Google Blocks 'Innocence of Muslim' Video In Indonesia and India 484
hypnosec writes "Google has blocked the anti-Islamic video, which was posted on YouTube, in Indonesia as well as India. YouTube has already denied a complete removal of the clip 'Innocence of Muslims' that mocks Islam and Prophet Mohammed. The video has led to protests and violence across the Arab world. The foreign ministry spokesperson of Indonesia and India have confirmed that Google has blocked access to the video. Indonesia has also asked RIM to filter the video on its smartphones."
Not Convenient (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient. Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed". Way to go Google for adopting the China model. Maybe they'll let you back in!
Are they also going to block this image (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they going to block this image from the Onion, entitled "No One Murdered Because Of This Image" [theonion.com]? After all everyone tells us that Muslims are no worse than people of other religions, so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place?
If not some people might suspect that Islam really is a more violent and savage religion than the others
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place? "
I suspect you're too young to remember the deaths that 'Christians' caused after having seen the movie 'Jud Süß'
The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8, 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_(1940_film) [wikipedia.org]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"so surely this insult to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism will have the members of respective religions storming embassies and murdering people all over the place? "
I suspect you're too young to remember the deaths that 'Christians' caused after having seen the movie 'Jud Süß' The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 8, 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%BC%C3%9F_(1940_film) [wikipedia.org] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032653/ [imdb.com]
Yes, I am too young to remember Nazi propaganda films. leaving aside whether or not it was a "Christian" film - it is much more aligned to NAziism than Christianity, I will make two points:
Re:Are they also going to block this image (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't as much Islam as the assholes who put themselves in charge of preaching "Islam" to the masses.
To paraphrase, "the problem is not so much Islam as what the followers of Islam believe and is taught by the leaders of Islam.
Just because the Catholic church is a mess (and it's gotten much better), doesn't mean Christianity is bad.
The Catholic church is guilty of many things, indifference, cover-up, etc. but I have not heard one Catholic priest say that child abuse is right, and that those who follow Catholicism should support it and encourage their kids to put up with it. I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.
Out of interest, how many?
How about as a percentage of the 1.6 Million imams in the world (rough estimate, based on one imam per 1000 muslims)?
Re:Are they also going to block this image (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard many Muslim teachers and Imams say that killing people over films, books, cartoons, lifestyle, or choice of belief is not just right but an obligation.
Out of interest, how many?
How about as a percentage of the 1.6 Million imams in the world (rough estimate, based on one imam per 1000 muslims)?
100% more than those I have heard saying that killing over cartoons etc. is unjustified and wrong.
Re:Are they also going to block this image (Score:5, Informative)
I found this condemnation of the current riots within 30 seconds of searching. http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=501 [mcb.org.uk]
I'm certain you'd find similar condemnations for the cartoons episode, if you looked.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh FFS. If that matters, then I Googled "Imam condemns riots" and got a bunch of hits. You could do the same.
MCB is more of a bellweather though.
Re:Dhimmitude (Score:5, Informative)
dhimma is a form where you are put into a lower class, receive less legal and other rights, are TOLD that you are INFERIOR to the 'master race' (yes, I used that wording on purpose) and your lands and rights could be snapped away at a moment's notice if you displease the rulers or religious folks.
ie, just a notch above slavery.
nice, huh?
btw, they see ALL of us as being in this role sooner or later.
religion of pieces, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
So, one?
Dozens. Its not so much the number (I am sure that many more than I have heard say it) as the fact that it is never contradicted. Contrast this with the number of Christians objecting to the Westboro Baptists saying "God hates fags", or celebrating death of soldiers - or Christians bombing abortion clinics. To put it in perspective I have only heard Catholic priests talk about papal infallability a couple of times, but since it is discussed in the open an none disagree I know it is the teaching of all the m
Re:Are they also going to block this image (Score:4, Informative)
well polls suggest that the vast majority of Muslims support strict enforcement of sharia law. I think there's enough evidence of to confirm the GP's statement that we'd need counter evidence to infer anything else.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf [worldpublicopinion.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient.
Apparently you think US law governs the whole world.
The film is inciteful enough to be in a grey area legally even in some western nations like the UK.
I think you're stretching the truth to just call this speech anyway. There is no significant communication in the entire bit. It is just a call to violence.
Re:Not Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is a concept that applies to law-making, not web-hosting. Google has done nothing to prevent the filmmakers from distributing this trailer. They are also not blocking it from search.
All they do is abstain from hosting it themselves in ceratin countries in the same way as a US newspaper might refuse to publish a nazi propaganda ad. People perceive publication/distribution as (weak) a form of endorsment, and Google wants to avoid this.
(Also, the movie itself seems to be a piece of crap, regardess of any point it's trying to make.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
here's a big surprise for you... the first amendment only applies in America. Other countries have their own constitutions (or not) and their own laws. Google is obliged to conform to local laws of the countries in which it operates. They're also a private company, not an arm of the state - so the first amendment wouldn't even apply if they chose to block the video in the US.
There is no violation here - but you can continue you to rant if you wish (as is your first amendment right) - but please be aware tha
Re:Not Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to pretty much all other global corporations, they're saints. There is nothing wrong with complying with the law in these countries. You don't personally agree with the laws, but that's irrelevant. If you were brought up in a Muslim culture you'd be saying Google are evil for leaving the videos viewable in other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, after actually reading up on this I see that Islamic "protesters" have killed people in US embassies over this, so maybe Google are trying to save lives here. They've left the videos up in countries where people are less retarde- oh sorry, I mean religious.
Re:Not Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
They haven't been killing people over the video. They've been killing people because someone is telling them or paying them to. The video is merely an excuse.
Re:Not Convenient (Score:5, Insightful)
They've left the videos up in countries where people are less retarde- oh sorry, I mean religious.
No, I think you got it right the first time -- retarded. From what I understand (which isn't much when it comes to Islam), killing is as much a sin to them as to Christians. They're retards following secularists who pretend to be religious for their own personal gain. The rioters are being duped.
The religious ones aren't rioting, they're at home reading their Korans and praying.
Re: (Score:3)
So before someone speaks in India they have to wonder whether what they're about to say is going to make some crazy people have a riot?
BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (Score:4, Informative)
Pass it around, Free Mohammad.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty naive of the admin of this web site to believe that he will be able to safeguard his anonymity in the long run.
Anyway, picture of Mohammad are boring and nobody wants to see them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty naive of the admin of this web site to believe that he will be able to safeguard his anonymity in the long run.
Why would he have to?
Anyway, picture of Mohammad are boring and nobody wants to see them.
[citation needed]
Re:BTW, here is an archive of Mohammad images (Score:4, Insightful)
Delicate Balance (Score:2, Flamebait)
I believe there is a delicate balance between having and holding values and imposing them upon others. I don't deny that the violent reaction is itself an imposition of values; however, I posit that traditions of free speech can withstand the assault and our culture is unharmed by demonstration of respect. Where as, I am not confident that opposition cultures with outspoken and violent counter-mainstream elements -- unsteeped in and intollerant of traditions of free speech -- are capable of withstanding
Since when is India a Muslim country? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
New to the internets or just drunk? .be is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Belgium.
The short bus version -- On the website YouTube, a shortener for YouTube videos is youtu.be, for example www.youtube.com/watch?v=CODE become youtu.be/CODE.
youtu.be and youtube.be are both YouTube Belgium.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as youtube.be or Youtube Belgium, they all redirect to a single site, youtube.com.
Election Year People (Score:5, Informative)
Protests ALL over the World. (Score:5, Insightful)
This morning, Sept 17, 2012, I've been watching and listenting to reports of riots and civil unrest all over the World - from mostly international sources.
While the American news sources are focused almost exclusively on the Middle East, their are riots in China, Japan, S. Africa, Western Europe, etc ....
NONE of them are about Islam. They are all about economics.
Deep down it's the same with the MIddle Eastern riots. This piss-ant video was just a the spark or an excuse for the riots.
ANYONE who thinks these riots are really about Islam being "insulted" is horribly provincial and uninformed.
An example of something similar in the States would be the Occupy Wall Street protests. It's really not about Wall Street "greed". It's about young people pissed off about the percveived lack of economic opportunities and jobs that are available to them - exactly the same reason all those young people in the Middle East are rioting. Give'em jobs and they'll be back in their homes.
We have BILLIONS of people trying to get a slice of the ecnomic pie and the pie isn't growing fast enough for us all to have increasing standards of living. Hence, the haves are getting more and the have nots are being left in the dust.
But go ahead, blame the video and Islam because that's what the media is telling you.
And go ahead be a smug that you have a nice life because you were smart enough to get a degree in the right field in the right country and live in the right are.
If this keeps up, YOU will be affected - if not already.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The thing with muslims is they consider any belief system other than their own to be unacceptable, so mocking theirs is fair game. However mocking islam is completely unacceptable.
If you read the qu'ran, it is full of stuff like this. Muslims may not lie to other muslims, but they are allowed to lie to non-muslims. Muslims are allowed to claim non-muslims as slaves. Sure not all muslims believe this, but it is written in their book. Don't take my word for it, read the qu'ran for yourself.
Also the idea that
It's phenomenally rubbish (Score:2)
Noone would be trying to watch this without the Streisand effect. I can't see how anyone could take such a terrible piece of filmmaking seriously. Hell, it doesn't even make fucking sense most of the time, it's just so disjointed and jarring. Blocking it worldwide would be doing humanity a favour.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's phenomenally rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. That was a little harsh? In case you haven't realized this, there are groups, right here in America, that do that sort of thing too - boycotting books, TV shows, movies, or anything that has content they don't agree with. Why was it necessary for the bigoted slur on Muslims?
Typical Muslim equivocation. Other groups boycotting stores means that it is OK to drag people out of embassies, torture, and murder them. "We are just doing what those Catholics who said 'don't buy the davinci code' did'". I say no it is not the same, if Muslims said "don't watch youtube" then I would not have a problem with it. Its because they react in their traditional manner of killing, rioting, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing new here (Score:2)
I am not saying it is good or bad or anything, it is jsut business as usual and local law compliance.
Still.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't care... Really. This is just the latest excuse someone somewhere tossed out for the reason that muslims are killing people... again.
If it wasnt this video it would be some cartoon. Or maybe a book. Or a newspaper. Maybe just something someone somewhere did or said... or didnt say.
You can't deal with a religion that wants everyone else dead by saying ' i respect your right to religious differences' and pandering to them.
It's just not gonna work.
Someday the world is gonna have to deal
good compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually like what they are doing here.
Refusing to take it down entirely is good. Blocking it in countries where the authorities want it blocked is also good. Refusing to do that would be a typical USA "we know better than you" move, and that is a big piece of the reason why the US is hated in so many places around the world.
If people within the country don't like what their government is doing, it is their job to solve that problem. If they need help, they can ask for it. Don't force "help" on people who may or may not want it.
Not blocked in Pakistan (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does something critical of a religion have to be blocked?
I'm an agnostic, and I've seen any number of documentaries, interviews and propaganda by various religions suggesting that I'm anything from a devil-worshipper to a deviant to an idiot for not wanting to believe whatever religion it is that they believe in and also that I'll burn in hell for all eternity. I don't call that a pleasant belief and especially not when they want to tell me that I'm going to suffer eternal pain for how I live my life.
I
While at the same time (Score:5, Insightful)
Indosiar (one of the largest TV networks in Indonesia) is running a vicious anti-Hindu series "Sembilan Wali". The Balinese are upset but they aren't beheading anyone.
So where's the movie? (Score:2)
All I've seen is a max a 14 minute trailer. Is this supposed to be the whole movie? 5 million dollars to create a terrible trailer? The movie probably doesn't even exist.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Google complies with the laws of the country it operates in. If they are required by law to remove something, they do it.
Are you suggesting that big companies in general should be exempt from the law and obey it only as they see fit?
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a tough call
1. there are laws in china that are odious and disgusting in terms of privacy invasion and censorship. such that an american company operating there, by submitting to that law, breaks it's fidelity with the principles of its home country in ways that stink. but google has, in fact, stood up to china in some ways, such as with censorship, and lost market share in china due to that and pissed off the chinese government. go google!
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/06/01/1450204/google-highlights-censored-search-terms-in-china [slashdot.org]
other western companies, for example, will do business with oppressive regimes in ways that support those oppressive regimes in evil and odious ways:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/31/1434229/finspy-commercial-spyware-abused-by-governments [slashdot.org]
what a company like this deserves is to be shut down, kicked out, and have their business actively destroyed in righteous indignation of operating from the west while grossly violating important beliefs of the west and in support of evil regimes
2. however, there are also local laws that, while you can find more abstract objections with them, it makes prudent sense to just comply with the local laws to continue doing business there, and also be in a position to effect long term liberty improving change in that country by remaining a force there
such as, for example, with this stupid video: while speech should be free all over the world, it isn't in some places. and going crazy and not cooperating, for example, with germany for not allowing nazi imagery or indonesia for not allowing mohammad imagery, doesn't convince anyone of anything and you just piss off that country and lose market share
so it's better to just comply with local law on this issue. but on other issues, it's better to stick up your middle finger at oppressive governments. each case is different
shrewd governance, of countries or companies, is a matter of finesse
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's a valid point. But the decision that a company makes should be whether or not to withdraw from the country or whether or not to pressure the government for a change but not whether or not to break the law. That should be used only in extreme cases (aka Oskar Schindler) but not in issues such as removing a video from your server.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect this is more a humanitarian issue to lessen bloodshed amongst the ignorant, than a political issue. Blame newsclowns for coloring it any other way.Election year.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth noting that there is a significant cultural difference at play here. What one culture considers "free speech", other may consider "defamation", "copyright infringement", "inciting of hatred" and many other things.
Consider for example the legislation in place in Germany against denying the Holocaust. Under "universal" free speech umbrella, I should be able to talk about Holocaust not having happened and it being a one big lie. Political and historical realities suggest that such free speech has potential to cause catastrophic damage, and as a result it's illegal in Germany, while legal in, for example, some Nordic countries.
To add to the mess is the current transition from centralised broadcast media to user-generated one. Much of the stuff comes from amateurs with meagre budgets, such as this movie and can be screened worldwide within minutes of being finished. This was an impossibility only a decade ago. We're in a new territory in terms of what is acceptable in different cultures, and as shown with this particular example, free speech can carry significant price paid in blood by those not even related to the speech in question.
There really are no easy solutions here. Internationalism is very difficult to make work because of cultural clashes like these. We simply have to take it one step at a time and hope and work for the best outcome.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
shhh...
microsoft microsoft microsoft
hush now
apple apple apple
there now, calm down
microsoft apple microsoft apple microsoft apple...
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's mistaken freedom of speech as being honored worldwide. Blame public schools.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that when people in these countries search for censored stuff, they get presented with a page that says:
Results hidden from you because angry men with guns pointed at us have made us hide it from you. This is part of their control mechanism over you that lets them maintain their power over you.
The alternative, Results hidden because you may run around like animals murdering people isn't much better.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:4, Funny)
The following video is intended for mature audiences.
Please select the century your culture has entered: [ 13th ] century.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google definitely acts like they are above the law. See the multiple occasions they've been under investigations and in court in various countries and EU as a whole. You can start from the Wi-Fi snooping.
And the EU whipped Google's ass until it bled.
Re: (Score:3)
And they are getting hit by it and hard. You can certainly test untested legislation, but you're ultimately responsible for results of such testing. In this particular case, the legislation has been tested before and Google was forced to comply. They don't want to step on the same rake again.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the violence started because some clueless religious fanatics:
1. can't comprehend the idea of free speech
2. would outrage even if they did understand
It's a moebious strip really. The film exists because people exist that would organize mass violence about anything that puts their faith in bad light, which sort of is the film.
I have to side with the fanatics on this one though; there isn't one redeemable thing to the film. Viewing it, even in order to teach people what not to do, could easily be classifi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's that? You want to allow completely free speech to those terrorist pedophile human-trafficking druglord hackers do you?
Sir, would you have a seat, we need to have a little chat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> What happened to freedom of speech, Google?
Trumped by local laws. Local laws like the DMCA, copyright, etc. Theres no way for a company to fight laws.
> They are no longer the freedom loving and defending company
They cannot fight a state, they can only get out of that state.
> All went downhill after the failured product Google+.
No, all went down the crapper when single states introduced laws to censor the net. Theocracies introducing laws to censor blashpemy is no different than capitalist states
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I'm not hugely bothered by it.
Nowhere is freedom of speech absolute, it's limited by the ability of the society to tolerate it. Even in the US advocating violence [umkc.edu] can get you in trouble along with forms of obscenity. Quite relevantly public nudity, which I'd qualify as a form of speech, will get you arrested in a lot of places, but if society was more comfortable with the idea than that restriction would be removed.
In these countries video they're not used to this level of freedom of speech and their society needs time to adapt. I like pushing the boundaries of free speech in these countries, but sometimes things go viral and push past their ability to deal with it. Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship (given that it's far beyond what they're allowed to do in their own society).
As to whether it's effective is another matter, censorship can easily be circumvented, but maybe it's enough of a hindrance to stop it from going viral.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship
I disagree with the above statement. This is a way to grant power to extremist groups. If societies are 'unprepared' for free speech, as you say, they should have laws about the matter. And in fact they do - there are laws against (religious) slander, even laws protecting a specific religion such as Islam.
I don't think that Google should break the laws in such country in order to make a point - that should be done by activists from inside if they think the law was unjust. So Google should remove the video from the countries where the law requires it. However, it should not cater to extremist groups giving them the power to change things through violence.
That would only bring more violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Citizens do not declare war. States do.
Are you suggesting that, if a bunch of Americans vandalized a foreign embassy on US soil, that shold technically count as a declaration of war on that country by the United States of America?
Re: (Score:3)
I never said that the embassy guards do not have the authority to retaliate. I'm just contesting the notion that the actions of independent citizens translate as a formal declaration by their nation state. The United States, of course, are free to interpret such an attack as an act of war and declare war on Libya; but to say that Libya have declared war on the United States when the embassy was attacked flies in the face of international laws and conventions.
Re: (Score:3)
You're intentionally missing a forest for the trees. Just because citizens are represented by the state does not mean that state represents all of its citizens. Else, every time a citizen of US kills a citizen of another country, you could argue that it constitutes an act of war by your logic.
That is obviously not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
I think "direct" does not mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that people are dying as a direct result of this video I can see the justification of some limited censorship
People are dying because Darwin's evolution (see the irony here where it applies to people denouncing Darwin?) is being proved. If you are too stupid to benefit the gene pool it's better you're killed off as soon as possible for the benefit of the future human race. There's no better way to prove stupidity than to fight (to the death) over whose God is the most peaceful...
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't "beg for forgiveness at all".
He makes it clear that he (and the Norwegian authorities) "utterly reject" the video, and he calls for a calm response.
It all seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So under freedom of speech, should they be allowed to publish neo-Nazi material too? Post up a video calling for the extermination of all the Jews and see how long it takes before it gets pulled.
This "Innocence of Muslims" video is exactly the same as the anti-Semetic propaganda produced by the Nazis 80-odd years ago.
Well, with a lot of differences (Score:2, Insightful)
Jews didn't control much of the world oil, making them filthy rich with little to do to keep their exploding population happy. (The arab "spring" was just a lot of young people with an education and no jobs getting fed up with doing nothing. Even in Libia which could afford to have an enormous essentially un-employed population)
Jews are one of smallest groups in the world, Muslims one of the biggest.
Jews don't hijack aircraft.
There is no mass immigration of jews into atheist countries from Jewish countries
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever heard that every discussion on the internet, if it runs long enough, will lead to a Hitler/Nazi comparison?
The parent sure has a valid point, though: That video is pretty much on the same level as Nazi propaganda, only far less spectacular.
Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone. I do believe most of those people could learn quite a bit about democracy, freedom of speech, cooperation and tolerance. However, provoking them is asking for troube, since they don't yet respect the aforementio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're getting the Nazi comparison wrong. It's not muslims who are victims here, they are the offenders.
Let's see: ... especially of civilians
* vicious hatred towards jews, to the point of utter annihilation
* hatred towards everyone not of their race^Wreligion, considering them not good for being anything but slaves (dhimmis)
* demand for all the land
* personality cult of the Glorious Leader (uncle Adolf vs Muhammad)
* mass-murders of any perceived opposition
*
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:4, Insightful)
From where I'm standing, I see all of that coming from Christian fundamentalists too.
There are plenty of perfectly reasonable people of all races and religions, and a minority of extremists.
You've got to stop feeding the trolls...
Re: (Score:3)
From where I'm standing, I see all of that coming from Christian fundamentalists too.
There are plenty of perfectly reasonable people of all races and religions, and a minority of extremists.
You've got to stop feeding the trolls...
You hit the nail on the head when you say "a minority of extremists".
That's what blow my mind with this "all Muslims are terrorists" mentality. Let's do a little math: There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. If, hypothetically, even one tenth of one percent of that number were terrorists, a large portion of the rest of the world would likely be dead already, because their numbers would equal the entire active U.S. military.
A while back, out of curiosity, I checked the numbers and discovered that the
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is, the Bible is a big pile of inconsistent self-contradicting works, it is impossible to follow it without cherry-picking. With Koran, this is not the case: it's the work of a single man, Uthman (ok, text selection, nameless scribes did the actual editing). And it contains very few contradictions, making the message clear
Well, it's not quite as simple as that -- or why would the Sunnis and the Shiites disagree so vehemently? The Koran is open to interpretation, because of course the modern world is not the same as 600CE. Hence we have Muftis who produce fatwaa, in which they document their interpretation of what the Koran has to say about some modern subject. So there's plenty of scope for Muslims to disagree with each other -- they can have almighty scraps about which Muftis are entitled to issue fatwaa and which ones are
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:5, Informative)
"Frankly, these provocations won't help anyone."
I agree that the Mohammed film in question is terrible. But it does address some important issues with Islam. And that will help us non-believers in the long run. For example the issue of child marriage. Aisha, one of Mohammeds wifes were 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. And we should of course (also as non-muslims) be free to debate if that is behaviour befitting for a prophet. Another example is the glorification of violence against non-muslims. At least as long as the main schools of Islam argue that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should form an ideal guideline on how muslims should live in the 21st century.
Another point is that this film is only one pearl in a series of incidents where muslims are threatening fellow muslims or non-muslims over perceived blasphemy. The last example was a documentary on Channel 4 (examining the historical roots of Islam) where a planning screening was cancelled due to threats to the historian behind the film:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. In a historical context small girls were probably given away (sold) as spouses in Arabia. And that is history. But all islamic schools insist that the behaviour of Mohammed is perfect and should not put into a historical context. And that is exactly my point. It is good that the parts of the life of Mohammed that are totally unacceptable in the world today are drawn into the clear sunlight. It must be made clear that if muslims want to live in harmony with the rest of the World they have to abandon
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:5, Informative)
England already has Sharia courts.
This is technically true but grossly misleading: England also already has Jewish courts. They have exactly the same standing, which is they have no standing in law. They operate purely where the plaintiffs agree to abide by their judgement. Really, they are no different from say two people going to a mutual friend and asking the friend to adjudicate on a disagreement.
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:5, Funny)
And the US has Bozo Courts [wikipedia.org].
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:5, Informative)
England already has Sharia courts.
Please stop repeating this crap. You might be able to dump a village elder in a local community centre and pretend it is a court but it carries no legal weight. The only way it can work is if both parties decide to forgo their normal entitlement to a real legal court and agree to an independent tribunal with no legal weight.
England does not have sharia courts with and legal weight. Just because some dickhead can sit in a room and pretend it is a court does not mean it carries and legal weight. If I do not like what a Sharia court says it has no legal right to force me into it unless a real court also agrees following normal legal precedent.
England does not have Sharia courts with any legal standing.
Re:Well, with a lot of differences (Score:4, Informative)
Jews are one of smallest groups in the world, Muslims one of the biggest.
Jews don't hijack aircraft.
if you want to compare entire races you might want to read up on Igrun [wikipedia.org] you'll find them in the wiki page regarding The History of terrorism [wikipedia.org]
Irgun sought to aggressively defend Jews from Arab attacks. Its tactic of attacking Arab communities, including the bombing a crowded Arab market, is considered among the first examples of terrorism directed against civilians.
From later in the same page:
Lehi [wikipedia.org] (Lohamei Herut Yisrael, a.k.a. "Freedom Fighters for Israel", a.k.a. Stern Gang) was a revisionist Zionist group that splintered off from Irgun in 1940
and then:
After Israel's 1948 founding, Lehi was formally dissolved and its members integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces
see, it's easy to pick any race and make them all out to be the bad guys.
Muslims are fleeing muslim controlled countries, then trying to convert their new country to be run the same way.
you've never met a Muslim who's actually fled their home country have you? hell i'd bet 50/50 you've never had a real conversation with one of Islamic faith. everyone i know certainly does not want to turn this country into something like where they came from (hint: there's a reason they fled.) generally those with enough power who's anti-west statements you hear did not need to flee their home country, and those on the streets inciting violence are just lapping up what they say (and like do not know what their hometowns are like)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any parody or ridicule that is not exactly the same as the anti-Semitic propaganda produced by the Nazis?
You make quite a good point there; it's ridiculous to the point of parody. The trouble is, it was created as hate speech by an anti-islamic group which kind of knocks the parody idea on the head. These are the same people who support the idea of having the Israelis herd even more Palestinians into ghettoes and exterminating them; something you'd think the Israelis would have more sense than to do.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, this is monday morning and I just watched the video here in the u.s.
I've seen video slamming the tenets of just about any major religion and several obscure ones.
No reason Islam can't suck it up just like everyone else.
How many movies cover the Inquisition? The Crusades? Bad Buddhist Kung Fu? Make Hindi Gods into animated villains? Show faithful anywhere to be subversive and evil in the name of good?
Suck it up and quit acting like children and the world will stop treating you like children. Keep it up and get spanked.
Hey, that's not a threat, that's nearly a physical law of the universe.
No one asks you to go along with the flow of the world, but if you stand against it, you stand against the world. You stand the chance of an ant to a steamroller, a drop of water in a volcano, an undercover cop at a rap show.
This is all so unecessary for everyone. A peaceful solution for all can be found at http://www.subgenius.com/ [subgenius.com] .
Re: (Score:3)
How many movies cover the Inquisition? The Crusades? Bad Buddhist Kung Fu? Make Hindi Gods into animated villains? Show faithful anywhere to be subversive and evil in the name of good?
I haven't seen The Innocence of Muslims, nor its trailer, but I understand it contains a mocking portrayal of Mohammed himself. Not some historical incident committed by Muslims, but the central holy figure of the religion.
None of the above target the central tenet of the religion in question. Most Christians can look at the Crusades or the Inquisition, and say "that's not my religion".
It's more akin to something like The Last Temptation of Christ (in which Jesus marries Mary Magdalene - perhaps in a dream)
Re: (Score:3)
Protests, but not violent, murderous ones...
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
Just for the record, I want to know this.
You do understand that the world wide Christian response to the move The Last Temptation of Christ, a major motion picture, is nothing, no where, not even close to the world wide Muslim response to a shitty low budget attrocity of an amateur film by a no-budget nobody, right? That the vast majority of radical Christians maybe, maybe considered picketing and a boycot as a valid response?
That the two responses two the two movies are not just orders of magnitude different, but on completely different planes of existance different?
That if a major motion picture studio published the same level of movie about Muhammed that the studio would likely burn?
One story, of one attack? Versus how many hundreds of deaths, and thousands of attacks in the past week?
Hell there were death to america marches when a completely different country published CARTOONS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
You realise, I hope, that The Life Of Brian was the subject of many protests (albeit not violent as far as I know), and was banned in many places?
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:4, Funny)
That film was actually banned in Norway at the time. In was marketed in Sweden as "so funny it's banned in Norway".
Islam has no sense of humor (Score:5, Interesting)
Jews are famous for their self-deprecating humor but Catholics too have mercilessly made fun of their own faith. It was a great liberator because it was not always thus. Once, religion was deadly serious and to question let alone make fun off, that is heresy and that gets you killed.
A joke might not seem like much but it forces you to not take things to serious, it was essential in tearing down the ivory towers of religion and force it to become accountable. And this was not something that has stopped. The chaos in the Catholic church now people are talking about its abuses is just part of process. For decade, no, centuries, people knew and did not nothing.
For evil to triumph all that is needed is for good men to do nothing.
The so called moderate muslim, does nothing. This leaves a tiny handful of reformers who are often prosecuted or killed (Pakistan can't even protect its ministers, what hope does a normal civilian have) fighting the extreme elements who have the backing of countless hangers on, protected behind the veil of silence. Moderates might not agree with all the extremists do but you stick up for your own, regardless what.
A very recent case in Holland has a man under arrest for having had sexual encounters with over 200 boys. How did he manage to go undetected with so many victims? Well, people knew, but didn't speak out. The community is a closed one and they keep their troubles to themselves...
There are countless such cases in history and far bigger ones, hidden behind walls of silence and false respect. But humor has created cracks in this facade. In holland, the catholics created the 8 may movement, which basically told the pope to mind his own business. It allowed people to ignore the church doctrine and make up their own minds on birth-control, on politics, on marriage. On everything.
For modern free youth, it is hard to realize just how controlled religious communities are. In certain place, if a young couple is married and has not produced a kid after the first your, the pastor comes by to have a talk.
This control is not nice control, it is to make sure everyone walks the line, no dissenters, no free-thinkers. It is very effective. If you don't question, you don't challenge to status quo and those in charge like that.
Read up on some of the practices of popes, these weren't devout people, they were depraved men who craved power above all else. And they got away with it, because they were beyond question.
But humor, that challenges everything, breaks down the most powerful with a simple line or drawing. Don't believe me?
How tall was Napoleon? He was in reality above average height for french men of that age. It was a cartoon drawing that started the idea that he was a small power crazed war monger. A British cartoon made at a time Napoleon was kicking limey ass.
Spitting Image, a British satire puppet show, ripped politicians and others in power to shreds, and changed politics forever. People remembered the caricature better then the real person.
In my life time, the same joke has been done twice. The pope speaking and having underwear thrown at him as if he was a popstar. Caused mild affront but was considered part of a free society. The same joke was done off the Ayatollah (the previous one) in Germany. It caused a crisis, the comedian had to be protected and politicians fell over themselves to try to a peace Muslims.
It wasn't always allowed to joke about the pope, the christian faith. And the Muslim leaders KNOW what humor lead to and they don't want the same to happen. So anyone who dares to question, make humor, challenge, is silenced. Silenced most of all by moderates who do nothing but silently support the extremists by their inactivity. If you donate to your mosque even when you know the money goes to extremist, turning a blind eye to does, still makes you a supported of these extremists.
Western leaders are at a loss about how to deal with it. In the west, the crumbling of organized religion just seem
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
We need to carpetbomb all these countries with flyers showing every blasphemous depiction of Muhammed anyone can think of, daily, until they realize its been a few centuries since racking up a body count made anyone respect Muhammed.
Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
You are entitled to free speech, but in most civilised countries, there is a line drawn between free speech, and incitement.
In the United States, the relevant case law is Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] (1969). Under this interpretation of the First Amendment, speech can only be banned if it is intended to incite "imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. The classic case would be the leader of an angry mob telling them to attack or kill someone. Does the Innocence of Muslims video qualify? Almost certainly not. While Nakoula may well have intended it to rile up the Islamic community in the US and overseas, it did not pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The reactions of hostile third parties cannot be used as a justification to prohibit free speech; as the Supreme Court put it in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), there is "no heckler's veto".
The innocence of muslims has crossed that line by a very long distance indeed, and imho, it's on a par with Westboro Baptist Church turning up to protest at a dead soldiers funeral. [...] The people who created the video should not be able to hide behind the claim of 'free speech'. It isn't free speech, it's hate speech plain and simple.
The WBC protests are also protected free speech [wikipedia.org] in the United States under the First Amendment. You mentioned that you are posting from the UK, so one thing that may be confusing you is that in the US, there is no such legal category as "hate speech". It's all protected by the Constitution. The idea is that if you allowed the government to decide that certain speech was "hate speech" and suppress it, there would be a slippery slope that would inevitably lead to the repression of open and free political discourse.
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of GI's hate Muslims after personal experience with them.
However, it's unprofessional to voice it, and why voice it when you can act on it instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes me laugh... (Score:4, Insightful)
how many GIs are demanding that other Americans be sent off to risk life and limb to satisfy their lust for blood sacrifices in the name of religion while they stay safe at home?
I would say probably none. But then, I would count the number of Americans in general that believe that as ALSO none.
I WOULD count the number of Americans that falsely believe that some their fellow Americans are crazed religious nutbags that want to slaughter people who theologically disagree with them as AT LEAST one, and probably more as I know that there is a strain of anti-religious (Really, Anti-Christian) fervor that has infected some people in America that has no grounding in reality and is instead held up by anti-religiously bigoted propaganda by people with political and financial hay to make.
Congratulations on buying into the lie, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
And plenty of Muslims loath GIs after America has invaded their sovereign territory and massacred them. It goes both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
why do so many of its adherents riot and call for executions every time someone does/says something vaguely (or not vaguely) insulting?
Define "so many". There are 1,600 million Muslims, most of whom are not extremists.
Re:Never understood (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a reason why you DO NOT see Christians rioting over the many many many assaults on their religion in the press and the world at large.
Beyond it being against their religious beliefs to do so, it is exactly this argument. They know they believe in an Omnipotent God. They have no need to defend Him. The most you are likely to get from Christians is a somewhat strongly worded letter or a product boycott.
That tells me all I need to know about the "equivalence" between Islam and Christianity.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because at no point in history Christianity has killed people because of blasphemy and heresy.</sarcasm>
If any, it only says about their relative grade of maturity as somewhat civilized religions, and the long due need for a renaissance in Islam. Which won't happen if people trying to make it happen get ridiculed over and over.
Actually you'll find most of those Christian "wars" weren't in the name of God or Jesus. The vast majority of them were simply about power and the ones using Christianity as a rallying cry. The same can be said of Buddhism.
Waging wars in Jesus's name is strictly forbidden in scripture. It only takes a brief read through the gospels to see it plainly. When someone claims to be acting in the name of God and their actions are violent, they are called out on it pretty quickly. Christian cultures also tend to be