Why insult Mohammad?

[flobadob]

There seems to be a lot of effort in recent years to insult Mohammad, seemingly just for the heck of it. This has led to a lot of unpleasantness due to Muslims feeling they need to protest against this sort of thing and so in and so forth.

So why bother insulting him in the first place, what does it achieve?

[naomi24]

//You are using your right to free speech to call for other people's free speech to be curtailed.//

Exactly right - and precisely what I said on another thread involving the madmen who are protesting, rioting, and killing. That's what they're doing too.

[lightbulb247]

//Free speech means allowing people to openly criticise the actions and motives of individuals (either living or dead) or concepts without fear of retribution from governments and their agencies or from individuals or 'lynch mobs'.//

Ok, so when a muslim will use their right to free speech, than what happens.? i dont support extremists, but say for example people like abu hamza stand on stage and say what they normally say. Than why do people over react so much and why do people, including him, sometimes get arrested? By your words, this should not happen. But it does. I wonder why?

[naomi24]

Because he's not just criticising - he's preaching hate and inciting murder - just as these mobs are doing - and that's a different thing entirely.

[ummmm]

If he didn't already understand that then I think any explanation will fall on deaf ears.

[argorstran]

I've come back to this question - I'll try to make some more points - i know many of you won't agree but that's fair enough .
The original question "Why insult Mohammad....what does it achieve "
It achieves absolutely nothing .
Publishing salacious cartoons and videos of a revered religious figure knowing in advance that such publication will start a riot is not ,in my opinion , freedom of speech . It is the same as Hamza inciting violence in one of his speeches - can people not see that ?
It's almost farcical - the editor publishes a cartoon knowing it will start a riot then says "Look at me - I am a brave freedom of speechist standing up to these rioters..." when he's helped to provoke the riot in the first place ???
I do not support the violence . You may want to consider why Pakistan , Afghanistan and Libya are so radicalised and awash with guns in the first place .
American ambassadors don't just get killed without a planned operation taking place . Who was it who supplied the arms , the training and the finance to these extremist groups and encouraged them to carry out acts of terrorism in the first place ? It was , very regrettably , the West because they wanted Gaddafi overthrown .
The following link is an example of freedom of speech which shows journalism at its best - specifically American journalism . It comes from Fox News and it is strongly critical of their own government - those of you who have followed this question may find it interesting . I won't post on this question again I think I've said all I can but I look forward to seeing your replies .

[LazyGun]

@Argorstran

I understand, and believe, that you do not condone the violence that has erupted across the muslim world. I also believe that the majority of muslims probably feel that way too. There is always a "but", though.

And in this case,the caveat is simply that there is always a widespread, violent,vitriolic response to any kind of criticism or ridicule of mohammed.
They are usually violent responses - A US embassador murdered, cinemas in Pakistan burnt down and many killed, embassies of western countries within the muslim world surrounded, staff intimidated by violence.
These are not isolated events - they occur throughout the muslim world. They are not infrequent events either - One can look back to the fatwa over Rushdies Satanic Verses, or the eruption of violence over the Danish cartoons, or the furore surrounding the recent historical documentary of islam, or the response to a crude piece of inflammatory propaganda, or the further eruption of violence over the publication of cartoons by Charlie Hebdo magazine. And remember the fatwa against Rushdie was never rescinded, and indeed the bounty on his head has recently been increased following this latest row -And now a Pakistani MP has put a price on the head of creators of this video!

This is the perception, this is the fear in the west. 9/11. Al-Queda, The Taliban. Only insults to islam generate this level of heat, this attempt to censor by intimidation , this attempt by muslims to impose blasphemy laws by fiat in secular democracies. In non- muslim countries, western secular democracies, anyone should retain the right to criticise an ideology, to ridicule and lampoon such ideas and thoughts, free of retribution.

There are boundaries on free speech - incitement to murder, or hate, or sheer irresponsiblity ( shouting fire! in a crowded cinema for example), but ideologies should never be held exempt. Muslims around the globe need to grow up and rise above such provocations.

Americas history with respect to the Middle East and the muslim world is well established. They have long interfered around the globe for their own economic advantage, and I can well understand bitterness and even hatred towards the US and other western states - but that still does not justify calling for fatwas and commiting murder and mayhem over an insult to an ideology.Nor would I place much faith in a news report from Fox - but thats a different matter ;)

The default state for many muslims is to be hypersensitive to any kind of insult or ridicule of mohammed, perceived or actual, is to riot, murder and intimidate through violence - and each time this happens, it ratchets up the fear, which in turn breeds more people willing to offer insult or ridicule. I do not want my speech held hostage to fear of reprisal, nor do I want my country to cravenly cave in to such intimidation through violence. Appeasement rarely works.....

[chakka35]

angorstran, you still don't get it, do you?

The idea that we must have our right to free speech curtailed because some people in certain circumstances might react with violence is monstrous. That violence is the responsbility of the person committing it.

You can insult my atheism as much, as loudly and as offensively as you like, and I will defend your freedom to do so. That is your right. Are you suggesting that you should abandon that right because somebody has whispered to you that if you offend chakka's atheism he will go out and murder people and incite others to do so?

To allow violence to curb our rights is to give in to the murderous maniacs. I am shocked that you think we should do it.

[flobadob]

When does free speech become incitement to hatred?

[flobadob]

Birdie, surely when the drawers of these cartoons publish them then they are doing just that. Maybe they are not asking people to carry out the act, yet they know that it's the likely outcome.

[Kromovaracun]

argorstan -

"I'll try to make a non religious analogy .Supposing I meet somebody in the street and get talking to them , not about religion ,about any subject , and I find something that he's sensitive about , something that irks him .
Supposing that I keep on and on about it , really winding him up ."

I don't think your example quite captures what is happening in this situation.

Let's take you and your irked friend who may want to hit you if you go on enough about something.

Now let's imagine you are in a building, in your own home on the third floor. And let's say by some means or another he can hear what you are saying and is choosing to listen in on one particular evening. On this evening, you make a joke about whatever topic riles your friend and question why he should find it so offensive.

In response, your friend burns effigies of you in the street, intimidates your family members, and maybe kills one of your co-workers or a junior employee at the company you work for. He is prosecuted for none of this and is allowed to continue until he feels avenged (I mean he's really insulted after all, so it's fine). Then you start getting people telling you how wrong you were to 'provoke' him.

Does that sound reasonable?

[lightbulb247]

// What the likes of Abu Hamza were doing was directly inciting other people to commit acts of violence and murder against people who 'opposed' the islamic faith. //

ok, heres another one. What about Dr Zakir Naik, an islamic scholar who was banned from coming to the UK just because of something he said which was taken out of context.

[LazyGun]

@Lightbulb - a quick google of Dr. Zakir Naik brings up a Telegraph article from 2010, commenting on the decision by Theresa May, Home Secretary, to ban Dr. Naik from visiting Britain.

The article reprints what it claims are translated exerpts from various comments that Dr. Naik has made, including a suggesting that "all muslims should be terrorists", or that he broadly "supported the efforts of Osama Bin Laden in fighting the enemies of Islam", or that" Jews were the staunchest enemy of Islam".

I don't know about you, but that sounds like someone who " who writes or publishes material which can “foment, justify, or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts”" to me, and as such it sounds acceptable to ban them from visiting....

http://www.telegraph....from-entering-UK.html

[beso]

lightbulb247 // What about Dr Zakir Naik, an islamic scholar who was banned from coming to the UK just because of something he said which was taken out of context. //

Out of context is the favourite defence of the religious. They go on to claim that "one must read the book as a whole" for a deep understanding.

In response to this I ask for an explanation of the context where Joshua and his marauding Hebrews slaughtered every man woman and child in over thirty tribes as the invaded "The Promised Land" in a glorious campaign of genocide in the name of their God.

None of the faithful have ventured beyond the official line that all those people, even the children, were unimaginably wicked and deserved to die.

For those who persist I ask how much this kind of prejudice accurately mirrors exactly what is wrong in the world today.

All Abrahamic religion is built on a foundation of fascist ideology. It is evident right from their conceited prejudice through to their glorious and eagerly anticipated Armageddon. Throughout history every devotee has imagined that the time of judgement was almost upon them.

And throughout history devotees of various cults have adopted the same posture. "We have the only true way." "Those who are against us will be destroyed".

And how many times have they, just like the followers of Joshua and Mohammed, picked up swords in the name of their dogma,

Religion is the greatest barrier to world peace because it is, by definition, unreasonable.

[beso]

LazyGun //Someone who " who writes or publishes material which can “foment, justify, or glorify terrorist violence” or “seek to provoke others to terrorist acts"//

Sounds just like writers of the holy books when you read the exploits of Joshua, Mohammed and countless others.

These are the heros of Abrahamic mythology. In reality they were tribal warlords who religions became dominant because they were so violent. In many cases the conquered converted or died but many willingly changed their allegiance since the battle has revealed the conquerors god to be more powerful.

With nearly half the people on the planet subscribing to an Abrahamic religion it is little wonder violence is still so common a means to settle differences.

The really sad thing is that while so many seek to appease the religious differences the elephant in the room is that primitive tribal rituals have persisted so far into modern life that they are an anachronism. All of religion is ridiculous.

Religious leaders are terrified to blink as the numbers in their flocks dwindle. That is why some react violently against any who dare to criticise their faith.

[Ellipsis]

> Muslims around the globe need to grow up and rise above such provocations.

What, every single one of them? Maybe that will happen one day, if we shout at them hard enough. But in the meantime ...

If you knew that publishing something was likely to lead to the death of not you, your friends or family, but some innocent third party such as the US Ambassador to Libya, should you not exercise caution in publishing it?

And, if you weren't prescient enough to realise that deaths might occur, once deaths do occur shouldn't you exercise caution in re-publishing and re-publishing?

Or are the publishers and re-publishers able to wash their hands of the whole thing, simply claiming free speech and not being responsible for the actions of those who haven't grown up?

We might consider why shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is a bad idea - something to do with irrational mass human nature ...

[LazyGun]

@Ellipsis - explain how shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema is even remotely analogous here....