Liverpool FC Forum

[Kenny Kan]

You could say the same thing about many type of protests, the Occupy Wall Street moved to London and other cities, the protests around the EU regarding Austerity, the Iraq war protests etc. many of these protests have ordinary people voicing their concerns but you will always have radicals stirring violence for their own political motivations. However on these protests people are having a go at the religion and thats not right.

Of course you can say that, I agree Boo.

However, I don't know how you can say that it's not right for people to 'have a go' at their religion. Whether you like it or not, these protests stem from the intolerance of certain Muslims who believe the ideology (& Mr Muhammad) of their religion is being disrespected. That IMO is fair game, for people to criticize their religion. These protests recently have been started because some pr@tt made a spoof movie about their religion. And the reaction from that movie has been anything BUT peaceful, the two words: Peaceful and Religion shouldn't be an oxymoron, on the contrary. Ergo, the religion has been criticized because certain followers of that religion believe in beheading someone because they've mocked their God.

Of course, like someone else has said, others Muslims are jumping on this bandwagon due to anti-Western sentiment, but for me, this sentiment comes back to the ideology and intolerance of Islamic beliefs anyway.

[andy_g]

as has been said on here a thousand times before though, its not just islam. the bible has some pretty tasty passages about dealing out violence and death to those who break its rules, and despite not being anywhere near an expert on sikhism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, etc... i'm sure there are similar passages in there as well. some extremist, or group of extremists, will always find justification in their religion, whatever it is, if they need to. i don't believe that islam is on the whole any more predisposed to intolerance than any other religion, but currently a whole complex bunch of global political situations is giving those of that persuasion plenty of ammunition.

[Kenny Kan]

as has been said on here a thousand times before though, its not just islam. the bible has some pretty tasty passages about dealing out violence and death to those who break its rules, and despite not being anywhere near an expert on sikhism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, etc... i'm sure there are similar passages in there as well. some extremist, or group of extremists, will always find justification in their religion, whatever it is, if they need to. i don't believe that islam is on the whole any more predisposed to intolerance than any other religion, but currently a whole complex bunch of global political situations is giving those of that persuasion plenty of ammunition.

I'm not disputing that the bible doesn't have tasty passages about violence and death. I'm saying the protests stem from the fact that many Muslims have been offended by the video that disrespects their God. Islam through it's intent, perhaps may not be more predisposed to intolerance than other religions but the actions of those who follow it seem to be. Therefore, the group of extremists who find justification in their religion today and use violence are more often than not Muslims.

[LFC2007]

It's not! the message is strong enough and it's clear, but it isn't getting enough coverage or western media isn't giving it enough attention, the focus will always be on the radicals. I've said this, there isn't strong radical influence in the community, it's minor, as it proved in Libya where the majority of people are calling for a moderate/Liberal Islamic state. The only way to really change this behaviour and change the perception of the community is shifting the media coverage on moderate views, for example, giving more attention on the peaceful protests, or on countries who aren't even protesting at all! Countries like UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, KSA, etc... there wasn't a single protest on the movie.

“The strong man is not the good wrestler; the strong man is only the one who controls himself when he is angry.” - Prophet Muhammad

Agreed. To a point, it would be helpful if more was done to present the moderate side of Islam. More air time given to people who represent the majority, and less to the radicals. Though, to be fair, in this case the counter-demonstrations were widely reported both here and in the US, and there were a lot of Muslim leaders and commentators who were given the air time, and column space, to convey the message that the actions of the protesters/terrorists were completely unacceptable, which they duly did. But you couldn't report on that without first reporting on the violence. The murder of the US ambassador and three other US consular staff in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and the violent protests directed at the US and the West following the broadcast of the video were major events in the region and deserved a good deal of coverage.

On the one hand you could argue that the media coverage gave the protests even more momentum; people in other parts of the world seeing others reacting with outrage and following suit. But in today's media environment I think that message would have travelled one way or another and, besides, no media outlet would be doing its duty if it didn't inform people of the potential threat posed by the protestors. If you're a foreign diplomat working in one of the affected countries and there are thousands of people outside your compound burning your country's flag and angrily chanting death to you and your country, you need to know exactly what the situation is. Likewise, if you're an American thinking of holidaying in Lebanon at a time when thousands of people are out on the streets chanting 'death to America', you perhaps want to leave your Green Bay Packers t-shirt behind just in case some nutjob suspects you're an American and decides you're fair game.

I hear you say that these are 'only' the actions of a minority which is fair enough, because they are. But we know only too well that it only takes a minority to have a major impact on peace and security in the region and on the lives of people across the world. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that some of those protesting and committing the violence probably have sympathetic tendencies towards terrorists. That's why I think people should think twice before explaining away their actions as though they pose no more a threat to peace and security than any other group. The threat posed by radical Islam is global and the lengths some groups are prepared to go to in pursuit of their aims have no limits. How anyone could think that that threat is overstated is beyond me.

[maypaxvobiscum]

But isn't it hypocritical that the extremist Muslims do exactly what the video accuses them of doing - violence? How could they possibly expect to gain any sympathy when they continue to behave this way?

And how can one justify having 4 wives when it spits in the face of the progression of women in today's society. After all, there are so many capable women who hold prominent roles in various companies and offices. Isn't that portion of Islam at least, archaic and outdated? Why would a female want to convert to Islam when the religion itself has no respect for them?

[metalhead]

Agreed. To a point, it would be helpful if more was done to present the moderate side of Islam. More air time given to people who represent the majority, and less to the radicals. Though, to be fair, in this case the counter-demonstrations were widely reported both here and in the US, and there were a lot of Muslim leaders and commentators who were given the air time, and column space, to convey the message that the actions of the protesters/terrorists were completely unacceptable, which they duly did. But you couldn't report on that without first reporting on the violence. The murder of the US ambassador and three other US consular staff in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and the violent protests directed at the US and the West following the broadcast of the video were major events in the region and deserved a good deal of coverage.

On the one hand you could argue that the media coverage gave the protests even more momentum; people in other parts of the world seeing others reacting with outrage and following suit. But in today's media environment I think that message would have travelled one way or another and, besides, no media outlet would be doing its duty if it didn't inform people of the potential threat posed by the protestors. If you're a foreign diplomat working in one of the affected countries and there are thousands of people outside your compound burning your country's flag and angrily chanting death to you and your country, you need to know exactly what the situation is. Likewise, if you're an American thinking of holidaying in Lebanon at a time when thousands of people are out on the streets chanting 'death to America', you perhaps want to leave your Green Bay Packers t-shirt behind just in case some nutjob suspects you're an American and decides you're fair game.

I hear you say that these are 'only' the actions of a minority which is fair enough, because they are. But we know only too well that it only takes a minority to have a major impact on peace and security in the region and on the lives of people across the world. It isn't much of a stretch to assume that some of those protesting and committing the violence probably have sympathetic tendencies towards terrorists. That's why I think people should think twice before explaining away their actions as though they pose no more a threat to peace and security than any other group. The threat posed by radical Islam is global and the lengths some groups are prepared to go to in pursuit of their aims have no limits. How anyone could think that that threat is overstated is beyond me.

I can't argue with that mate, you're spot on on regards that we shouldn't ignore the threat that radicals possess. It's also a fear that many of us arabs possess, and we shouldn't ignore it at all because that it interferes with our daily lives and our freedom. You've got way too many sects today that every sect would call the other a heretic or a ''kafr'', because the religion itself it's getting too politicised. For example, in Lebanon when Hizballah's chief called for protests against the video last week was he really doing it because he really cared about the offensive nature of the video, or was he doing it to divert attention from the Syrian revolution and lessen the media pressure that is giving Assad a hard time (Knowing that Hizballah is pro-assad) . I definitely believe it's the latter, and he played it ever so well.  I also believe most of the violent protests do not have a clue what the video was about, I can asure you it's the case! most of these people are illiterate and poor, they get told to do things that they will never understand, but they do it because who ever told them it's the ''will of God''. If poverty didn't exist much in 3rd world arab countries, you wouldn't witness such violence or radicalism.

[metalhead]

But isn't it hypocritical that the extremist Muslims do exactly what the video accuses them of doing - violence? How could they possibly expect to gain any sympathy when they continue to behave this way?

And how can one justify having 4 wives when it spits in the face of the progression of women in today's society. After all, there are so many capable women who hold prominent roles in various companies and offices. Isn't that portion of Islam at least, archaic and outdated? Why would a female want to convert to Islam when the religion itself has no respect for them?

That's the crux of the problem, that's what most moderate muslim arabs are fighting for in the Middle East, which is to oppose such radicalism and condemn any violence that tarnish the religion.

As for women in Islam, I disagree with everything you said. Islam DOES NOT stop Women from having equal rights to Men, they are EQUAL before God, and Islam  grants women the rights of inheritence, property, social and marriage rights (Women have the right to divorce and have the right to choose who to marry).  Even if you look at back the early muslim period women actually owned properties, even if she got married and later divorced from her husband she still kept her property (kind of like a prenupt). The Quran states that women and men have distinct roles in society, which is actually correct if you look back into 7th century Arabia, ''men are to take care of women, because God has given them greater strength, and because men use their wealth to provide for them'' (4:34). Also, look at the Islamic countries in the Middle East, such as Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, etc... A lot of women hold various high level roles in government offices or private sectors. As for Polygmy yes in the Quran it states ''Marry those women who are lawful for you, up to three or four'' '' but only if you can treat them all equally'' (4:3). It's clear as day that marrying 4 women for the sake of it is not right because you will never treat your wives equally, which is also stated in the Quran '' no matter how you try, you will never be able to treat your wives equally'' (4:129) which basically confirms that polygamy is rejected. Why do you thinks countries like Afghanistan justify poligynous marriage? because the Quran said so? or because they are pointing to the example set by the prophet for whom as the messanger of God had no limitation pr preference on polygyny or monogamy? It's definitely the latter, but to understand why the prophet had to marry different wives is more to forge political ties with other tribes during his days in Medinah (He was the Shaikh of the Umma). Even if you look at modern day Arab countries, polygamy is uncommon and many prefer monogamy.

[ethanr]

Thank you Metalhead.  Finally some sense on this post.  I've learned to stay out of these conversations.

[Kenny Kan]

Thank you Metalhead.  Finally some sense on this post.  I've learned to stay out of these conversations.

Alluding that others haven't made sense, hmmm, flaming interesting.

[Kenny Kan]

polygamy is uncommon and many prefer monogamy   

Isn't it any wonder MH, It's hard enough with 1 woman - feck knows why any sane bloke would want 4 nagging him. 

[Reg]

The Muslim faith is terrified of women and remain determined to keep them as second class citizens. MH explain the recent Iranian decree banning them from studying something like 90 courses at university?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615

No official reason has been given for the move, but campaigners, including Nobel Prize winning lawyer Shirin Ebadi, allege it is part of a deliberate policy by the authorities to exclude women from education.

Women have a more realistic social conscience than men which cowboy dictators and religious based mafia run countries can't tolerate. After all, women make up 50% of the electorate and are not to be trusted....

The saddest thing of all is that woemn all over the world see these things going on nd do nothing to help their suffering friends.

[metalhead]

Isn't it any wonder MH, It's hard enough with 1 woman - feck knows why any sane bloke would want 4 nagging him. 

that would be a nightmare

[metalhead]

The Muslim faith is terrified of women and remain determined to keep them as second class citizens. MH explain the recent Iranian decree banning them from studying something like 90 courses at university?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615

No official reason has been given for the move, but campaigners, including Nobel Prize winning lawyer Shirin Ebadi, allege it is part of a deliberate policy by the authorities to exclude women from education.

Women have a more realistic social conscience than men which cowboy dictators and religious based mafia run countries can't tolerate. After all, women make up 50% of the electorate and are not to be trusted....

The saddest thing of all is that woemn all over the world see these things going on nd do nothing to help their suffering friends.

Hi reg, how's it going mate? Reg, this isn't about Muslim faith anymore, there is NOT ONE SINGLE verse in the holy book that bans women from education or prevents them from having one, NOT ONE! It's ridiculous to think otherwise. Other Islamic countries do not have such law that would supress women's right to have an education or to be classified as second class citizens. Iran is ruled by religious clerks who have nothing better to do but to exert their political, patriarchal and authoritative influence on their people to satisfy their agenda and control the masses, Reza Aslan dubbed it as ''Khomeinism'' (Wilayat Al Faqih). Even Ahmadenajad has NO POWER in the government, he is just a puppet being sent to talk in conferences and relay messages from the religious clerks who actually run the country and set the laws. I find it funny how some of the media label Ahmadenajad as ''Hitler'' or some kind of cold hard dictator, because he is actually powerless.

"The women's movement has been challenging Iran's male-dominated establishment for several years," says Saeed Moidfar, a retired sociology professor from Tehran.

"Traditional politicians now see educated and powerful women as a threat."

Female university students in Iran have outnumbered men for the past decade

Sums it up for me mate.

[Boocity]

You could say the same thing about many type of protests, the Occupy Wall Street moved to London and other cities, the protests around the EU regarding Austerity, the Iraq war protests etc. many of these protests have ordinary people voicing their concerns but you will always have radicals stirring violence for their own political motivations. However on these protests people are having a go at the religion and thats not right.

Of course you can say that, I agree Boo.

However, I don't know how you can say that it's not right for people to 'have a go' at their religion. Whether you like it or not, these protests stem from the intolerance of certain Muslims who believe the ideology (& Mr Muhammad) of their religion is being disrespected. That IMO is fair game, for people to criticize their religion. These protests recently have been started because some pr@tt made a spoof movie about their religion. And the reaction from that movie has been anything BUT peaceful, the two words: Peaceful and Religion shouldn't be an oxymoron, on the contrary. Ergo, the religion has been criticized because certain followers of that religion believe in beheading someone because they've mocked their God.

Of course, like someone else has said, others Muslims are jumping on this bandwagon due to anti-Western sentiment, but for me, this sentiment comes back to the ideology and intolerance of Islamic beliefs anyway.

I probably didn't put that right, I respect anyones freedom of speech and yes the reaction to this film has been OTT but I also remember The Life of Brian getting a good slagging off by the church (ok not violent) but any religious person has a right to defend what they see as an attack on their faith. What I don't agree with is some people looking at these protests and just blaming the whole religion and muslim community. Anything happens, 'its Islam' or 'its because their muslims'. Yes you get radicals in every walk of life but thats what they are radicals, if you do not alienate the whole of the comunity the radicals won't get a foot hold.

[tubby]

Here we go again...

Muslim protesters torch Buddhist temples, homes in Bangladesh

COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh (Reuters) - Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.

Members of the Buddhist minority in the Cox's Bazar area in the southeast of the country said unidentified people were bent on upsetting peaceful relations between Muslims and Buddhists.

Muslims took to the streets in the area late on Saturday to protest against what they said was a photograph posted on Facebook that insulted Islam.

The protesters said the picture had been posted by a Buddhist and they marched to Buddhist villages and set fire to temples and houses.

Police said they had deployed extra security forces and banned gatherings in Buddhist-dominated areas.

"We brought the situation under control before dawn and imposed restrictions on public gatherings," said Salim Mohammad Jahangir, Cox's Bazar district police superintendent.

Many people in predominantly Muslim Bangladesh have been angered in recent days by a film made in California that mocks the Prophet Mohammad.

Muslims in Bangladesh and beyond have also been outraged by violence over the border in Myanmar where members of the majority Buddhist community clashed with minority Muslims this year.

Police had escorted the man accused of posting the insulting photograph and his mother to safety, Jahangir said.

Sohel Sarwar Kajal, the Muslim head of the council in the area where the arson took place, said he was trying to restore communal peace.

"We are doing everything possible to quell tension and restore peace between the communities," he told reporters.

(This story corrects "Bazaar" to "Bazar" in sixth paragraph)

(Reporting by Nurul Islam; Writing by Anis Ahmed; Editing by Robert Birsel)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... 3I20120930