendment,
> > 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> > crying?'
>
> > Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> > arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> > and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
> > and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
> > later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> > Ishmael Reed:
>
> > “Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> > deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> > white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> > thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> > beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; “?
>
> >http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/01/14/ma-and-pa-clinton-flog-uppity-...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Human Rights
> > freedom of speech
> > the first amendment
> > Tears and American compassion,
> > Human Rights,
> > Freedom of speech,
> > The first amendment,
> > 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> > crying?'
>
> > Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> > arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> > and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
> > and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
> > later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> > Ishmael Reed:
>
> > “Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> > deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> > white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> > thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> > beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; “?
>
>
> read more »
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 14, 2012, 5:15:24 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius,
I would like a direct answer.
Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their faith?
Your words suggest you do.
Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel som years ago.
Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not equate with identifying with self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' use of murder in defending their faith.
What is going on?
Toyin
> ...
>
> read more »
kenneth harrow
Sep 14, 2012, 6:28:35 PM9/14/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
toyin,
i don't know if this will answer your question or not.
i was living in senegal when the danish cartoons came out. prior to then wade had arrested one journalist and tried to get an opposition newspaper and its tv show stopped. there was an incredibly active opposition press, with half a dozen or more newspapers continually lambasting the president, and if ever there existed such a thing as freedom of the press, that was it.
when the journalist was arrested, there was a unanimous call for action against wade, and eventually wade backed down. the editorials calling for freedom of the press were stirring. as eloquent as any american calls for first amendment rights.
anyway, ironically, when the danish cartoon came out, not one of those newspapers defended the danish newspaper. in fact, it was the opposite: they all cried out against it, against the fact of publishing such a cartoon. then, quickly, the consequences followed, and there was violence in northern nigeria. the freedom of the cartoonist to express himself couldn't be separated from the fact that there were so many millions of people who would feel offended--people already feeling some pressures from a dominant western bloc that had joined to launch a truly gratuitous war against a fellow muslim community--that some hotheads were sure to be set off by the image.
suddenly the publication wasn't in denmark any more; it was everywhere where there were computers, and people could see it and feel it in its immediacy.
it was more than an act of indiscretion; it was a provocation that became an incitement.
if you knew that baiting someone you knew over some issue that that person was particularly vulnerable about would unleash an uncontrollable anger, say yelling that insult at the person in a bar in such a way as to humiliate that person deeply, and then that person went for you, and you fought back, what would the judge say when you both wound up in court?
i am not saying this is black and white; it is real, therefore gray
ken
i don't know if this will answer your question or not.
i was living in senegal when the danish cartoons came out. prior to then wade had arrested one journalist and tried to get an opposition newspaper and its tv show stopped. there was an incredibly active opposition press, with half a dozen or more newspapers continually lambasting the president, and if ever there existed such a thing as freedom of the press, that was it.
when the journalist was arrested, there was a unanimous call for action against wade, and eventually wade backed down. the editorials calling for freedom of the press were stirring. as eloquent as any american calls for first amendment rights.
anyway, ironically, when the danish cartoon came out, not one of those newspapers defended the danish newspaper. in fact, it was the opposite: they all cried out against it, against the fact of publishing such a cartoon. then, quickly, the consequences followed, and there was violence in northern nigeria. the freedom of the cartoonist to express himself couldn't be separated from the fact that there were so many millions of people who would feel offended--people already feeling some pressures from a dominant western bloc that had joined to launch a truly gratuitous war against a fellow muslim community--that some hotheads were sure to be set off by the image.
suddenly the publication wasn't in denmark any more; it was everywhere where there were computers, and people could see it and feel it in its immediacy.
it was more than an act of indiscretion; it was a provocation that became an incitement.
if you knew that baiting someone you knew over some issue that that person was particularly vulnerable about would unleash an uncontrollable anger, say yelling that insult at the person in a bar in such a way as to humiliate that person deeply, and then that person went for you, and you fought back, what would the judge say when you both wound up in court?
i am not saying this is black and white; it is real, therefore gray
ken
On 9/14/12 3:52 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
wrote:
Cornelius,
Are you supporting this strategy of Muslims using murder as deterrent?
Your comments suggest that.
Harrow, you dont seem to have picked up this line in Cornelius;' responses.
I would like a response on this from you too.
toyin
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
To moses,
The effect/s, calculated or not is surely a measure of intent/
re "intention is a tough thing to prove."
intention?
In the case of the Danish cartoons, Lars Vilks, we have already seen
the effects and those who follow their footsteps know that they are
sure to wind up in the same hole...
On Sep 14, 8:19�pm, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> We all know about the "fire in the theatre" exception to free speech. But,
> and this is a big but, there is a huge grey area here; it is not clear-cut.
> It often requires judicial mediation to determine what constitutes crying
> "fire" in a theater. Even in seemingly clear cases of "fire" in the
> theatre, the prosecuting authority still has to prove its case that the
> fire didn't exist or that the person yelling fire had no reasonable grounds
> or protected right to yell "fire." �Hate speech, which this film clearly
> > �moses
> > �*"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They
> > have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is
> > not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a
> > sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary Clinton**
> > *
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
> > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Sir,
>
> >> I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> >> effect. The solution is TO STOP �THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> >> On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> >> Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> >> destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> >> provocations.
>
> >>https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro...
>> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> >> The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> >> on 11th September of course:
>
>
> >> The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> >> disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
> >> speech�, �artistic licence�, �� freedom of artistic expression �,
> >> �Human Rights�etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> >> determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> >> to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
> >> Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> >> vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> >> every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> >> salaam.
>
> >> And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> >> I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> >> the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> >> �transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> >> theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> >> existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> >> ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> >> Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> >> of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> >> year �at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> >> all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> >> As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> >> some room for � holy envy�> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
>
>
> >> Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> >> Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> >> demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> >> quiet �and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
> >> Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> >> The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> >> alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> >> In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> >> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> >> compensation) but the tit for tat that �Oluwatoyin> ...
>
>
> read more �
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 7:43:21 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
So you would like to enlist the assistance of Professor Harrow, so
that together you can crucify me for merely thinking a thought? My
freedom of expression?
On 14 Sep, 22:22, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> läs mer »
that together you can crucify me for merely thinking a thought? My
freedom of expression?
On 14 Sep, 22:22, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> läs mer »
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 14, 2012, 8:33:06 PM9/14/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
faith?”
Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
soon as possible !
Do I “support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
faith?”
Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
Should I speak in tongues?
Which answer would lay him most low?
Which of these responses would he prefer :
The Retort Courteous?
The Quip Modest?
The Reply Churlish?
The Reproof Valiant?
The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
The Lie with Circumstance
or the Lie Direct.?
Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to “the Lie
direct” ?
“ No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
I wish that I could say, “ A wicked and adulterous generation looks
for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
Jonah “
I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
deterrent - the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
said to NATO “ Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!”
That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
lost their lives....
Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
hanging there...
Toyin complains that I “almost seemed to cheer the
horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel some years ago”
Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
Does that answer your question?
“There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
-- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cornelius,
>
> >https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
> ...
>
> läs mer »
would like “a direct answer.”
Do I “support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
faith?”
Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
soon as possible !
Do I “support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
faith?”
Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
Should I speak in tongues?
Which answer would lay him most low?
Which of these responses would he prefer :
The Retort Courteous?
The Quip Modest?
The Reply Churlish?
The Reproof Valiant?
The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
The Lie with Circumstance
or the Lie Direct.?
Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to “the Lie
direct” ?
“ No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
I wish that I could say, “ A wicked and adulterous generation looks
for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
Jonah “
I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
deterrent - the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
said to NATO “ Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!”
That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
lost their lives....
Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
hanging there...
Toyin complains that I “almost seemed to cheer the
horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel some years ago”
Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
Does that answer your question?
“There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
-- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cornelius,
>
>
> läs mer »
danoye oguntola
Sep 15, 2012, 1:31:09 AM9/15/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Am really worried about the trend of contributions to the debate at hand. This more so because it also involve scholars of religious studies who should demonstrate fair judgement(s) on the subject matter. Yes the film is provocative, yes it was made in the USA, but by whom? In whose interest? For what purpose(s)? We should respond to these questions and see if we can ask Nigerian Muslims not to protest or even respond to the issue at hand. I think the politics of the film will unfold in time for us to see the "senselessness" of the protests accross the globe.I think each country in the protest are doing so for different reasons that transcend religious beliefs and practices. The social and political engagements in this should provide a solid base for us to engage in constructive conversations that will show that we are the beacon of the society. Not submissions base on bigotry and selfishness.The question of human right should also be addressed
in relation to religious beliefs and values.
From: Jaye Gaskia <ogb...@yahoo.com>
To: "usaafric...@googlegroups.com" <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:51 PM
From: Jaye Gaskia <ogb...@yahoo.com>
To: "usaafric...@googlegroups.com" <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:51 PM
Ayo Obe
Sep 15, 2012, 6:30:35 PM9/15/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 16, 2012, 3:13:34 PM9/16/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
blasphemy in Islam
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=blasphemy+in+Islam&oq=blasphemy+in+Islam&gs_l=hp.12..0j0i30l4j0i5j0i5i30l4.3106.3106.0.11708.1.1.0.0.0.0.54.54.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.KVPe-VbMumw
”Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?”
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question - in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The “ summarily” must
have been sarcastic – due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said “ I am the truth”, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean “ I am the lord our god” and would have certainly not said that
during his trial – nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate“ ( “I am the Lord our God”). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared but he insisted “ana al-
haqq”, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
“one”( in which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31 am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> > For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=blasphemy+in+Islam&oq=blasphemy+in+Islam&gs_l=hp.12..0j0i30l4j0i5j0i5i30l4.3106.3106.0.11708.1.1.0.0.0.0.54.54.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.KVPe-VbMumw
”Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?”
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question - in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The “ summarily” must
have been sarcastic – due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said “ I am the truth”, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean “ I am the lord our god” and would have certainly not said that
during his trial – nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate“ ( “I am the Lord our God”). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared but he insisted “ana al-
haqq”, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
“one”( in which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31 am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 16, 2012, 8:49:06 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism, and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
kenneth harrow
Sep 16, 2012, 9:03:47 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
hi all
this is interesting. i'm interested in hearing cornelius's response. i only wanted to throw in that blasphemy is one thing, and denying the existence of a single god (called shirk ), worshipping other gods, is another; and the latter is considered the worst of sins in islam. it is unforgiveable.
maybe, then, there is a conflation of the two?
ken
this is interesting. i'm interested in hearing cornelius's response. i only wanted to throw in that blasphemy is one thing, and denying the existence of a single god (called shirk ), worshipping other gods, is another; and the latter is considered the worst of sins in islam. it is unforgiveable.
maybe, then, there is a conflation of the two?
ken
On 9/16/12 8:49 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 16, 2012, 9:19:18 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
A quick response to someone who wondered aloud here why there seems to be a steady, if intermittent, stream of provocation directed at Islam and other religions and their key figures/prophets. That question is, for me as a Christian, very easy to answer. Within the realm of my faith, I resolved this issue a few years ago, chalking it up to the human capacity to cause offense and to perpetrate evil without reason or clear motive, sometimes for perverse pleasure or to provoke a reaction that feeds the ego and a sense of importance. Several years ago I reflected on this question. For me as a Christian, the scripture that answered that question is Jeremiah 17:9, which reads: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
The human mind has an infinite capacity for evil and wicked acts. This is the reason I critiqued the focus on provocation rather than on violent reaction--rather than on the point that Toyin made earlier: that the truly religious will accept that transcendental omniscience of God or the Divine and realize the futility of fighting on His behalf or of trying to avenge Him. If one accepts the basic premise in that scripture ( and I am sure there is an ayat in the Quran that is analogous to this scripture), one should make peace with the fact that insult and provocation, which emanate from the human mind/heart, is a fact of life that will always be present in this filthy world of ours. It is not going away. Such a philosophical reconciliation will enable one to cultivate a less aggressive response to offense, especially the type of emotional and violent response that ends up hurting innocents.
This scripture, when I encountered it at a deep level, did more for me beyond a simple understanding of the letter. The larger point for me was: if God is the creator of he human heart and mind and, according to His own word (in Jeremiah 17:9, he is absolutely fine with the heart of man harboring such evil even though he has the capacity, as the Abrahamic faiths teach, that He can recreate a heart or mind, then why should I, a mere mortal, trouble myself over the evils that the human mind can conceive, or react violently to avenge that evil? More crucially, if as a Muslim or Christian, you believe as your faith teaches you to, that God is capable of doing anything He wants and is omnipotent, why on earth would it make sense to even try to fight on God's behalf or to avenge Him when you think that He or His prophet has been insulted? For these reasons, for me, violence as a way of making a religious point doesn't make sense, for it betrays a lack of faith in the divine, omnipotent/omniscient attribute of God. It betrays a lack of knowledge of God. In fact it belittles the God that fighters motivated by religious greivance claim to serve and revere because an all-powerful God, who, though capable of ALL things, is not threatened enough by man's wicked heart to remake it, is obviously capable of avenging insults to Him or His prophets and does not need the effort of His creation, man.
kenneth harrow
Sep 16, 2012, 9:05:08 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
i should add that atheism is also considered shirk
ken
ken
On 9/16/12 8:49 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 16, 2012, 10:53:41 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc.
For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death.
We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true.
The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11 hijackers as they made their way to the airports.
Their Al Qaeda handlers had instructed them to meditate on al-Tawba and Anfal, two lengthy suras from the Koran, the holy scripture of Islam. The passages make for harrowing reading. God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!" (Koran 8.12). God instructs his Muslim followers to kill unbelievers, to capture them, to ambush them (Koran 9.5). Everything contributes to advancing the holy goal: "Strike terror into God's enemies, and your enemies" (Koran 8.60). Perhaps in their final moments, the hijackers took refuge in these words, in which God lauds acts of terror and massacre.
On a much lesser scale, others have used the words of the Koran to sanction violence. Even in cases of domestic violence and honor killing, perpetrators can find passages that seem to justify brutal acts (Koran 4.34).
Citing examples such as these, some Westerners argue that the Muslim scriptures themselves inspire terrorism, and drive violent jihad. Evangelist Franklin Graham has described his horror on finding so many Koranic passages that command the killing of infidels: the Koran, he thinks, "preaches violence." Prominent conservatives Paul Weyrich and William Lind argued that "Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," and urged that Muslims be encouraged to leave US soil. Today, Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces trial for his film "Fitna," in which he demands that the Koran be suppressed as the modern-day equivalent to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
Even Westerners who have never opened the book - especially such people, perhaps - assume that the Koran is filled with calls for militarism and murder, and that those texts shape Islam.
Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."
But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.
To say that terrorists can find religious texts to justify their acts does not mean that their violence actually grows from those scriptural roots. Indeed, such an assumption itself is based on the crude fundamentalist formulation that everything in a given religion must somehow be authorized in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Koran is not that one book teaches love while the other proclaims warfare and terrorism, rather it is a matter of how the works are read. Yes, the Koran has been ransacked to supply texts authorizing murder, but so has the Bible
If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.
But the implications run still deeper. All faiths contain within them some elements that are considered disturbing or unacceptable to modern eyes; all must confront the problem of absorbing and reconciling those troubling texts or doctrines. In some cases, religions evolve to the point where the ugly texts so fade into obscurity that ordinary believers scarcely acknowledge their existence, or at least deny them the slightest authority in the modern world. In other cases, the troubling words remain dormant, but can return to life in conditions of extreme stress and conflict. Texts, like people, can live or die. This whole process of forgetting and remembering, of growing beyond the harsh words found in a text, is one of the critical questions that all religions must learn to address.
Faithful Muslims believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God, delivered verbatim through the prophet Mohammed. Non-Muslims, of course, see the text as the work of human hands, whether of Mohammed himself or of schools of his early followers. But whichever view we take, the Koran as it stands claims to speak in God's voice. That is one of the great differences between the Bible and the Koran. Even for dedicated fundamentalists, inspired Bible passages come through the pen of a venerated historical individual, whether it's the Prophet Isaiah or the Apostle Paul, and that leaves open some chance of blaming embarrassing views on that person's own prejudices. The Koran gives no such option: For believers, every word in the text - however horrendous a passage may sound to modern ears - came directly from God.
We don't have to range too far to find passages that horrify. The Koran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle . . . shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). Other passages are equally threatening, though they usually have to be wrenched out of context to achieve this effect. One text from Sura (Chapter) 47 begins "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads."
But in such matters, the Bible too has plenty of passages that read painfully today. Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.
The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).
Joshua, Moses's successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.
In modern times, we would call this genocide. If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized. Mohammed wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.
Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.
The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God's anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. In 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins used the story as the basis for his manifesto "Vigilantes of Christendom." Hoskins advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming Phinehas as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.
Modern Christians who believe the Bible offers only a message of love and forgiveness are usually thinking only of the New Testament. Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews." Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.
Various authorities approach the word differently: I might prefer, for instance, to interpret it as "followers of the oppressive Judean religious elite," Or perhaps "Judeans." But in practice, any reputable translation has to use the simple and familiar word, "Jew," so that we read about the disciples hiding out after the Crucifixion, huddled in a room that is locked "for fear of the Jews." So harsh do these words sound to post-Holocaust ears that some churches exclude them from public reading.
Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.
Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. When America entered the First World War, for instance, firebrand preachers drew heavily on Jesus' warning that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. As it stands, that is not much of a text of terror, but if one is searching desperately for a weapon-related verse, it will serve to justify what people are going to do anyway
Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.
Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.
Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.
Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State University. He is the author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died."
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11 hijackers as they made their way to the airports.
Their Al Qaeda handlers had instructed them to meditate on al-Tawba and Anfal, two lengthy suras from the Koran, the holy scripture of Islam. The passages make for harrowing reading. God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!" (Koran 8.12). God instructs his Muslim followers to kill unbelievers, to capture them, to ambush them (Koran 9.5). Everything contributes to advancing the holy goal: "Strike terror into God's enemies, and your enemies" (Koran 8.60). Perhaps in their final moments, the hijackers took refuge in these words, in which God lauds acts of terror and massacre.
On a much lesser scale, others have used the words of the Koran to sanction violence. Even in cases of domestic violence and honor killing, perpetrators can find passages that seem to justify brutal acts (Koran 4.34).
Citing examples such as these, some Westerners argue that the Muslim scriptures themselves inspire terrorism, and drive violent jihad. Evangelist Franklin Graham has described his horror on finding so many Koranic passages that command the killing of infidels: the Koran, he thinks, "preaches violence." Prominent conservatives Paul Weyrich and William Lind argued that "Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," and urged that Muslims be encouraged to leave US soil. Today, Dutch politician Geert Wilders faces trial for his film "Fitna," in which he demands that the Koran be suppressed as the modern-day equivalent to Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
Even Westerners who have never opened the book - especially such people, perhaps - assume that the Koran is filled with calls for militarism and murder, and that those texts shape Islam.
Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."
But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.
To say that terrorists can find religious texts to justify their acts does not mean that their violence actually grows from those scriptural roots. Indeed, such an assumption itself is based on the crude fundamentalist formulation that everything in a given religion must somehow be authorized in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Koran is not that one book teaches love while the other proclaims warfare and terrorism, rather it is a matter of how the works are read. Yes, the Koran has been ransacked to supply texts authorizing murder, but so has the Bible
If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.
But the implications run still deeper. All faiths contain within them some elements that are considered disturbing or unacceptable to modern eyes; all must confront the problem of absorbing and reconciling those troubling texts or doctrines. In some cases, religions evolve to the point where the ugly texts so fade into obscurity that ordinary believers scarcely acknowledge their existence, or at least deny them the slightest authority in the modern world. In other cases, the troubling words remain dormant, but can return to life in conditions of extreme stress and conflict. Texts, like people, can live or die. This whole process of forgetting and remembering, of growing beyond the harsh words found in a text, is one of the critical questions that all religions must learn to address.
Faithful Muslims believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God, delivered verbatim through the prophet Mohammed. Non-Muslims, of course, see the text as the work of human hands, whether of Mohammed himself or of schools of his early followers. But whichever view we take, the Koran as it stands claims to speak in God's voice. That is one of the great differences between the Bible and the Koran. Even for dedicated fundamentalists, inspired Bible passages come through the pen of a venerated historical individual, whether it's the Prophet Isaiah or the Apostle Paul, and that leaves open some chance of blaming embarrassing views on that person's own prejudices. The Koran gives no such option: For believers, every word in the text - however horrendous a passage may sound to modern ears - came directly from God.
We don't have to range too far to find passages that horrify. The Koran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle . . . shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). Other passages are equally threatening, though they usually have to be wrenched out of context to achieve this effect. One text from Sura (Chapter) 47 begins "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads."
But in such matters, the Bible too has plenty of passages that read painfully today. Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.
The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).
Joshua, Moses's successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.
In modern times, we would call this genocide. If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized. Mohammed wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.
Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.
The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God's anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. In 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins used the story as the basis for his manifesto "Vigilantes of Christendom." Hoskins advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming Phinehas as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.
Modern Christians who believe the Bible offers only a message of love and forgiveness are usually thinking only of the New Testament. Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews." Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.
Various authorities approach the word differently: I might prefer, for instance, to interpret it as "followers of the oppressive Judean religious elite," Or perhaps "Judeans." But in practice, any reputable translation has to use the simple and familiar word, "Jew," so that we read about the disciples hiding out after the Crucifixion, huddled in a room that is locked "for fear of the Jews." So harsh do these words sound to post-Holocaust ears that some churches exclude them from public reading.
Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.
Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. When America entered the First World War, for instance, firebrand preachers drew heavily on Jesus' warning that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. As it stands, that is not much of a text of terror, but if one is searching desperately for a weapon-related verse, it will serve to justify what people are going to do anyway
Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.
Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.
Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.
Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State University. He is the author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died."
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 16, 2012, 10:51:29 PM9/16/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.
To say that terrorists can find religious texts to justify their acts does not mean that their violence actually grows from those scriptural roots. Indeed, such an assumption itself is based on the crude fundamentalist formulation that everything in a given religion must somehow be authorized in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Koran is not that one book teaches love while the other proclaims warfare and terrorism, rather it is a matter of how the works are read. Yes, the Koran has been ransacked to supply texts authorizing murder, but so has the Bible
If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.
But the implications run still deeper. All faiths contain within them some elements that are considered disturbing or unacceptable to modern eyes; all must confront the problem of absorbing and reconciling those troubling texts or doctrines. In some cases, religions evolve to the point where the ugly texts so fade into obscurity that ordinary believers scarcely acknowledge their existence, or at least deny them the slightest authority in the modern world. In other cases, the troubling words remain dormant, but can return to life in conditions of extreme stress and conflict. Texts, like people, can live or die. This whole process of forgetting and remembering, of growing beyond the harsh words found in a text, is one of the critical questions that all religions must learn to address.
Faithful Muslims believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God, delivered verbatim through the prophet Mohammed. Non-Muslims, of course, see the text as the work of human hands, whether of Mohammed himself or of schools of his early followers. But whichever view we take, the Koran as it stands claims to speak in God's voice. That is one of the great differences between the Bible and the Koran. Even for dedicated fundamentalists, inspired Bible passages come through the pen of a venerated historical individual, whether it's the Prophet Isaiah or the Apostle Paul, and that leaves open some chance of blaming embarrassing views on that person's own prejudices. The Koran gives no such option: For believers, every word in the text - however horrendous a passage may sound to modern ears - came directly from God.
We don't have to range too far to find passages that horrify. The Koran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle . . . shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). Other passages are equally threatening, though they usually have to be wrenched out of context to achieve this effect. One text from Sura (Chapter) 47 begins "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads."
But in such matters, the Bible too has plenty of passages that read painfully today. Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings, beheadings, and rapes.
The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).
Joshua, Moses's successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.
In modern times, we would call this genocide. If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized. Mohammed wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.
Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the Amalekite people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.
The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague. Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God's anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion. Phinehas slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses Phinehas and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. In 1990, Richard Kelly Hoskins used the story as the basis for his manifesto "Vigilantes of Christendom." Hoskins advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming Phinehas as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.
Modern Christians who believe the Bible offers only a message of love and forgiveness are usually thinking only of the New Testament. Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews." Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.
Various authorities approach the word differently: I might prefer, for instance, to interpret it as "followers of the oppressive Judean religious elite," Or perhaps "Judeans." But in practice, any reputable translation has to use the simple and familiar word, "Jew," so that we read about the disciples hiding out after the Crucifixion, huddled in a room that is locked "for fear of the Jews." So harsh do these words sound to post-Holocaust ears that some churches exclude them from public reading.
Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.
Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. When America entered the First World War, for instance, firebrand preachers drew heavily on Jesus' warning that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. As it stands, that is not much of a text of terror, but if one is searching desperately for a weapon-related verse, it will serve to justify what people are going to do anyway
Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.
Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.
Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.
Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State University. He is the author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died."
OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Sep 17, 2012, 12:59:05 PM9/17/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
I see that I have not got a direct response from Cornelius and Harrow.
I would like members to please comment on Cornelius justification of the culture of murder that has come to characterise Islam. Cornelius has every right to his views but it would be sad to see a community of scholars build a mountain of discourse on a subject while ignoring the very presence on their midst of the issue they are discussing.
Cornelius states
1. That asking Muslims to respond without force to critiques of their religion is a weak approach
2. That asking that the use of murder by Muslims in protesting critiques of their religion should stop is not in the interests of Muslims.
He then goes on to justify his views.
A group of scholars should respect Cornelius right to his views but `at least examine their rationale.
Everyone can pretend they did not read this post of mine or dont think its important.
I'm satisfied I have spelt it out.
If anyone thinks I have misinterpreted Cornelius or they cant find the relevant mail, let me know.
toyin
--
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 17, 2012, 1:44:52 PM9/17/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Dear Moses,
Just in order to treat those links as part of the text, I've used my
blog to reply and I hope that you receive it well:
http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/2012/09/17/we-are-cool-those-anti-american-demonstrations-havent-yet-hit-sweden-perhaps-never-will/
On Sep 17, 2:50 am, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cornelius,
>
> It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was
> listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, *Islamic Pacifism,* and
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=bl...
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant...
> ...
>
> read more »
Just in order to treat those links as part of the text, I've used my
blog to reply and I hope that you receive it well:
http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/2012/09/17/we-are-cool-those-anti-american-demonstrations-havent-yet-hit-sweden-perhaps-never-will/
On Sep 17, 2:50 am, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cornelius,
>
> It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was
>
> > We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
> > if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
>
> > Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
> > rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
> > the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
> > wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
> > I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
> > the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
> > would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
> > but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
> > this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
> > prophet?
>
> > The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
>
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Th...
> > We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
> > if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
>
> > Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
> > rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
> > the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
> > wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
> > I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
> > the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
> > would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
> > but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
> > this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
> > prophet?
>
> > The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
>
>
> read more »
kenneth harrow
Sep 17, 2012, 5:55:06 PM9/17/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
dear toyin
not entirely sure at this point what you want a response to.
do i agree with those protesting the video by attacking people? no. i do believe in freedom of expression
do i think the persons who made and disseminated the video are without blame? no i do believe that given current circumstances their making and releasing the video to those regions of the world where islamist violence is possible constitutes a provocation and incitement.
those who attacked and killed people because of their anger over the message in the video were guilty of committing crimes.
but the reality is, as moses said somewhere back there among a million messages, the real targets here are the larger political structures in their countries and regions, of which the u.s. is the symbol. when the u.s. supported repressive regimes, they incurred the anger of those in opposition to the regimes. now part of what regimes are in power or contesting power includes various factions of the muslim brotherhood, and the video has given them the occasion to motivate their followers. hezbollah is doing the same. i think this is reprehensible.
but i am also sensitive to the fact that the u.s. continues to sustain the backbone of repressive authoritarianism, not to mention religious authoritarianism, in the form of the gulf states and saudi arabia.
the discussions don't really add up to much unless you start to factor in the regional politics, just as, i suppose, the actions of boko haram make sense only within the nigerian context
i hope i have answered your question.
and if so, i hope you see that i do not attribute the responsibility to islam, but to the political factions that make use of it, of their readings of it, of their teachings of it, to serve their own ends
ken
not entirely sure at this point what you want a response to.
do i agree with those protesting the video by attacking people? no. i do believe in freedom of expression
do i think the persons who made and disseminated the video are without blame? no i do believe that given current circumstances their making and releasing the video to those regions of the world where islamist violence is possible constitutes a provocation and incitement.
those who attacked and killed people because of their anger over the message in the video were guilty of committing crimes.
but the reality is, as moses said somewhere back there among a million messages, the real targets here are the larger political structures in their countries and regions, of which the u.s. is the symbol. when the u.s. supported repressive regimes, they incurred the anger of those in opposition to the regimes. now part of what regimes are in power or contesting power includes various factions of the muslim brotherhood, and the video has given them the occasion to motivate their followers. hezbollah is doing the same. i think this is reprehensible.
but i am also sensitive to the fact that the u.s. continues to sustain the backbone of repressive authoritarianism, not to mention religious authoritarianism, in the form of the gulf states and saudi arabia.
the discussions don't really add up to much unless you start to factor in the regional politics, just as, i suppose, the actions of boko haram make sense only within the nigerian context
i hope i have answered your question.
and if so, i hope you see that i do not attribute the responsibility to islam, but to the political factions that make use of it, of their readings of it, of their teachings of it, to serve their own ends
ken
On 9/17/12 12:59 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
wrote:
I see that I have not got a�direct�response�from Cornelius and Harrow.
I would like�members�to please comment on Cornelius�justification�of the culture of murder that has come to characterise Islam. Cornelius has every right to his views but it�would�be sad to see a community of scholars �build a�mountain�of discourse on a subject while�ignoring�the very presence on their midst of the issue�they�are discussing.
Cornelius�states
1. That asking Muslims to respond without force to�critiques�of�their�religion�is �a weak approach
2. That�asking�that�the use of murder by Muslims in protesting critiques of their religion�should�stop is not in the�interests�of Muslims.
He then goes on to�justify�his views.
�A group of scholars �should respect Cornelius right to�his�views but `at least examine�their�rationale.�
Everyone�can pretend�they�did not�read�this post of mine or dont think its important.
I'm�satisfied�I have spelt it out.
If anyone thinks I have misinterpreted �Cornelius or they cant find the relevant mail, let me know.�
toyin
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although�Toyin�has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even�Abrahamic�ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand�Islamist�terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet�Mohammed�or to perceived desecration of the�Quran, etc.�
For Nigerians, we remember Gideon�Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a�Quran�wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death.�
We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true.�
The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the�flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as�Toyin�erroneously insinuated, the�Quran�contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.�
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and�instrumentalized�over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the�Quran�than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the�Quran�as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the�Quran�even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the�Quran�contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent�Quranic�verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the�Quran�from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.�
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11 hijackers as they made their way to the airports.
Their Al�Qaeda�handlers had instructed them to meditate on�al-Tawba�and�Anfal, two lengthy�suras�from the Koran, the holy scripture of Islam. The passages make for harrowing reading. God promises to "cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!" (Koran 8.12). God instructs his Muslim followers to kill unbelievers, to capture them, to ambush them (Koran 9.5). Everything contributes to advancing the holy goal: "Strike terror into God's enemies, and your enemies" (Koran 8.60). Perhaps in their final moments, the hijackers took refuge in these words, in which God lauds acts of terror and massacre.
On a much lesser scale, others have used the words of the Koran to sanction violence. Even in cases of domestic violence and honor killing, perpetrators can find passages that seem to justify brutal acts (Koran 4.34).
Citing examples such as these, some Westerners argue that the Muslim scriptures themselves inspire terrorism, and drive violent jihad. Evangelist Franklin Graham has described his horror on finding so many Koranic passages that command the killing of infidels: the Koran, he thinks, "preaches violence." Prominent conservatives Paul�Weyrich�and William Lind argued that "Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," and urged that Muslims be encouraged to leave US soil. Today, Dutch politician�Geert�Wilders�faces trial for his film "Fitna," in which he demands that the Koran be suppressed as the modern-day equivalent to Hitler's "Mein�Kampf."
Even Westerners who have never opened the book - especially such people, perhaps - assume that the Koran is filled with calls for militarism and murder, and that those texts shape Islam.
Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."
But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis�Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.
To say that terrorists can find religious texts to justify their acts does not mean that their violence actually grows from those scriptural roots. Indeed, such an assumption itself is based on the crude fundamentalist formulation that everything in a given religion must somehow be authorized in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Koran is not that one book teaches love while the other proclaims warfare and terrorism, rather it is a matter of how the works are read. Yes, the Koran has been ransacked to supply texts authorizing murder, but so has the Bible
If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.
But the implications run still deeper. All faiths contain within them some elements that are considered disturbing or unacceptable to modern eyes; all must confront the problem of absorbing and reconciling those troubling texts or doctrines. In some cases, religions evolve to the point where the ugly texts so fade into obscurity that ordinary believers scarcely acknowledge their existence, or at least deny them the slightest authority in the modern world. In other cases, the troubling words remain dormant, but can return to life in conditions of extreme stress and conflict. Texts, like people, can live or die. This whole process of forgetting and remembering, of growing beyond the harsh words found in a text, is one of the critical questions that all religions must learn to address.
Faithful Muslims believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God, delivered verbatim through the prophet�Mohammed. Non-Muslims, of course, see the text as the work of human hands, whether of�Mohammed�himself or of schools of his early followers. But whichever view we take, the Koran as it stands claims to speak in God's voice. That is one of the great differences between the Bible and the Koran. Even for dedicated fundamentalists, inspired Bible passages come through the pen of a venerated historical individual, whether it's the Prophet Isaiah or the Apostle Paul, and that leaves open some chance of blaming embarrassing views on that person's own prejudices. The Koran gives no such option: For believers, every word in the text - however horrendous a passage may sound to modern ears - came directly from God.
We don't have to range too far to find passages that horrify. The Koran warns, "Those who make war against God and his apostle . . . shall be put to death or crucified" (Koran 5.33). Other passages are equally threatening, though they usually have to be wrenched out of context to achieve this effect. One text from�Sura�(Chapter) 47 begins "O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads."
But in such matters, the Bible too has plenty of passages that read painfully today. Tales of war and assassination pervade the four books of Samuel and Kings, where it is hard to avoid verses justifying the destruction of God's enemies. In a standard English translation of the Old Testament, the words "war" and "battle" each occur more than 300 times, not to mention all the bindings,�beheadings, and rapes.
The richest harvest of gore comes from the books that tell the story of the Children of Israel after their escape from Egypt, as they take over their new land in Canaan. These events are foreshadowed in the book of Deuteronomy, in which God proclaims "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42). We then turn to the full orgy of militarism, enslavement, and race war in the Books of Joshua and Judges. Moses himself reputedly authorized this campaign when he told his followers that, once they reached Canaan, they must annihilate all the peoples they find in the cities specially reserved for them (Deut. 20: 16-18).
Joshua,�Moses's�successor, proves an apt pupil. When he conquers the city of�Ai, God commands that he take away the livestock and the loot, while altogether exterminating the inhabitants, and he duly does this (Joshua 8). When he defeats and captures five kings, he murders his prisoners of war, either by hanging or crucifixion. (Joshua 10). Nor is there any suggestion that the Canaanites and their kin were targeted for destruction because they were uniquely evil or treacherous: They happened to be on the wrong land at the wrong time. And Joshua himself was by no means alone. In Judges again, other stories tell of the complete extermination of tribes with the deliberate goal of ending their genetic lines.
In modern times, we would call this genocide. If the forces of Joshua and his successor judges committed their acts in the modern world, then observers would not hesitate to speak of war crimes. They would draw comparisons with the notorious guerrilla armies of Uganda and the Congo, groups like the appalling Lord's Resistance Army. By comparison, the Koranic rules of war were, by the standards of their time, quite civilized.�Mohammed�wanted to win over his enemies, not slaughter them.
Not only do the Israelites in the Bible commit repeated acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but they do so under direct divine command. According to the first book of Samuel, God orders King Saul to strike at the�Amalekite�people, killing every man, woman, and child, and even wiping out their livestock (1 Samuel 15:2-3). And it is this final detail that proves Saul's undoing, as he keeps some of the animals, and thereby earns a scolding from the prophet Samuel. Fortunately, Saul repents, and symbolizes his regrets by dismembering the captured enemy king. Morality triumphs.
The Bible also alleges divine approval of racism and segregation. If you had to choose the single biblical story that most conspicuously outrages modern sentiment, it might well be the tale of�Phinehas, a story that remains unknown to most Christian readers today (Numbers 25: 1-15). The story begins when the children of Israel are threatened by a plague.�Phinehas, however, shrewdly identifies the cause of God's anger: God is outraged at the fact that a Hebrew man has found a wife among the people of�Midian, and through her has imported an alien religion.�Phinehas�slaughters the offending couple - and, mollified, God ends the plague and blesses�Phinehas�and his descendants. Modern American racists love this passage. In 1990, Richard Kelly�Hoskins�used the story as the basis for his manifesto "Vigilantes of Christendom."�Hoskins�advocated the creation of a new order of militant white supremacists, the Phineas Priesthood, and since then a number of groups have assumed this title, claiming�Phinehas�as the justification for terrorist attacks on mixed-race couples and abortion clinics.
Modern Christians who believe the Bible offers only a message of love and forgiveness are usually thinking only of the New Testament. Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the�Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews."�Ioudaioi�plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil.
Various authorities approach the word differently: I might prefer, for instance, to interpret it as "followers of the oppressive�Judean�religious elite," Or perhaps "Judeans." But in practice, any reputable translation has to use the simple and familiar word, "Jew," so that we read about the disciples hiding out after the Crucifixion, huddled in a room that is locked "for fear of the Jews." So harsh do these words sound to post-Holocaust ears that some churches exclude them from public reading.
Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions . . . all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Koran. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.
Whether they are used or not depends on wider social attitudes. When America entered the First World War, for instance, firebrand preachers drew heavily on Jesus' warning that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. As it stands, that is not much of a text of terror, but if one is searching desperately for a weapon-related verse, it will serve to justify what people are going to do�anyway
Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.
Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.
Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.
Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State University. He is the author of "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia -- and How It Died."
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Moses�Ebe�Ochonu�<meochonu@gmail.com>�wrote:
A quick response to someone who wondered aloud here why there seems to be a steady, if intermittent, stream of provocation directed at Islam and other religions and their key figures/prophets. That question is, for me as a Christian, very easy to answer. Within the realm of my faith, I resolved this issue a few years ago, chalking it up to the human capacity to cause offense and to perpetrate evil without reason or clear motive, sometimes for perverse pleasure or to provoke a reaction that feeds the ego and a sense of importance. Several years ago I reflected on this question. For me as a Christian, the scripture that answered that question is Jeremiah 17:9, which reads: "The heart is deceitful above all things,�and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
The human mind has an infinite capacity for evil and wicked acts. This is the reason I critiqued the focus on provocation rather than on violent reaction--rather than on the point that Toyin made earlier: that the truly religious will accept that transcendental omniscience of God or the Divine and realize the futility of fighting on His behalf or of trying to avenge Him. If one accepts the basic premise in that scripture ( and I am sure there is an ayat in the Quran that is analogous to this scripture), one should make peace with the fact that insult and provocation, which emanate from the human mind/heart, is a fact of life that will always be present in this filthy world of ours. It is not going away. Such a philosophical reconciliation will enable one to cultivate a less aggressive response to offense, especially the type of emotional and violent response that ends up hurting innocents.
This scripture, when I encountered it at a deep level, did more for me beyond a simple understanding of the letter. The larger point for me was: if God is the creator of he human heart and mind and, according to His own word (in Jeremiah 17:9, he is absolutely fine with the heart of man harboring such evil even though he has the capacity, as the Abrahamic faiths teach, that He can recreate a heart or mind, then why should I, a mere mortal, trouble myself over the evils that the human mind can conceive, or react violently to avenge that evil? More crucially, if as a Muslim or Christian, you believe as your faith teaches you to, that God is capable of doing anything He wants and is omnipotent, why on earth would it make sense to even try to fight on God's behalf or to avenge Him when you think that He or His prophet has been insulted? For these reasons, for me, violence as a way of making a religious point doesn't make sense, for it betrays a lack of faith in the divine, omnipotent/omniscient attribute of God. It betrays a lack of knowledge of God. In fact it belittles the God that fighters motivated by religious greivance claim to serve and revere because an all-powerful God, who, though capable of ALL things, is not threatened enough by man's wicked heart to remake it, is obviously capable of avenging insults to Him or His prophets and does not need the effort of His creation, man.
Jeremiah 17:9
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu�<meoc...@gmail.com>�wrote:
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book,�Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website,�islamicpacifism.com�on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg�<cornelius...@gmail.com>�wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>>�corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >>>>>>> <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com�<mailto:corneliushamelb...@gmail.com
>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to�USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > ��unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit�http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �To post to this group, send an email to�USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--�
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--�
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--�
There is enough in the world for�everyone's�need but not for�everyone's�greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.�
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent�Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.�
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
kenneth harrow
Sep 17, 2012, 10:15:40 PM9/17/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
dear moses
your inquiring mind is a pleasure to follow.
but this is a discussion, conversation, so my comments and questions flow from your points.
what if christianity has come to be associated with the state's actions, at least for the united states, with bush thinking he was leading a crusade? the u.s. is, as you know, divided, with many christians associating their faith with the superiority they see in the united states; see the u.s. as a christian country, basically, with god's blessing.
the other half has another relationship to modernity, which you don't stress as much as i would.
with various culture's entry into modernism (let me not define it, because i don't want to turn this into a lecture)--but with that entry into modernism, religion goes into a subordinate position. this was althusser's position, you'll recall, which is why he sees education supplanting the church as the major site for ideological interpellation.
you could argue, then, that the times in the west, before the enlightenment, when religion was the dominant ideological institution, we saw the religious wars, and before that the crusades, the reconquista in the name of religion, etc.
after the enlightenment, the wars became increasingly fought in the name of the state, the nation state, which had supplanted the religious state.
the muslim states in question now were relatively recently liberated from colonial rule, where religious institutions had played a much stronger role than schools had prevailed before. maybe that is part of the issue; the larger one, i think, is how the ideological assumptions of modernism have not yet supplanted those of religion in those states where the greatest resentments against the west are manifested and where the violence is greatest. consider afghanistan or pakistan where taliban means not warrior but student, that is, religious student.
i want to write more concerning your thoughts below, but will do that in a separate email so it won't be too long
ken
your inquiring mind is a pleasure to follow.
but this is a discussion, conversation, so my comments and questions flow from your points.
what if christianity has come to be associated with the state's actions, at least for the united states, with bush thinking he was leading a crusade? the u.s. is, as you know, divided, with many christians associating their faith with the superiority they see in the united states; see the u.s. as a christian country, basically, with god's blessing.
the other half has another relationship to modernity, which you don't stress as much as i would.
with various culture's entry into modernism (let me not define it, because i don't want to turn this into a lecture)--but with that entry into modernism, religion goes into a subordinate position. this was althusser's position, you'll recall, which is why he sees education supplanting the church as the major site for ideological interpellation.
you could argue, then, that the times in the west, before the enlightenment, when religion was the dominant ideological institution, we saw the religious wars, and before that the crusades, the reconquista in the name of religion, etc.
after the enlightenment, the wars became increasingly fought in the name of the state, the nation state, which had supplanted the religious state.
the muslim states in question now were relatively recently liberated from colonial rule, where religious institutions had played a much stronger role than schools had prevailed before. maybe that is part of the issue; the larger one, i think, is how the ideological assumptions of modernism have not yet supplanted those of religion in those states where the greatest resentments against the west are manifested and where the violence is greatest. consider afghanistan or pakistan where taliban means not warrior but student, that is, religious student.
i want to write more concerning your thoughts below, but will do that in a separate email so it won't be too long
ken
On 9/16/12 10:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.�
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent�Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.�
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
kenneth harrow
Sep 17, 2012, 10:33:49 PM9/17/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
this is my brief commentary on your major points below
you wrote: "2.Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status."
per my previous comment, what is the relationship of christians to the bible once modernity has entered as the dominant ideology? prior to then, it was considered a magical item: you blessed or cursed, not only with the words, but with the object.
nowadays, a marabout might bless you with a concoction that contains the words from the qur'an washed off a board on which it had been written. christians have used icons, and many still do, as semi-magical items. in judaism, too, we have mezzuzahs on the frame of our doors; we have blessing prayers that we say for the sick, as if our words of blessing will cure them. all these exist, but are not dominant any more. science is dominant. but as the war over evolution in texas schoolbooks shows, we are still enmeshed in both modes of thinking.
secondly, allah passed on the words of the qur'an to muhammed through the mediation of the angel gabriel, whose voice came to him as the sound of a ringing of a bell. it was mediated in the same kinds of ways christianity an judaism imagine for their holy texts (god told moses,who wrote it down; god inspired the holy spirit to communicate the gospels to the evangelists).
furthermore, more critically, islam doesn't begin and end with the qur'an; it is exactly like judaism and christianity in that its reading of the "word of god" is interpreted to us through rabbis and talmudic commentary, through hadith and comments on it by muslim clerics; and the same christian commentaries by all those from augustine to ambrose, etc.
i don't agree, then, that the qur'an, its words, its meanings, etc, are not mediated, in some way that is different from the other monotheistic faiths. and that mediation reallyreally continues: look at all these brotherhoods, of which we hear so much. who do you think founded them? what did they do? all the texts generated by the founders of the tijani and mourid and qadiri etc etc movements, these are not only texts but even more practices, dances, songs, that also mediate the qur'anic text into forms that followers accept, and will even fight over, like how many beads should be used for prayers etc.
i want to stop to keep from going on. but i would say that if you see christianity as having moved away from violence after the enlightenment, which i agree with, you can't quite ignore its transference to state violence, which represents maybe even an increase, ultimately, in the deployment of violence in order to impose a dominant state. it isn't too hard to see the religious fervor of yore replaced by the chauvinistic, nationalist fervors that drove the fascists to commit enormous atrocities (nazis, japanese notably), but, in the final analysis, variants of this in all powerful nation states. (for instance, how many algerians did the french kill to maintain l'algerie-francais? answer, maybe one million out of 10 million)
you wrote: "2.Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status."
per my previous comment, what is the relationship of christians to the bible once modernity has entered as the dominant ideology? prior to then, it was considered a magical item: you blessed or cursed, not only with the words, but with the object.
nowadays, a marabout might bless you with a concoction that contains the words from the qur'an washed off a board on which it had been written. christians have used icons, and many still do, as semi-magical items. in judaism, too, we have mezzuzahs on the frame of our doors; we have blessing prayers that we say for the sick, as if our words of blessing will cure them. all these exist, but are not dominant any more. science is dominant. but as the war over evolution in texas schoolbooks shows, we are still enmeshed in both modes of thinking.
secondly, allah passed on the words of the qur'an to muhammed through the mediation of the angel gabriel, whose voice came to him as the sound of a ringing of a bell. it was mediated in the same kinds of ways christianity an judaism imagine for their holy texts (god told moses,who wrote it down; god inspired the holy spirit to communicate the gospels to the evangelists).
furthermore, more critically, islam doesn't begin and end with the qur'an; it is exactly like judaism and christianity in that its reading of the "word of god" is interpreted to us through rabbis and talmudic commentary, through hadith and comments on it by muslim clerics; and the same christian commentaries by all those from augustine to ambrose, etc.
i don't agree, then, that the qur'an, its words, its meanings, etc, are not mediated, in some way that is different from the other monotheistic faiths. and that mediation reallyreally continues: look at all these brotherhoods, of which we hear so much. who do you think founded them? what did they do? all the texts generated by the founders of the tijani and mourid and qadiri etc etc movements, these are not only texts but even more practices, dances, songs, that also mediate the qur'anic text into forms that followers accept, and will even fight over, like how many beads should be used for prayers etc.
i want to stop to keep from going on. but i would say that if you see christianity as having moved away from violence after the enlightenment, which i agree with, you can't quite ignore its transference to state violence, which represents maybe even an increase, ultimately, in the deployment of violence in order to impose a dominant state. it isn't too hard to see the religious fervor of yore replaced by the chauvinistic, nationalist fervors that drove the fascists to commit enormous atrocities (nazis, japanese notably), but, in the final analysis, variants of this in all powerful nation states. (for instance, how many algerians did the french kill to maintain l'algerie-francais? answer, maybe one million out of 10 million)
ken
On 9/16/12 10:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu
wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.�
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent�Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.�
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Ayo Obe
Sep 18, 2012, 3:23:08 AM9/18/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius, you actually lose me when you talk about a 'vicious propaganda war being waged against the integrity of the prophet' and then cite the Miss World controversy in Nigeria. Here was a young woman, not a Muslim, who was hounded out from her family, her home and her country because she made an innocent remark to emphasise the beauty of the contestants. Even today, I struggle to understand what it was that she did that was so wrong. And this, if any law were to be designed to catch innocent people like that, I would oppose them. Yes, there are some crimes of strict liability, but the use of the words 'vicious', 'war', 'waged against' suggests that there must have been some form of deliberate intent, what a criminal lawyer would call 'men's real' or 'guilty mind'.
Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
Ayo Obe
Sep 18, 2012, 2:58:57 AM9/18/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
I too deeply appreciate much of this discussion, particularly Moses' contributions. But Ken, while I agree that the Christian religion has been associated with a specific form of superiority in some countries (& in the US it was specifically associated with Protestantism - the 'Protestant work ethic' etc, as opposed to Catholicism) the use of the word 'crusade' rarely has the religious intention that you ascribe to it - it more generally means someone who is battling against an entrenched position, to dislodge that position and put it to flight. Thus while one can see why it was used by the original Crusaders who were out to dislodge the Arabs from the 'Holy Land', one can equally use an expression like 'the gay rights crusader' or 'the anti-pornography crusader', or say 'Jamie Oliver has launched a crusade for healthy school dinners'. I might even go so far as to say it can be used in place of 'campaigner'.
I guess a Farooq could advise on the etymology of the word crusade: whether it was coined to describe Crusaders as launched by Pope Urban II, or whether it was applied to them because it had a pre-existing meaning.
I guess a Farooq could advise on the etymology of the word crusade: whether it was coined to describe Crusaders as launched by Pope Urban II, or whether it was applied to them because it had a pre-existing meaning.
I think what it does show though, is the danger of ascribing equivalents where there are none, or no longer any. Because of the meaning that has been ascribed to 'Jihad' - 'Holy War' - it has been taken to mean that everything called a crusade is also a holy war. And even as I write, I'm conscious that Britain and the US have been described as two countries divided by a common language, so it may be that despite what I have written, nobody in the US uses the word crusade in the wider way I, using British English, have suggested...
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
dear moses
your inquiring mind is a pleasure to follow.
but this is a discussion, conversation, so my comments and questions flow from your points.
what if christianity has come to be associated with the state's actions, at least for the united states, with bush thinking he was leading a crusade? the u.s. is, as you know, divided, with many christians associating their faith with the superiority they see in the united states; see the u.s. as a christian country, basically, with god's blessing.
the other half has another relationship to modernity, which you don't stress as much as i would.
with various culture's entry into modernism (let me not define it, because i don't want to turn this into a lecture)--but with that entry into modernism, religion goes into a subordinate position. this was althusser's position, you'll recall, which is why he sees education supplanting the church as the major site for ideological interpellation.
you could argue, then, that the times in the west, before the enlightenment, when religion was the dominant ideological institution, we saw the religious wars, and before that the crusades, the reconquista in the name of religion, etc.
after the enlightenment, the wars became increasingly fought in the name of the state, the nation state, which had supplanted the religious state.
the muslim states in question now were relatively recently liberated from colonial rule, where religious institutions had played a much stronger role than schools had prevailed before. maybe that is part of the issue; the larger one, i think, is how the ideological assumptions of modernism have not yet supplanted those of religion in those states where the greatest resentments against the west are manifested and where the violence is greatest. consider afghanistan or pakistan where taliban means not warrior but student, that is, religious student.
i want to write more concerning your thoughts below, but will do that in a separate email so it won't be too long
ken
On 9/16/12 10:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism, and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
”Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?”
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question - in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The “ summarily” must
have been sarcastic – due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said “ I am the truth”, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean “ I am the lord our god” and would have certainly not said that
during his trial – nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate“ ( “I am the Lord our God”). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared but he insisted “ana al-
haqq”, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
“one”( in which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31 am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like “a direct answer.”
>
> > Do I “support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?”
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I “support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?”
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to “the Lie
> > direct” ?
>
> > “ No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, “ A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah “
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent - the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO “ Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!”
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I “almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel some years ago”
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > “There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel som years ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called “art” I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that’s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, “abruptly”
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) does not do “a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....”, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground – cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price - the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction -
>
> >>>> no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, “Jesus Christ SuperStar”
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> “Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; “?
> >> läs mer »
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu
--
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 18, 2012, 9:48:31 AM9/18/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Oluwatoyin Adepoju,
I did not state that
1. That asking Muslims to respond without force
to critiques of their religion is a weak approach
2. That asking that the use of murder by Muslims in protesting
critiques of
their religion should stop is not in the interests of Muslims.
If you sincerely believe that I harbour such ideas then I kindly
advise you to contact Jonathan Evans,
indeed it should be your duty to do so, to save lives.....
On 17 Sep, 19:02, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > By Philip Jenkins<http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=Philip+Jenkins&ca...>
> > March 8, 2009
>
> > - Email<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - Print<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - Single Page<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - |
> > -
>
> > - Kindness in the
>
> ...
>
> läs mer »
I did not state that
1. That asking Muslims to respond without force
to critiques of their religion is a weak approach
2. That asking that the use of murder by Muslims in protesting
critiques of
their religion should stop is not in the interests of Muslims.
advise you to contact Jonathan Evans,
indeed it should be your duty to do so, to save lives.....
On 17 Sep, 19:02, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I see that I have not got a direct response from Cornelius and Harrow.
>
> I would like members to please comment on Cornelius justification of the
> culture of murder that has come to characterise Islam. Cornelius has every
> right to his views but it would be sad to see a community of scholars
> build a mountain of discourse on a subject while ignoring the very
> presence on their midst of the issue they are discussing.
>
> Cornelius states
>
> 1. That asking Muslims to respond without force
> to critiques of their religion is a weak approach
>
> 2. That asking that the use of murder by Muslims in protesting critiques of
> their religion should stop is not in the interests of Muslims.
>
> He then goes on to justify his views.
>
> A group of scholars should respect Cornelius right to his views but `at
> least examine their rationale.
>
> Everyone can pretend they did not read this post of mine or dont think its
> important.
>
> I'm satisfied I have spelt it out.
>
> If anyone thinks I have misinterpreted Cornelius or they cant find the
> relevant mail, let me know.
>
> toyin
>
>
> I would like members to please comment on Cornelius justification of the
> culture of murder that has come to characterise Islam. Cornelius has every
> right to his views but it would be sad to see a community of scholars
> build a mountain of discourse on a subject while ignoring the very
> presence on their midst of the issue they are discussing.
>
> Cornelius states
>
> 1. That asking Muslims to respond without force
> to critiques of their religion is a weak approach
>
> 2. That asking that the use of murder by Muslims in protesting critiques of
> their religion should stop is not in the interests of Muslims.
>
> He then goes on to justify his views.
>
> A group of scholars should respect Cornelius right to his views but `at
> least examine their rationale.
>
> Everyone can pretend they did not read this post of mine or dont think its
> important.
>
> I'm satisfied I have spelt it out.
>
> If anyone thinks I have misinterpreted Cornelius or they cant find the
> relevant mail, let me know.
>
> toyin
>
> > March 8, 2009
>
> > - Email<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - Print<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - Single Page<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_pass...>
> > |
> > - |
> > -
>
> > Text size – +
>
> > WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11
> > hijackers as they made their way to the airports.
> > RELATED
> > Text size – +
>
> > WE HAVE A good idea what was passing through the minds of the Sept. 11
> > hijackers as they made their way to the airports.
>
> > - Kindness in the
>
> ...
>
> läs mer »
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 18, 2012, 9:35:33 AM9/18/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Ayo Obe:
Along with tolerance we must advocate RESPECT
I have reread my posting and do not see “'vicious propaganda war”
juxtaposed against what turned out to be a tragic end to the Miss
world beauty pageant in Nigeria. I'm sorry if I gave you the
impression that the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant was a main
ingredient of that war when (obviously) it was only a minor incident
that started the conflagration resulting in the 100 people dead and
500 wounded in Kaduna, hundreds of miles north of Port Harcourt where
this international event was scheduled to be held.
Kelemani!
It's not only a propaganda war going on : look at what's happening in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries, far away from
the US & Allies. Should Romney ever take the highest oath of office, I
presume that you will see him first start a war of words with China
( about the $ 4 Trillion that the US owes them?) possibly start a war
with Iran – ultimately a long war - and in the meantime lose a lot of
business with South America where China hopes to double its trade by
next year. Yesterday I saw your (Nigerian) Finance minister on CNBC
singing the praises of partnership with China.)
About the incident itself - that a supposedly innocent, young
journalist who should have known better, given the highly charged
atmosphere at the time went out of her way to say that prophet
Muhammad's mouth would have watered if he had seen the beautiful
wenches and might have considered marrying one of them.
As if the holy man of God - the revered prophet of Islam has
character traits that are so well known to this Isioma Daniel (the
journalist in question) – as if Prophet Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa
salaam was a lecher who simply went around marrying beautiful young
women. Perhaps the remark was not as innocent as you would like us to
believe. The equally innocent Muslim masses were angry because I
suppose that their main objection to the pageant being held in Nigeria
is that in their eyes beauty contests are duniya (worldly affairs)
where modesty (hijab etc.) and character do not seem to be very
important qualities in determining overall beauty; a pious Muslim
would therefore not regard such beauty contests as inspiring examples
for their young women folk and on the contrary would regard such
beauty contests as corrupting the moral beauty of their womenfolk....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+marriages+of+prophet+Muhammad&oq=The+marriages+of+prophet+Muhammad&gs_l=hp.3..0i30j0i22.56695.56695.0.58085.1.1.0.0.0.0.71.71.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2j1.MRBcvcVcRL4
You say that “Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because
Others testify (not in the witness box) that the “piece of loose paper
“ used to wipe their baby's butt
was a page/pages of the Holy Qur'an...
There is Islamophobia and there is a vicious, carefully orchestrated
propaganda war being waged against Islam. There are several blogs and
websites dedicated to that (I visit some on a regular basis, to know
what's going on.)
I go along with Sheikh Nasrallah's view that there should be some
limits on the vile propaganda war being waged on Islam and Muslims.
David, Solomon and his 1,000 wives. I too went through much of Louis
Ginsberg's “The Legends of the Jews” -
https://www.google.se/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=qkJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&sa=X&ei=hXZYUJK4D-Pe4QTu0YGQCg&ved=0CBkQBSgA&q=Louis+Ginzberg+%3A+the+Legend+of+the+Jews&spell=1&biw=986&bih=618
Ikhide would probably find Torgny Lindgren's “Bathsheba” wonder
fiction about a very human King David...
http://books.google.se/books?id=vaJr4jh0dgYC&q=Torgny+Lindgren+:+Bathsheba&dq=Torgny+Lindgren+:+Bathsheba&source=bl&ots=NyIxwieoGA&sig=7aSgstlzvvh73m5gjIY-95QuvX0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o3dYUJH7Ken14QT53oDgDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA
Nota Bene: Sheikh Nasrallah does not say that a vile propaganda war
should be waged on Judaism or any other religions , some of which say
unprintable things about the mother of somebody's Jesus....
Wait and see.
On 18 Sep, 09:23, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cornelius, you actually lose me when you talk about a 'vicious propaganda war being waged against the integrity of the prophet' and then cite the Miss World controversy in Nigeria. Here was a young woman, not a Muslim, who was hounded out from her family, her home and her country because she made an innocent remark to emphasise the beauty of the contestants. Even today, I struggle to understand what it was that she did that was so wrong. And this, if any law were to be designed to catch innocent people like that, I would oppose them. Yes, there are some crimes of strict liability, but the use of the words 'vicious', 'war', 'waged against' suggests that there must have been some form of deliberate intent, what a criminal lawyer would call 'men's real' or 'guilty mind'.
>
> Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
>
> Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
>
> In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
>
> Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
>
> Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant...
> ...
>
> läs mer »
Along with tolerance we must advocate RESPECT
I have reread my posting and do not see “'vicious propaganda war”
juxtaposed against what turned out to be a tragic end to the Miss
world beauty pageant in Nigeria. I'm sorry if I gave you the
impression that the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant was a main
ingredient of that war when (obviously) it was only a minor incident
that started the conflagration resulting in the 100 people dead and
500 wounded in Kaduna, hundreds of miles north of Port Harcourt where
this international event was scheduled to be held.
Kelemani!
It's not only a propaganda war going on : look at what's happening in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries, far away from
the US & Allies. Should Romney ever take the highest oath of office, I
presume that you will see him first start a war of words with China
( about the $ 4 Trillion that the US owes them?) possibly start a war
with Iran – ultimately a long war - and in the meantime lose a lot of
business with South America where China hopes to double its trade by
next year. Yesterday I saw your (Nigerian) Finance minister on CNBC
singing the praises of partnership with China.)
About the incident itself - that a supposedly innocent, young
journalist who should have known better, given the highly charged
atmosphere at the time went out of her way to say that prophet
Muhammad's mouth would have watered if he had seen the beautiful
wenches and might have considered marrying one of them.
As if the holy man of God - the revered prophet of Islam has
character traits that are so well known to this Isioma Daniel (the
journalist in question) – as if Prophet Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa
salaam was a lecher who simply went around marrying beautiful young
women. Perhaps the remark was not as innocent as you would like us to
believe. The equally innocent Muslim masses were angry because I
suppose that their main objection to the pageant being held in Nigeria
is that in their eyes beauty contests are duniya (worldly affairs)
where modesty (hijab etc.) and character do not seem to be very
important qualities in determining overall beauty; a pious Muslim
would therefore not regard such beauty contests as inspiring examples
for their young women folk and on the contrary would regard such
beauty contests as corrupting the moral beauty of their womenfolk....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+marriages+of+prophet+Muhammad&oq=The+marriages+of+prophet+Muhammad&gs_l=hp.3..0i30j0i22.56695.56695.0.58085.1.1.0.0.0.0.71.71.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2j1.MRBcvcVcRL4
You say that “Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because
his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of
loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom.”
Others testify (not in the witness box) that the “piece of loose paper
“ used to wipe their baby's butt
was a page/pages of the Holy Qur'an...
There is Islamophobia and there is a vicious, carefully orchestrated
propaganda war being waged against Islam. There are several blogs and
websites dedicated to that (I visit some on a regular basis, to know
what's going on.)
I go along with Sheikh Nasrallah's view that there should be some
limits on the vile propaganda war being waged on Islam and Muslims.
David, Solomon and his 1,000 wives. I too went through much of Louis
Ginsberg's “The Legends of the Jews” -
https://www.google.se/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=qkJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&sa=X&ei=hXZYUJK4D-Pe4QTu0YGQCg&ved=0CBkQBSgA&q=Louis+Ginzberg+%3A+the+Legend+of+the+Jews&spell=1&biw=986&bih=618
Ikhide would probably find Torgny Lindgren's “Bathsheba” wonder
fiction about a very human King David...
http://books.google.se/books?id=vaJr4jh0dgYC&q=Torgny+Lindgren+:+Bathsheba&dq=Torgny+Lindgren+:+Bathsheba&source=bl&ots=NyIxwieoGA&sig=7aSgstlzvvh73m5gjIY-95QuvX0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o3dYUJH7Ken14QT53oDgDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA
Nota Bene: Sheikh Nasrallah does not say that a vile propaganda war
should be waged on Judaism or any other religions , some of which say
unprintable things about the mother of somebody's Jesus....
Wait and see.
On 18 Sep, 09:23, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cornelius, you actually lose me when you talk about a 'vicious propaganda war being waged against the integrity of the prophet' and then cite the Miss World controversy in Nigeria. Here was a young woman, not a Muslim, who was hounded out from her family, her home and her country because she made an innocent remark to emphasise the beauty of the contestants. Even today, I struggle to understand what it was that she did that was so wrong. And this, if any law were to be designed to catch innocent people like that, I would oppose them. Yes, there are some crimes of strict liability, but the use of the words 'vicious', 'war', 'waged against' suggests that there must have been some form of deliberate intent, what a criminal lawyer would call 'men's real' or 'guilty mind'.
>
> Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
>
> Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
>
> In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
>
> Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
>
> Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 16 Sep 2012, at 20:13, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > blasphemy in Islam
>
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=bl...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > blasphemy in Islam
>
>
> > We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
> > if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
>
> > Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
> > rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
> > the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
> > wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
> > I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
> > the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
> > would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
> > but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
> > this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
> > prophet?
>
> > The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Th...
> > We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
> > if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
>
> > Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
> > rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
> > the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
> > wide web – so the damage is not confined to those who live in the US.
> > I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
> > the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
> > would face - without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
> > but what legal options are available to Muslims who want to counter
> > this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
> > prophet?
>
> > The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
>
> läs mer »
Ayo Obe
Sep 18, 2012, 10:30:24 AM9/18/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Cornelius,
It is precisely this hectoring tone that precludes any discussion. Why should the journalist know better? As far as she was concerned, she gave no more offence than if she had said 'it would tempt a saint!'. Why would that have been such a big deal? But there you are, insinuating that she did something deliberately! A Muslim friend recounted a case where some travellers came to a mosque where the Prophet and his followers were. They refreshed themselves and urinated against the wall, which made the followers so angry that they wanted to attack the travellers, but were restrained by the Prophet because they did not know better and had not intended to give offence. But you, Cornelius, you claim that the Miss World matter is a minor incident, yet even then, you are not willing to let go! You are justifying the treatment that poor girl received! And then you think one should lift a finger to help in preparing legal ways to justify that?
Laws based on the assumption that everybody should know what Muslims like or do not like, or rather, will tolerate or not tolerate? Why do you assume that the everybody who picks up a piece of paper will know that it is a page of the Koran? To say that I am astonished that you would blame anybody for not knowing that is a big understatement. Is it not forbidden for non Muslims to even touch the Koran? So shouldn't the blame lie on the person who left the loose pages of the Koran lying around? And then it was the husband who was killed - dragged from the prison where he was kept and lynched! And you are still justifying it because Muslims became angry!
I see neither tolerance nor respect. I don't need to wait and see, and if that is supposed to be a threat, you will understand why, although I continue to find the contributions and questions that some have raised instructive and informative, as far as I am concerned, there isn't really any basis for discussing this matter with you. You are looking for a fight. If you have found one in what I wrote, I, quite frankly, need only rest my case.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
It is precisely this hectoring tone that precludes any discussion. Why should the journalist know better? As far as she was concerned, she gave no more offence than if she had said 'it would tempt a saint!'. Why would that have been such a big deal? But there you are, insinuating that she did something deliberately! A Muslim friend recounted a case where some travellers came to a mosque where the Prophet and his followers were. They refreshed themselves and urinated against the wall, which made the followers so angry that they wanted to attack the travellers, but were restrained by the Prophet because they did not know better and had not intended to give offence. But you, Cornelius, you claim that the Miss World matter is a minor incident, yet even then, you are not willing to let go! You are justifying the treatment that poor girl received! And then you think one should lift a finger to help in preparing legal ways to justify that?
Laws based on the assumption that everybody should know what Muslims like or do not like, or rather, will tolerate or not tolerate? Why do you assume that the everybody who picks up a piece of paper will know that it is a page of the Koran? To say that I am astonished that you would blame anybody for not knowing that is a big understatement. Is it not forbidden for non Muslims to even touch the Koran? So shouldn't the blame lie on the person who left the loose pages of the Koran lying around? And then it was the husband who was killed - dragged from the prison where he was kept and lynched! And you are still justifying it because Muslims became angry!
I see neither tolerance nor respect. I don't need to wait and see, and if that is supposed to be a threat, you will understand why, although I continue to find the contributions and questions that some have raised instructive and informative, as far as I am concerned, there isn't really any basis for discussing this matter with you. You are looking for a fight. If you have found one in what I wrote, I, quite frankly, need only rest my case.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
kenneth harrow
Sep 18, 2012, 2:03:32 PM9/18/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
hi ayo
"crusade" has the figurative meaning you suggest. but the literal bleeds into it when the moral fervor of a cause is heightened; and with bush that moral fervor definitely mixed religious with nationalist. bush's sunday services, the televangelical presence in the public sphere, supporting the cause of the war on terrorism from the pulpit, all made this a 'holy war" and a "holy cause."
all you have to do is visit sites like the 9/11 memorial at ground zero to see this relationship: it is not hidden, it is very very evident.
in god we trust.
and we will elect good church-going folk.
the rhetoric of the bleeding between the two is endless and not coincidental
ken
"crusade" has the figurative meaning you suggest. but the literal bleeds into it when the moral fervor of a cause is heightened; and with bush that moral fervor definitely mixed religious with nationalist. bush's sunday services, the televangelical presence in the public sphere, supporting the cause of the war on terrorism from the pulpit, all made this a 'holy war" and a "holy cause."
all you have to do is visit sites like the 9/11 memorial at ground zero to see this relationship: it is not hidden, it is very very evident.
in god we trust.
and we will elect good church-going folk.
the rhetoric of the bleeding between the two is endless and not coincidental
ken
On 9/18/12 2:58 AM, Ayo Obe wrote:
I too deeply appreciate much of this discussion, particularly Moses' contributions. �But Ken, while I agree that the Christian religion has been associated with a specific form of superiority in some countries (& in the US it was specifically associated with Protestantism - the 'Protestant work ethic' etc, as opposed to Catholicism) the use of the word 'crusade' rarely has the religious intention that you ascribe to it - it more generally means someone who is battling against an entrenched position, to dislodge that position and put it to flight. �Thus while one can see why it was used by the original Crusaders who were out to dislodge the Arabs from the 'Holy Land', one can equally use an expression like 'the gay rights crusader' or 'the anti-pornography crusader', or say 'Jamie Oliver has launched a crusade for healthy school dinners'. �I might even go so far as to say it can be used in place of 'campaigner'.
I guess a Farooq could advise on the etymology of the word crusade: whether it was coined to describe Crusaders as launched by Pope Urban II, or whether it was applied to them because it had a pre-existing meaning.
I think what it does show though, is the danger of ascribing equivalents where there are none, or no longer any. �Because of the meaning that has been ascribed to 'Jihad' - 'Holy War' - it has been taken to mean that everything called a crusade is also a holy war. �And even as I write, I'm conscious that Britain and the US have been described as two countries divided by a common language, so it may be that despite what I have written, nobody in the US uses the word crusade in the wider way I, using British English, have suggested...
AyoI invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
dear moses
your inquiring mind is a pleasure to follow.
but this is a discussion, conversation, so my comments and questions flow from your points.
what if christianity has come to be associated with the state's actions, at least for the united states, with bush thinking he was leading a crusade? the u.s. is, as you know, divided, with many christians associating their faith with the superiority they see in the united states; see the u.s. as a christian country, basically, with god's blessing.
the other half has another relationship to modernity, which you don't stress as much as i would.
with various culture's entry into modernism (let me not define it, because i don't want to turn this into a lecture)--but with that entry into modernism, religion goes into a subordinate position. this was althusser's position, you'll recall, which is why he sees education supplanting the church as the major site for ideological interpellation.
you could argue, then, that the times in the west, before the enlightenment, when religion was the dominant ideological institution, we saw the religious wars, and before that the crusades, the reconquista in the name of religion, etc.
after the enlightenment, the wars became increasingly fought in the name of the state, the nation state, which had supplanted the religious state.
the muslim states in question now were relatively recently liberated from colonial rule, where religious institutions had played a much stronger role than schools had prevailed before. maybe that is part of the issue; the larger one, i think, is how the ideological assumptions of modernism have not yet supplanted those of religion in those states where the greatest resentments against the west are manifested and where the violence is greatest. consider afghanistan or pakistan where taliban means not warrior but student, that is, religious student.
i want to write more concerning your thoughts below, but will do that in a separate email so it won't be too long
ken
On 9/16/12 10:51 PM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
Although Toyin has an impulsive, sometimes irritating way of raising important and provocative questions, I was dismayed to see a barrage of responses apparently accusing him of not showing enough sensitivity by raising some of the questions he raised. Political correctness will not help us in resolving some of the questions we non-Muslims (and even some Muslims) may have about why Muslims react more often and certainly more violently than folks of other religions (even Abrahamic ones) to insults on the key figures of their religion. Nor will it help us understand Islamist terror. If we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that these questions have crossed our minds. They certainly have crossed mine. Which is why I set out a few years ago on a personal quest to understand the underpinnings of the Muslim rage that we see in violent reactions to insulting references Prophet Mohammed or to perceived desecration of the Quran, etc. For Nigerians, we remember Gideon Akaluka, who was beheaded and his head paraded around Kano for allegedly using a page from a Quran wipe his butt. We remember the deadly rampage that followed the flippant reference to the prophet during the the botched Miss World contest in Nigeria. We remember how hundreds of Christian innocents were killed during protests against the Danish cartoon in Kano. We remember how hundreds were killed by Muslim mobs in Kano protesting the US attack on far away Afghanistan in 2001. So, for Nigerian non-Muslims and even some Muslims, the quest to understand these issues is a quest to know what is driving these deadly reactions, to better understand a national menace. It is not an exercise in insensitivity, and political correctness should not be invoked to kill a discussion on a matter of life and death. We all want to be enlightened, and to understand Islam better. More importantly, we want to understand the motive of the MINORITY of Muslims who thrive on these types of violent reaction to any perceived offense to their religion. The perception of Islam will improve with more, not less, enlightenment on the part of non-adherents. It is not productive to simply repeat the banal point that there are extremists in every religion, when the method of expressing the extremism tends to differ in intensity and frequency, especially as it relates to non-adherents. Or to say that Muslims--present day Muslims--don't react more violently than, say, Christians, to insults on their religion (when both religions and their key figures are routinely insulted in the West), which is clearly not true. The key is to try to understand the history of these reactions. It is also not helpful, or truthful, on the flipside, to argue that Christianity was always this tolerant of insults and blasphemy or that, as Toyin erroneously insinuated, the Quran contains more violent verses (for lack of a better term) than the Bible. This last claim is completely untrue, but it raises the question of why, in spite of the violent verses in the Bible, modern Christians shrug off offense to Jesus or to their religion while Muslims tend to react with anger and, in the case of some of them, with violence.
With that preamble out of the way, let me state that my quest for enlightenment on this subject, which involved polite personal discussions with Muslims and reading a lot of material about both mainstream Islam and extremist groups and sects (Wahabi-Salafists and other more political sects of Islam), paid off huge. One of the most important articles I read in the process, which really helped me to understand the differential responses of Christians and Muslims to offense to their religions and to perceived injustice, is posted below. It is a brilliant essay that one of a Muslim friend brought to my attention.�
Written by an authority on religion, it makes several revealing and profound observations:
1. That interpretation is key for how and why certain violent verses are emphasized and instrumentalized over peaceful, noble ones. Interpretational currency and authority derives from changing sociopolitical and economic conditions.
2. Muslims have a different relationship with the Quran than Christians do with the Bible. The former regard the Quran as the verbatim word of God passed down directly with no mediation of any kind. The latter regard the Bible as the inspired word of God revealed to several prophets and apostles over a long period of time. For Muslims, then, the Quran even as a physical object containing the printed word of God, is a sacred object. For Christians, the Bible as an object is not accorded such a status.
3. Both the Bible and the Quran contain violent and, by modern standards, reprehensible passages (some endorsing racism, discrimination, slavery, violence, etc), but whether those verses are emphasized/used or downplayed depends on wider social attitudes and the political environment in a given society or period.
4. Secularization and the spread of humanistic values in Western society is responsible for the Biblical verses emphasizing love, harmony, and reconciliation overshadowing those (especially in the Old testament) urging more confrontational, less harmonious relations.
I'd add the following points from my own inquiries:
1. Justified or not, the sense among Muslims that they are besieged and persecuted, and their resistance to the ascendancy of the West, which has manifested itself in many oppressive ways in the Muslim world, has given utilitarian prominence to violent�Quranic verses and interpretive conventions that would otherwise have faded out of consideration in the shadow of more peaceful verses and interpretations.
2.Muslims do not have an equivalent to the Old testament/New Testament division that provides a perfect segue for Christians from the "an eye-for-an-eye" doctrine of the days of the Israelites to the days of Christianity (that is, of Christ)--the dichotomy between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of grace. This division makes it possible to set aside or overrule, through interpretation, verses and practices in the old testament that offend our modern (or postmodern) sensibilities. There is no such a leeway in Islam for separating the violent parts of the Quran from the peaceful parts.
3.The rise of secular Enlightenment values in the West moderated the religious excesses of previous eras, leading to a fading away of heresy and blasphemy ordinances, which killed many in Europe in earlier times in religious wars and in the Holy Roman Empire's enforcement campaigns.�
4.This reform had already taken place before European-borne Christianity (as opposed to African Christianity--Coptic, Nubian, and Ethiopian) came to Africa. Which means that the Christianity that came to much of Africa was already purged of any emphasis on violence, defensive or offensive, and was already steeped in a pacifist ethos. Of course, the aforementioned ancient African Christian traditions were largely peaceful and so their remnants inherited that pacifism.
5.The embrace of violent interpretations and verses in religious texts tend to correspond to the fluctuating fortunes and status of adherents of a particular religion. Certainly, with the Islamic world in technological and economic decline relative to the Western World, confrontational Islamic doctrines have become a refuge, an avenue for providing emotional succor to Muslims and for justifying the economic and technological asymmetry while rejecting Western society and its values as debased and contrary to Islam.
Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible
Cornelius,
It's interesting that you broached the subject of blasphemy in Islam. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar, the author of the book, Islamic Pacifism,�and the owner of the website, islamicpacifism.com on CNN this morning. He was asked a direct question on Islam's prescription for reacting to blasphemy and he said categorically that Islam does NOT prescribe any punishment for a blasphemer. He then proceeded to quote a verse (from the Hadith, I think, but it could be from the sunnah) in which Prophet Mohammed urged forgiveness for those who insulted him or is said to have forgiven those who insulted him--something along those lines. Mr. Ifitikhar contends that in fact there is no equivalence in Islam to the Christian concept of "taking the name of the Lord in vain," a violation of one of the ten commandments.
If that is the case, why are we seeing, repeatedly, the kind of violent reactions that we have been seeing against acts and speech perceived to have insulted the prophet?
Mr. Iftikhar's answer was quite enlightening. He argued that in the 15 or so Muslim majority countries that have blasphemy laws, these laws have a largely political history-- a history of certain political groups seeking to acquire or consolidate legitimacy or to discredit opponents or suppress religious minorities (or to do all of the above) by conveniently accusing certain people of blasphemy. Because of the multiplicity of jurisprudential traditions in Islamic law, these laws found clerical backers. Not only that, Muslims in these nations with anxieties of their own and seeking to boost themselves at the expense of religious minorities, have embraced these laws despite their tenuous origins in Islam's canonical texts. Mr. Iftikhar argued that it is perhaps an indication of the lack of a clear punitive prescription for blasphemy in Islam that although hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been accused and charged with blasphemy, only a fraction of the charged have been found guilty.
If Mr. Iftikhar is correct, it explodes the idea that the Muslims burning and killing and rampaging in reaction to the anti-Islam film in question are following Islam's recommendation or acting out some religious script. It also means that we have to look for explanations elsewhere in the realms of politics, culture, sociology, emotions, and economy in order to account for these violent reactions.�
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
'summarily' executed?�
The answer is yes, thanks to the integrity of the Shariah Court.
Apologies for the wording of my statement which committed the fallacy
of begging the question �- in this case (as in the case of Vilks,
Jyllands-Posten) that the defendant has already insulted and held the
prophet of Islam to ridicule (overwhelming evidence of libel, slander,
defamation, blasphemy) and therefore the trial itself is merely a
legal formality that precedes the execution. The � summarily� must
have been sarcastic � due to the inevitability of the verdict.
In spite of the fallout, some people still do not seem to understand
how sensitive this issue is. They know that they cannot stand up at
the speakers corner in Hyde Park and say unsavoury things about Her
Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and not be arrested. They are aware that
they can't travel to Japan and there insult or hold to ridicule the
Emperor of Japan. Nor can they travel to Thailand for instance and
repeat the offence and avoid the consequences. Well, Muslims hold the
Prophet of Islam in higher regard than they hold any earthly
sovereigns, so you must be able to imagine the extent of a Muslim's
anger when people - mostly non-Muslims, go out of their way to make
disparaging statements about Islam's beloved Prophet.
Professor Harrow refers to Mansur Al-Hallaj who was crucified because
he made the same kind of statement that is attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth .Al-Hallaj said � I am the truth�, Jesus is supposed to have
said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.� What both men might
have meant, is still open to interpretation. Hallaj certainly didn't
mean � I am the lord our god� and would have certainly not said that
during his trial � nor can I imagine that Jesus said that to Pontus
Pilate� ( �I am the Lord our God�). If Hallaj had been deemed crazy,
he would most probably have been spared �but he insisted �ana al-
haqq�, perhaps hinting , like Jesus, that he and His Father were
�one�( in �which sense?) and then, no Sufi philosophy or freedom of
speech/ thought could �save him...
This was the 2002 Miss World beauty pageant :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&oq=Miss+World+Pageant%2C+2002&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i8i30l5.47756.53973.0.54443.19.12.0.0.0.4.102.659.11j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.tJSXTL0_PcU
We must all shudder to think of what the consequences would have been
if the sacrilegious film had been made and released in Nigeria!
Therefore, a little question for Ayo Obe since she is a top human
rights activist and a lawyer: Although the offence was committed in
the US (like wikileaks) this piece of infamy is available on the world
wide web � so the damage is not confined to those who live in the �US.
I'm not about to ask whether some Islamic authority can hope to get
the offender extradited to face justice in a Muslim country where he
would face �- without delay,Sharia Court justice ( summarily etc....)
but what legal options are available to Muslims �who want to counter
this vicious propaganda war being waged on the integrity of the
prophet?
The crucifixion of Mansur Al-Hallaj :
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Al-Hallaj&oq=The+crucifixion+of+Mansur+Althe
crime was-Hallaj&gs_l=hp.
3...3341.3341.0.47859.1.1.0.0.0.0.34.34.1.1.0.les%3Bcesh..
0.0...1.2j1.1yk_F2MlB18
The Tawasin :
http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/Sufism/tawasin.html
On Sep 16, 12:31�am, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
>
> Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
>
> Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
>
> Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. �It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. �So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. �After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
>
> For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. �For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. �And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> > would like �a direct answer.�
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> > the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> > soon as possible !
>
> > Do I �support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> > faith?�
>
> > Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> > Should I speak in tongues?
> > Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> > Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> > The Retort Courteous?
> > The Quip Modest?
> > The Reply Churlish?
> > The Reproof Valiant?
> > The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> > The Lie with Circumstance
> > or the Lie Direct.?
>
> > Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to �the Lie
> > direct� ?
>
> > � No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> > "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> > But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> > So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> > I wish that I could say, � A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> > for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> > Jonah �
>
> > I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> > Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> > Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> > deterrent �- the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> > said to NATO � Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!�
>
> > That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> > Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> > and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> > lost their lives....
>
> > Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> > art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> > My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> > hanging there...
>
> > Toyin complains that I �almost seemed to cheer the
> > horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �some years �ago�
>
> > Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> > Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> > the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> > Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> > countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> > �There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> > peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> > courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> > hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> > -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> > in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
> > On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Cornelius,
>
> >> I would like a direct answer.
>
> >> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> >> faith?
>
> >> Your words suggest you do.
>
> >> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
> >> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel �som years �ago.
>
> >> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not � equate with identifying with
> >> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' �use of
> >> murder in defending their faith.
>
> >> What is going on?
>
> >> Toyin
>
> >> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Toyin,
> >>> ,
> >>> �As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>
> >>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
> >>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called �art� I guess
> >>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
> >>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
> >>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
> >>> for that�s where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
> >>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
> >>> people actually arriving there, �abruptly�
>
> >>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
> >>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>
> >>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
> >>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
> >>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
> >>> womanising Muhammad �who said, "I was made to love three things from
> >>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
> >>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
> >>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
> >>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
> >>> clash right there on your front door....
>
> >>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
> >>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) �does not do �a repeat
> >>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....�, because
> >>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
> >>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
> >>> Stockholm underground � cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
> >>> OPEC raised their oil price �- the cost of living soared.....the cost
> >>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
> >>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>
> >>>https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>
> >>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
> >>> the
> >>>> points
>
> >>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
> >>> reaction �-
>
> >>>> �no literary fatwas,
>
> >>>> �no price on anyone's head,
>
> >>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>
> >>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>
> >>>> and before we know it
>
> >>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
> >>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ SuperStar�
> >>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
> >>>> those who show it �and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
> >>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>
> >>>> toyin
>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> >>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Human Rights
> >>>>> freedom of speech
> >>>>> the first amendment
> >>>>> Tears and American compassion,
> >>>>> Human Rights,
> >>>>> Freedom of speech,
> >>>>> The first amendment,
> >>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
> >>>>> crying?'
>
> >>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
> >>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
> >>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words �-
> >>>>> and I had better quote them now �- better now than ever coming back
> >>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
> >>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>
> >>>>> �Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
> >>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
> >>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
> >>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
> >>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; �?
> >> l�s mer �
>
> > --
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > � For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > � For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > � To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> > � unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
� �For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
� �For previous archives, visit �http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
� �To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
� �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
� �unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 har...@msu.edu--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
�
�
Segun
Sep 18, 2012, 4:45:21 PM9/18/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
We need to be more objective here. Toyin has said the right thing. On whose behalf are the Muslim killers who claim to be protesting and defending Allah and prophet Muhammad fighting when the Holy One has not shown any form of resentment? The people killed by these Muslims are the creatures of the Holy One on whose behalf they are fighting.
Islam is not better than any religion that claims that the Supreme Being created all that is. Muslims should not think they have religious passion than others who proclaim faith in the Almighty God. God is civil and moral and it is expected that those who follow or worship him ought to tread that path of morality and anything contrary is hypocrisy and bigotry.
We must not forget from intellectual mind that religion is man made and not divinely imposed on humans. Religion provides easy answers to things that are complex in nature and lazy minds simply contend with them rather than pursuing scientific and verifiable solutions that are philosophically rewarding. Criticism is the soul of intellectual curiosity and anyone who fails to pursue that path is irrational. Religion or Islam must not see itself isolated from the art of criticism because that is the path to true knowledge that liberates humans from ignorance.
We must not forget from intellectual mind that religion is man made and not divinely imposed on humans. Religion provides easy answers to things that are complex in nature and lazy minds simply contend with them rather than pursuing scientific and verifiable solutions that are philosophically rewarding. Criticism is the soul of intellectual curiosity and anyone who fails to pursue that path is irrational. Religion or Islam must not see itself isolated from the art of criticism because that is the path to true knowledge that liberates humans from ignorance.
Today, the world has become a global village as a result of critical thinking that gave birth to science and technology. We are better today than are forebears as a result of knowledge.
If Muhammad had been alive today perhaps some of his views about the world and morality would have been different. His idea of racial superiority of his tribe and the place of women in the world would have been different. His call for jihad would have been morally and ethically influenced because the world can live in peace without belief in Allah or God.
Muslims in the 21st century should re-direct their energy to things that can make the world better rather than their senseless passion for violence because of a video or film that is purported to be anti-Islam. As Toyin said let them counter that film by producing their own. It will generate employment and contribute to the art of amusement.
The world is tired of violence and Muslims should stop aggravating hostility and killings of innocent people because of religious criticism that they think it is offensive.
Segun Ogungbemi.
Sent from my iPhone
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Lars+Vilks+at+anti-Muslim+meeting+in+USA#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&oq=Krister+Stendahl+:+holy+envy&gs_l=serp.12..0.0.0.3.9581.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..00...1c.ZX5oNlZTFiE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=ffa39db9650ab060&biw=994&bih=606
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed..
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://wwwutexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://wwwutexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://wwwutexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 18, 2012, 4:29:33 PM9/18/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
Dear Ayo Obe
I am “justifying the treatment that poor girl received”? Me?
You and Adepoju insist on mis-using that word... I am not ,was not
“justifying” anything. All I did was tender a plausible
( psychologically probable) explanation of why some things happen and
you tell me that I was justifying” - as if I am some sort of
nutcracker...
I feel that you are now addressing me as if I am an indicted criminal
in the dock and you are the prosecuting attorney. “Hectoring tone”
indeed, “that precludes any discussion”
You sound like Parvez: “Though everyone today insists that all visions
of ‘Islamic politics’ must contend with the moral and pragmatic issues
of our times, Islamist thought, unfortunately, is moving in a
direction that makes all compromise with the modern ethos almost
impossible. “
....Lord have mercy! I plead not guilty...
Me, looking for a fight , with you? I know that you've probably got
all the tricks in the book to throw me into the cooler or the
mortuary, sooner or later...
My humble apologies for any offence caused , real or imaginary...
In my view a Nigerian journalist living in Nigeria at that time or at
any time should be especially on the alert these sensitive times,
ought to know better. She should certainly think twice before joking
about the prophet or his wives,“the mothers of the believers”, even
innocently or playfully,like that.
On the other hand some of the guys called Krishna do not take offence
looking at gopis or beauties. Have not heard about anyone who took
this advice literally:
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29 )
However as we all know now, she, we, you should avoid joking about the
prophet like that, say in a Saudi newspaper and certainly be more on
the alert with possible slips of the tongue about Rasulullah in Boko
Haram Nigeria. In Saudi Arabia I would advise one and all to be extra
vigilant even about pieces of paper that do not look like loose
leaves from the Holy Quran...
My erstwhile best friend over many years, the late Dr. Mikhail Tunkel
( born and bred in Harbin China, at the age of 34, emigrated to Israel
in 1950 after Mao & the communists united China, took over their
lucrative business - he was great admirer of Mao, less so of the
Japanese, anyway, he told me this story about his visit to the al -
Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. He had never been in a mosque before and he
was terribly curious and a little excited: He said that he took his
shoes off ( respect) entered, stood there in awe, looking around and
taking it all in, then he slowly advanced towards the prayer niche at
the far end towards what looked like where the Torah Scrolls are kept
in all their glory. As he got closer ( facing Mecca) he saw what he
believed must be the Qur'an laying open on one of the reading stands,
so he advanced more rapidly... he was about to touch it when he heard
a loud voice voice tell him in Arabic, DO NOT TOUCH IT, IT IS ONLY FOR
THE PURE !!!!!
Dr. Tunkel said that he almost collapsed, he thought that it was the
angel Gabriel – but in fact it was someone standing in the balcony
and keeping watch. You must do your ritual ablutions and be in wudu
before touching the holy book....
There's a saying, “Respect others and let them form their own
opinions!"
Tolerance and respect can certainly be exaggerated. There are several
stories like the example you gave. The stories are endless. There's
one about a dog who was badly pressed and ran towards what he thought
was the nearest tree, put one leg up against it and started to
urinate against the tree trunk which actually turned out to be a Sufi
saint standing nearby, standing so still that the doggie thought he
was a tree and that's why doggie was leaning on him and urinating. The
Sufi saint felt the dog's warm urine trickling down his leg, waited
patiently and finally asked the dog, “ Have you finished doing your
little business?” Doggie ran away relieved...
I have great respect for all people and all religions...
My first Sufi master Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh taught respect for the
qualities that a dog has. He said that if only some men had a few of a
dog's qualities.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Dogs+from+a+Sufi+Point+of+View.+by+Dr.+Javad+Nurbakhsh.&oq=Dogs+from+a+Sufi+Point+of+View.+by+Dr.+Javad+Nurbakhsh.&gs_l=hp.3...4506.4506.0.8458.1.1.0.0.0.0.33.33.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2j1.qwPKn14EaA8
I am sorry that my “wait and see” was also interpreted negatively.
Perhaps I should have said, “ Watch and pray”?
( We should pray that some nutty Christian Nigerian doesn't make and
release in Nigeria, a movie like the one causing all this trouble)
We are waiting for the Messiah to declare that he is here.
Only in that sense do I say, wait and see....
In Sweden there is something called “olaga hot”
We are very careful about that....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=olaga+hot&oq=olaga+hot&gs_l=hp.12..0j0i30l3j0i10i30j0i30l5.3321.3321.0.10661.1.1.0.0.0.0.42.42.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.f6H4WX0tL8U
Best regards...
Cornelius
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Th...
>
> read more »
I am “justifying the treatment that poor girl received”? Me?
You and Adepoju insist on mis-using that word... I am not ,was not
“justifying” anything. All I did was tender a plausible
( psychologically probable) explanation of why some things happen and
you tell me that I was justifying” - as if I am some sort of
nutcracker...
I feel that you are now addressing me as if I am an indicted criminal
in the dock and you are the prosecuting attorney. “Hectoring tone”
indeed, “that precludes any discussion”
You sound like Parvez: “Though everyone today insists that all visions
of ‘Islamic politics’ must contend with the moral and pragmatic issues
of our times, Islamist thought, unfortunately, is moving in a
direction that makes all compromise with the modern ethos almost
impossible. “
....Lord have mercy! I plead not guilty...
Me, looking for a fight , with you? I know that you've probably got
all the tricks in the book to throw me into the cooler or the
mortuary, sooner or later...
My humble apologies for any offence caused , real or imaginary...
In my view a Nigerian journalist living in Nigeria at that time or at
any time should be especially on the alert these sensitive times,
ought to know better. She should certainly think twice before joking
about the prophet or his wives,“the mothers of the believers”, even
innocently or playfully,like that.
On the other hand some of the guys called Krishna do not take offence
looking at gopis or beauties. Have not heard about anyone who took
this advice literally:
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29 )
However as we all know now, she, we, you should avoid joking about the
prophet like that, say in a Saudi newspaper and certainly be more on
the alert with possible slips of the tongue about Rasulullah in Boko
Haram Nigeria. In Saudi Arabia I would advise one and all to be extra
vigilant even about pieces of paper that do not look like loose
leaves from the Holy Quran...
My erstwhile best friend over many years, the late Dr. Mikhail Tunkel
( born and bred in Harbin China, at the age of 34, emigrated to Israel
in 1950 after Mao & the communists united China, took over their
lucrative business - he was great admirer of Mao, less so of the
Japanese, anyway, he told me this story about his visit to the al -
Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. He had never been in a mosque before and he
was terribly curious and a little excited: He said that he took his
shoes off ( respect) entered, stood there in awe, looking around and
taking it all in, then he slowly advanced towards the prayer niche at
the far end towards what looked like where the Torah Scrolls are kept
in all their glory. As he got closer ( facing Mecca) he saw what he
believed must be the Qur'an laying open on one of the reading stands,
so he advanced more rapidly... he was about to touch it when he heard
a loud voice voice tell him in Arabic, DO NOT TOUCH IT, IT IS ONLY FOR
THE PURE !!!!!
Dr. Tunkel said that he almost collapsed, he thought that it was the
angel Gabriel – but in fact it was someone standing in the balcony
and keeping watch. You must do your ritual ablutions and be in wudu
before touching the holy book....
There's a saying, “Respect others and let them form their own
opinions!"
Tolerance and respect can certainly be exaggerated. There are several
stories like the example you gave. The stories are endless. There's
one about a dog who was badly pressed and ran towards what he thought
was the nearest tree, put one leg up against it and started to
urinate against the tree trunk which actually turned out to be a Sufi
saint standing nearby, standing so still that the doggie thought he
was a tree and that's why doggie was leaning on him and urinating. The
Sufi saint felt the dog's warm urine trickling down his leg, waited
patiently and finally asked the dog, “ Have you finished doing your
little business?” Doggie ran away relieved...
I have great respect for all people and all religions...
My first Sufi master Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh taught respect for the
qualities that a dog has. He said that if only some men had a few of a
dog's qualities.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Dogs+from+a+Sufi+Point+of+View.+by+Dr.+Javad+Nurbakhsh.&oq=Dogs+from+a+Sufi+Point+of+View.+by+Dr.+Javad+Nurbakhsh.&gs_l=hp.3...4506.4506.0.8458.1.1.0.0.0.0.33.33.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2j1.qwPKn14EaA8
I am sorry that my “wait and see” was also interpreted negatively.
Perhaps I should have said, “ Watch and pray”?
( We should pray that some nutty Christian Nigerian doesn't make and
release in Nigeria, a movie like the one causing all this trouble)
We are waiting for the Messiah to declare that he is here.
Only in that sense do I say, wait and see....
In Sweden there is something called “olaga hot”
We are very careful about that....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=olaga+hot&oq=olaga+hot&gs_l=hp.12..0j0i30l3j0i10i30j0i30l5.3321.3321.0.10661.1.1.0.0.0.0.42.42.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.f6H4WX0tL8U
Best regards...
Cornelius
> It is precisely this hectoring tone that precludes any discussion. Why should the journalist know better? As far as she was concerned, she gave no more offence than if she had said 'it would tempt a saint!'. Why would that have been such a big deal? But there you are, insinuating that she did something deliberately! A Muslim friend recounted a case where some travellers came to a mosque where the Prophet and his followers were. They refreshed themselves and urinated against the wall, which made the followers so angry that they wanted to attack the travellers, but were restrained by the Prophet because they did not know better and had not intended to give offence. But you, Cornelius, you claim that the Miss World matter is a minor incident, yet even then, you are not willing to let go! You are justifying the treatment that poor girl received! And then you think one should lift a finger to help in preparing legal ways to justify that?
>
> Laws based on the assumption that everybody should know what Muslims like or do not like, or rather, will tolerate or not tolerate? Why do you assume that the everybody who picks up a piece of paper will know that it is a page of the Koran? To say that I am astonished that you would blame anybody for not knowing that is a big understatement. Is it not forbidden for non Muslims to even touch the Koran? So shouldn't the blame lie on the person who left the loose pages of the Koran lying around? And then it was the husband who was killed - dragged from the prison where he was kept and lynched! And you are still justifying it because Muslims became angry!
>
> I see neither tolerance nor respect. I don't need to wait and see, and if that is supposed to be a threat, you will understand why, although I continue to find the contributions and questions that some have raised instructive and informative, as far as I am concerned, there isn't really any basis for discussing this matter with you. You are looking for a fight. If you have found one in what I wrote, I, quite frankly, need only rest my case.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
>
> Laws based on the assumption that everybody should know what Muslims like or do not like, or rather, will tolerate or not tolerate? Why do you assume that the everybody who picks up a piece of paper will know that it is a page of the Koran? To say that I am astonished that you would blame anybody for not knowing that is a big understatement. Is it not forbidden for non Muslims to even touch the Koran? So shouldn't the blame lie on the person who left the loose pages of the Koran lying around? And then it was the husband who was killed - dragged from the prison where he was kept and lynched! And you are still justifying it because Muslims became angry!
>
> I see neither tolerance nor respect. I don't need to wait and see, and if that is supposed to be a threat, you will understand why, although I continue to find the contributions and questions that some have raised instructive and informative, as far as I am concerned, there isn't really any basis for discussing this matter with you. You are looking for a fight. If you have found one in what I wrote, I, quite frankly, need only rest my case.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
>
> > You say that “Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because
> > his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of
> > loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom.”
>
> > Others testify (not in the witness box) that the “piece of loose paper
> > “ used to wipe their baby's butt
> > was a page/pages of the Holy Qur'an...
>
> > There is Islamophobia and there is a vicious, carefully orchestrated
> > propaganda war being waged against Islam. There are several blogs and
> > websites dedicated to that (I visit some on a regular basis, to know
> > what's going on.)
>
> > I go along with Sheikh Nasrallah's view that there should be some
> > limits on the vile propaganda war being waged on Islam and Muslims.
> > David, Solomon and his 1,000 wives. I too went through much of Louis
> > Ginsberg's “The Legends of the Jews” -
> >https://www.google.se/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=qkJ&rls=org.mo...
> > You say that “Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because
> > his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of
> > loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom.”
>
> > Others testify (not in the witness box) that the “piece of loose paper
> > “ used to wipe their baby's butt
> > was a page/pages of the Holy Qur'an...
>
> > There is Islamophobia and there is a vicious, carefully orchestrated
> > propaganda war being waged against Islam. There are several blogs and
> > websites dedicated to that (I visit some on a regular basis, to know
> > what's going on.)
>
> > I go along with Sheikh Nasrallah's view that there should be some
> > limits on the vile propaganda war being waged on Islam and Muslims.
> > David, Solomon and his 1,000 wives. I too went through much of Louis
> > Ginsberg's “The Legends of the Jews” -
>
> > Ikhide would probably find Torgny Lindgren's “Bathsheba” wonder
> > fiction about a very human King David...
> >http://books.google.se/books?id=vaJr4jh0dgYC&q=Torgny+Lindgren+:+Bath...
> > Ikhide would probably find Torgny Lindgren's “Bathsheba” wonder
> > fiction about a very human King David...
>
> > Nota Bene: Sheikh Nasrallah does not say that a vile propaganda war
> > should be waged on Judaism or any other religions , some of which say
> > unprintable things about the mother of somebody's Jesus....
>
> > Wait and see.
>
> > On 18 Sep, 09:23, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cornelius, you actually lose me when you talk about a 'vicious propaganda war being waged against the integrity of the prophet' and then cite the Miss World controversy in Nigeria. Here was a young woman, not a Muslim, who was hounded out from her family, her home and her country because she made an innocent remark to emphasise the beauty of the contestants. Even today, I struggle to understand what it was that she did that was so wrong. And this, if any law were to be designed to catch innocent people like that, I would oppose them. Yes, there are some crimes of strict liability, but the use of the words 'vicious', 'war', 'waged against' suggests that there must have been some form of deliberate intent, what a criminal lawyer would call 'men's real' or 'guilty mind'.
>
> >> Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
>
> >> Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
>
> >> In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
>
> >> Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
>
> >> Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
>
> >> Ayo
> >> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> >> On 16 Sep 2012, at 20:13, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> blasphemy in Islam
>
> >>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=bl...
>
> >>> ”Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
> >>> 'summarily' executed?”
>
> >>> The answer is
>
> ...
> > Nota Bene: Sheikh Nasrallah does not say that a vile propaganda war
> > should be waged on Judaism or any other religions , some of which say
> > unprintable things about the mother of somebody's Jesus....
>
> > Wait and see.
>
> > On 18 Sep, 09:23, Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Cornelius, you actually lose me when you talk about a 'vicious propaganda war being waged against the integrity of the prophet' and then cite the Miss World controversy in Nigeria. Here was a young woman, not a Muslim, who was hounded out from her family, her home and her country because she made an innocent remark to emphasise the beauty of the contestants. Even today, I struggle to understand what it was that she did that was so wrong. And this, if any law were to be designed to catch innocent people like that, I would oppose them. Yes, there are some crimes of strict liability, but the use of the words 'vicious', 'war', 'waged against' suggests that there must have been some form of deliberate intent, what a criminal lawyer would call 'men's real' or 'guilty mind'.
>
> >> Gideon Akaluka was murdered - lynched - in Kano because his wife (not him, his wife) was alleged to have grabbed a piece of loose paper and used it to wipe their baby's bottom. Why on earth would I want to lift a single finger to assist in punishing such people because some Muslims might take offence? I don't even know what the offence is!
>
> >> Last Saturday I watched a TV programme on the BBC Knowledge which examined the historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Kings David and Solomon. The conclusion of the presenter was 'not much'. But others cite similar studies in respect of Islam's beloved prophet as another cause for grievance. Would I want to suggest laws to prohibit such examinations? God forbid!
>
> >> In the US last Christmas, humanists and/or atheists posted huge billboards mockingly telling Christians that 'it's not real' or some similar message. Christians can decide to get all bent out of shape, or they can carry on.
>
> >> Elsewhere I've referred to the car sticker I saw when I started working in Lagos in the late '70s. It said "Allah is the one true God. He never dies. Not even for three days.". It is one thing to declare that Allah is the one true God who never dies. Several religions claim superiority for their faith. But the "not even for three days" was a specific, diaraging reference to Jesus Christ. i cite it again here, not because I think that if one person does a wrong thing, it becomes OK for everybody else to do a similar wrong thing.
>
> >> Of course, the more reaction they get, the more some people will be encouraged to continue. If one really wants to stir up trouble, Muslims are playing along beautifully. Of course, it has been said that freedom of speech does not include the right to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded cinema. So if a Muslim doesn't mind the image of himself as a touchy, easily inflamed piece of kindling, he can test that out. But as far as I'm concerned, the sensible legal option available to Muslims is to heed the advice to get over it.
>
> >> Ayo
> >> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> >> On 16 Sep 2012, at 20:13, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> blasphemy in Islam
>
> >>>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=bl...
>
> >>> ”Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be
> >>> 'summarily' executed?”
>
> >>> The answer is
>
>
> read more »
Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sep 19, 2012, 11:27:48 AM9/19/12
to usaafric...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Thomas Friedman (below). I would only add that given that there is as much insult to Christianity, Judaism, and Sufism in the Islamic world as there is Islamophobia in the West, it seems that the analytical obsession with anti-Islamic provocation misses the point. The ubiquity of religious insult directed at many organized faiths brings us back to the question of why Muslims react more violently and more angrily to insult on their religion than do the adherents of these other faiths and sects. I won't repeat the reasons adduced by the article I posted earlier and my own reasons that emanated from inquiry and reflection, but exploring the root of Muslim rage and violent reaction seems an infinitely more productive enterprise than lamentations focusing on provocation. In other words, the focus on provocation is a red herring, a distraction from the more important issue of asymmetrical and differential reactions to religious provocation.
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
Look in Your Mirror
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: September 18, 2012 95 Comments
- GOOGLE+
- SHARE
- REPRINTS
-
On Monday, David D. Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times, quoted one of the Egyptian demonstrators outside the American Embassy, Khaled Ali, as justifying last week’s violent protests by declaring: “We never insult any prophet — not Moses, not Jesus — so why can’t we demand that Muhammad be respected?” Mr. Ali, a 39-year-old textile worker, was holding up a handwritten sign in English that read: “Shut Up America.” “Obama is the president, so he should have to apologize!”
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Related in Opinion
-
Op-Ed Contributor: Catholics Then, Muslims Now (September 18, 2012)
-
Opinionator: Libya, Violence and Free Speech (September 17, 2012)
-
Times Topic: Middle East
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
I read several such comments from the rioters in the press last week, and I have a big problem with them. I don’t like to see anyone’s faith insulted, but we need to make two things very clear — more clear than President Obama’s team has made them. One is that an insult — even one as stupid and ugly as the anti-Islam video on YouTube that started all of this — does not entitle people to go out and attack embassies and kill innocent diplomats. That is not how a proper self-governing people behave. There is no excuse for it. It is shameful. And, second, before demanding an apology from our president, Mr. Ali and the young Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Sudanese who have been taking to the streets might want to look in the mirror — or just turn on their own televisions. They might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews, Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist, Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize their own potential.
The Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, was founded in 1998 in Washington by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli government adviser on counterterrorism, “to bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West by monitoring, translating and studying Arab, Iranian, Urdu and Pashtu media, schoolbooks, and religious sermons.” What I respect about Memri is that it translates not only the ugly stuff but the courageous liberal, reformist Arab commentators as well. I asked Memri for a sampler of the hate-filled videos that appear regularly on Arab/Muslim mass media. Here are some:
ON CHRISTIANS Hasan Rahimpur Azghadi of the Iranian Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution: Christianity is “a reeking corpse, on which you have to constantly pour eau de cologne and perfume, and wash it in order to keep it clean.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1528.htm — July 20, 2007.
Sheik Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It is permissible to spill the blood of the Iraqi Christians — and a duty to wage jihad against them.http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5200.htm — April 14, 2011.
Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi professor of Islamic law, calls for “positive hatred” of Christians. Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia), http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/992.htm — Dec. 16, 2005.
ON SHIITES The Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: “Muslim Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Mohamed Morsi told me that the Shiites are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews.” www.memritv.org/clip/en/3466.htm — June 13, 2012.
The Egyptian Cleric Mazen al-Sirsawi: “If Allah had not created the Shiites as human beings, they would have been donkeys.” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3101.htm — Aug. 7, 2011.
The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan video series: “The Shiite is a Nasl [Race/Offspring] of Jews.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6208.htm — March 21, 2012.
ON JEWS Article on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Web site praises jihad against America and the Jews: “The Descendants of Apes and Pigs.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6656.htm — Sept. 7, 2012.
The Pakistani cleric Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai: “When the Jews are wiped out, the world would be purified and the sun of peace would rise on the entire world.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6557.htm — Aug. 1, 2012.
Dr. Ismail Ali Muhammad, a senior Al-Azhar scholar: The Jews, “a source of evil and harm in all human societies.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm— Feb. 14, 2012.
ON SUFIS A shrine venerating a Sufi Muslim saint in Libya has been partly destroyed, the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultraconservative Salafi Islamists.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083 — Aug. 26, 2012.
As a Jew who has lived and worked in the Muslim world, I know that these expressions of intolerance are only one side of the story and that there are deeply tolerant views and strains of Islam espoused and practiced there as well. Theirs are complex societies.
That’s the point. America is a complex society, too. But let’s cut the nonsense that this is just our problem and the only issue is how we clean up our act. That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths and prophets of others. But that runs both ways. Our president and major newspapers consistently condemn hate speech against other religions. How about yours?
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
Cornelius Hamelberg
Sep 19, 2012, 4:27:29 PM9/19/12
to USA Africa Dialogue Series
While Professor Moses Ebe Ochonu is continuing with profound
reflections on “why Muslims react more violently and more angrily to
ago) is that “The only surprise is there aren't more violent protests
in the Middle East” :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/violent-protests-blowback-us-intervention
Islamophobia and its Islamophobes who go on demonizing Islam had
better get this straight as such an understanding could considerably
reduce the tensions between the proselytizing faiths of Islam and
Christianity with its “replacement theology”and Christians theory
which makes Chrsitains feel so right, beleiving as they do that if
you are not “covered” by “the blood of Jesus” then , you're going to
hell:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Jewish+Rabbi+Admits+Muslims+Are+Blessed+&oq=Jewish+Rabbi+Admits+Muslims+Are+Blessed+&gs_l=hp.12...4239.4239.0.7246.1.1.0.0.0.0.35.35.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.ZpXMeeDRJbw
On Sep 19, 5:41 pm, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Thomas Friedman (below). I would only add that given that
> there is as much insult to Christianity, Judaism, and Sufism in the Islamic
> world as there is Islamophobia in the West, it seems that the analytical
> obsession with anti-Islamic provocation misses the point. The ubiquity of
> religious insult directed at many organized faiths brings us back to the
> question of why Muslims react more violently and more angrily to insult on
> their religion than do the adherents of these other faiths and sects. I
> won't repeat the reasons adduced by the article I posted earlier and my own
> reasons that emanated from inquiry and reflection, but exploring the root
> of Muslim rage and violent reaction seems an infinitely more productive
> enterprise than lamentations focusing on provocation. In other words, the
> focus on provocation is a red herring, a distraction from the more
> important issue of asymmetrical and differential reactions to religious
> provocation.
>
> Look in Your MirrorBy THOMAS L.
> FRIEDMAN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnis...>Published:
> September 18, 2012 95
> Comments<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
>
> - FACEBOOK
> - TWITTER
> - GOOGLE+
> - E-MAIL
> - SHARE
> - PRINT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
> - REPRINTS
> -
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www...>
> Related in Opinion
>
> - Op-Ed Contributor: Catholics Then, Muslims
> Now<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/catholics-then-muslims-now....>
> (September
> 18, 2012)
> - Opinionator: Libya, Violence and Free
> Speech<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-fr...>
> (September
> 17, 2012)
> - Times Topic: Middle
> East<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/middle-east/index.html>
> .
> »<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
> up *our* act. That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths
> ...
>
> read more »
reflections on “why Muslims react more violently and more angrily to
insult on their religion than do the adherents of these other faiths
and sects”, the latest Guardian headline on the matter ( about 4 hours
ago) is that “The only surprise is there aren't more violent protests
in the Middle East” :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/violent-protests-blowback-us-intervention
Islamophobia and its Islamophobes who go on demonizing Islam had
better get this straight as such an understanding could considerably
reduce the tensions between the proselytizing faiths of Islam and
Christianity with its “replacement theology”and Christians theory
which makes Chrsitains feel so right, beleiving as they do that if
you are not “covered” by “the blood of Jesus” then , you're going to
hell:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Jewish+Rabbi+Admits+Muslims+Are+Blessed+&oq=Jewish+Rabbi+Admits+Muslims+Are+Blessed+&gs_l=hp.12...4239.4239.0.7246.1.1.0.0.0.0.35.35.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.2.ZpXMeeDRJbw
On Sep 19, 5:41 pm, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Thomas Friedman (below). I would only add that given that
> there is as much insult to Christianity, Judaism, and Sufism in the Islamic
> world as there is Islamophobia in the West, it seems that the analytical
> obsession with anti-Islamic provocation misses the point. The ubiquity of
> religious insult directed at many organized faiths brings us back to the
> question of why Muslims react more violently and more angrily to insult on
> their religion than do the adherents of these other faiths and sects. I
> won't repeat the reasons adduced by the article I posted earlier and my own
> reasons that emanated from inquiry and reflection, but exploring the root
> of Muslim rage and violent reaction seems an infinitely more productive
> enterprise than lamentations focusing on provocation. In other words, the
> focus on provocation is a red herring, a distraction from the more
> important issue of asymmetrical and differential reactions to religious
> provocation.
>
> Look in Your MirrorBy THOMAS L.
> September 18, 2012 95
> Comments<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
>
> - GOOGLE+
> - SHARE
> - PRINT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
> - REPRINTS
> -
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www...>
>
> On Monday, David D. Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times,
> quoted one of the Egyptian demonstrators outside the American Embassy,
> Khaled Ali, as justifying last week’s violent protests by declaring: “We
> never insult any prophet — not Moses, not Jesus — so why can’t we demand
> that Muhammad be respected?” Mr. Ali, a 39-year-old textile worker, was
> holding up a handwritten sign in English that read: “Shut Up America.”
> “Obama is the president, so he should have to apologize!”
> On Monday, David D. Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times,
> quoted one of the Egyptian demonstrators outside the American Embassy,
> Khaled Ali, as justifying last week’s violent protests by declaring: “We
> never insult any prophet — not Moses, not Jesus — so why can’t we demand
> that Muhammad be respected?” Mr. Ali, a 39-year-old textile worker, was
> holding up a handwritten sign in English that read: “Shut Up America.”
> “Obama is the president, so he should have to apologize!”
> Josh Haner/The New York Times
>
> Thomas L. Friedman
> Go to Columnist Page
> »<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnis...>
>
> Thomas L. Friedman
> Go to Columnist Page
> Related in Opinion
>
> - Op-Ed Contributor: Catholics Then, Muslims
> Now<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/catholics-then-muslims-now....>
> (September
> 18, 2012)
> - Opinionator: Libya, Violence and Free
> Speech<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-fr...>
> (September
> 17, 2012)
> - Times Topic: Middle
> East<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/middle-east/index.html>
>
> [image: Opinion Twitter Logo.]
> Connect With Us on Twitter
>
> For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion <https://twitter.com/#!/nytopinion> and to
> [image: Opinion Twitter Logo.]
> Connect With Us on Twitter
>
> hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal,
> follow@andyrNYT<https://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT>
> .
> Readers’ Comments
>
> Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
>
> - Read All Comments (95)
>
> Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
>
> »<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/friedman-look-in-your-mirro...>
>
> I read several such comments from the rioters in the press last week, and I
> have a big problem with them. I don’t like to see anyone’s faith insulted,
> but we need to make two things very clear — more clear than President
> Obama’s team has made them. One is that an insult — even one as stupid and
> ugly as the anti-Islam video on YouTube that started all of this — does not
> entitle people to go out and attack embassies and kill innocent diplomats.
> That is not how a proper self-governing people behave. There is no excuse
> for it. It is shameful. And, second, before demanding an apology from our
> president, Mr. Ali and the young Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, Yemenis,
> Pakistanis, Afghans and Sudanese who have been taking to the streets might
> want to look in the mirror — or just turn on their own televisions. They
> might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of
> their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in
> sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews,
> Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist,
> Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has
> become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize
> their own potential.
>
> The Middle East Media Research Institute <http://www.memri.org/>, or Memri,
> I read several such comments from the rioters in the press last week, and I
> have a big problem with them. I don’t like to see anyone’s faith insulted,
> but we need to make two things very clear — more clear than President
> Obama’s team has made them. One is that an insult — even one as stupid and
> ugly as the anti-Islam video on YouTube that started all of this — does not
> entitle people to go out and attack embassies and kill innocent diplomats.
> That is not how a proper self-governing people behave. There is no excuse
> for it. It is shameful. And, second, before demanding an apology from our
> president, Mr. Ali and the young Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, Yemenis,
> Pakistanis, Afghans and Sudanese who have been taking to the streets might
> want to look in the mirror — or just turn on their own televisions. They
> might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of
> their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in
> sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews,
> Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist,
> Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has
> become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize
> their own potential.
>
> was founded in 1998 in Washington by Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli
> government adviser on counterterrorism, “to bridge the language gap between
> the Middle East and the West by monitoring, translating and studying Arab,
> Iranian, Urdu and Pashtu media, schoolbooks, and religious sermons.” What I
> respect about Memri is that it translates not only the ugly stuff but the
> courageous liberal, reformist Arab commentators as well. I asked Memri for
> a sampler of the hate-filled videos that appear regularly on Arab/Muslim
> mass media. Here are some:
>
> *ON CHRISTIANS* Hasan Rahimpur Azghadi of the Iranian Supreme Council for
> government adviser on counterterrorism, “to bridge the language gap between
> the Middle East and the West by monitoring, translating and studying Arab,
> Iranian, Urdu and Pashtu media, schoolbooks, and religious sermons.” What I
> respect about Memri is that it translates not only the ugly stuff but the
> courageous liberal, reformist Arab commentators as well. I asked Memri for
> a sampler of the hate-filled videos that appear regularly on Arab/Muslim
> mass media. Here are some:
>
> Cultural Revolution: Christianity is “a reeking corpse, on which you have
> to constantly pour eau de cologne and perfume, and wash it in order to keep
> it clean.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1528.htm— July 20, 2007.
>
> Sheik Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It is permissible to spill the blood of the
> Iraqi Christians — and a duty to wage jihad against them.http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5200.htm— April 14, 2011.
>
> Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi professor of Islamic law, calls for
> “positive hatred” of Christians. Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia),http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/992.htm— Dec. 16, 2005.
>
> *ON SHIITES* The Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: “Muslim
> to constantly pour eau de cologne and perfume, and wash it in order to keep
> it clean.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1528.htm— July 20, 2007.
>
> Sheik Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It is permissible to spill the blood of the
> Iraqi Christians — and a duty to wage jihad against them.http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5200.htm— April 14, 2011.
>
> Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi professor of Islamic law, calls for
> “positive hatred” of Christians. Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia),http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/992.htm— Dec. 16, 2005.
>
> Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Mohamed Morsi told me that the Shiites
> are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews.”www.memritv.org/clip/en/3466.htm—
> June 13, 2012.
>
> The Egyptian Cleric Mazen al-Sirsawi: “If Allah had not created the
> Shiites as human beings, they would have been donkeys.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3101.htm— Aug. 7, 2011.
>
> The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan video series: “The Shiite is a Nasl
> [Race/Offspring] of Jews.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6208.htm— March 21, 2012.
>
> *ON JEWS* Article on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Web site praises jihad
> are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews.”www.memritv.org/clip/en/3466.htm—
> June 13, 2012.
>
> The Egyptian Cleric Mazen al-Sirsawi: “If Allah had not created the
> Shiites as human beings, they would have been donkeys.”http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3101.htm— Aug. 7, 2011.
>
> The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan video series: “The Shiite is a Nasl
> [Race/Offspring] of Jews.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6208.htm— March 21, 2012.
>
> against America and the Jews: “The Descendants of Apes and Pigs.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6656.htm— Sept. 7, 2012.
>
> The Pakistani cleric Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai: “When the Jews are wiped
> out, the world would be purified and the sun of peace would rise on the
> entire world.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6557.htm— Aug.
> 1, 2012.
>
> Dr. Ismail Ali Muhammad, a senior Al-Azhar scholar: The Jews, “a source of
> evil and harm in all human societies.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm—Feb. 14, 2012.
>
> *ON SUFIS* A shrine venerating a Sufi Muslim saint in Libya has been partly
>
> The Pakistani cleric Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai: “When the Jews are wiped
> out, the world would be purified and the sun of peace would rise on the
> entire world.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6557.htm— Aug.
> 1, 2012.
>
> Dr. Ismail Ali Muhammad, a senior Al-Azhar scholar: The Jews, “a source of
> evil and harm in all human societies.”http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm—Feb. 14, 2012.
>
> destroyed, the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultraconservative
> Salafi Islamists.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083— Aug. 26,
> 2012.
>
> As a Jew who has lived and worked in the Muslim world, I know that these
> expressions of intolerance are only one side of the story and that there
> are deeply tolerant views and strains of Islam espoused and practiced there
> as well. Theirs are complex societies.
>
> That’s the point. America is a complex society, too. But let’s cut the
> nonsense that this is just *our* problem and the only issue is how *we* clean
> Salafi Islamists.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083— Aug. 26,
> 2012.
>
> As a Jew who has lived and worked in the Muslim world, I know that these
> expressions of intolerance are only one side of the story and that there
> are deeply tolerant views and strains of Islam espoused and practiced there
> as well. Theirs are complex societies.
>
> That’s the point. America is a complex society, too. But let’s cut the
> up *our* act. That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages