AIBU to think that Islamist Extremism is on the rise in Britain as well as the rest of Europe?

[DikTrom]

In schools, local communities, pro ISIS demonstrations etc. with Muslim leaders remaining silent.

Is this something new or was it always there right under the surface?

Have we been to tolerant to people who openly reject our values and want to overthrow our society?

Dik that isn't freedom of speech, it's bloody offensive.

Dawndonna, have you read any of the Jesus and Mo online cartoons?
They are interesting alternative political commentary rather than just hatespeak IMO.

Oooh students being all controversial and getting stroppy when they're told to stop being knobs.

Yawn.

No Down I haven't heard of them. I shall have a hunt.

"We should be allowed to draw cartoons of the prophet just as much as we can draw cartoons of Jesus"

It is not a question of cartoons making fun of a prophet. It is extremely offensive to Muslims to be shown a picture/drawing of Mohammad. It is similar to making a Hindu kill and eat a cow.

Yes, sure, I'm with you that it's all silly superstition, imaginary friend stuff.

But I don't think that gives us the right to go out of our way to upset and offend people if it doesn't cost us anything to avoid it.

It's not a cartoon of Mohammed, it's an image of his body double. It says so on the homepage of the site.

What exactly is a "body double" of a historical figure who has died over a thousand years ago, leaving behind not a single drawing, photo, picture, etc?

It doesn't matter if the picture didn't look like Mohammad (not that we could know if it did). The simple fact of depicting the guy is deeply offensive to Muslims worldwide.

If you want to make such a picture, do it at home. Why would you want to gravely offend so many people?

Would you also fight for your right to make a Hindu butcher & eat a cow? If not, why not?

And when enough of them start vocalising how offended they are by womens bare flesh, should we all start wearing sacks like in Saudi ?

No ? .......what's the difference ?

Offence is subjective. Freedom of speech is absolute. Your reverence to imaginary beings, historical figures and ideologies is personal and does not get to dictate how others think and act.

If you don't want to be offended, don't live in a liberal free society with freedom of speech.

I saw an interpretation of the NT once, with Jesus in Gethsemane.
The devil turned up to tempt him away from the agony and the crucifixion, and when Jesus turned him down, the devil said 'Say you go through with it. let me show you what they will do in your name' and he did,
Crusades, witch burnings, holocausts and all the evil that was and is done in the name of Jesus.
And that's when Jesus wept.

Freedom of speech is absolute. No it isn't and the law says so.

I agree that it's important to have rules about what is and isn't permitted, in language and in act, otherwise it would be the vicious and powerful that would dictate to all. I'd hate to see the racists, sexists and fundamentalists unfettered by the basics of what passes for civilised behaviour.
But we need to remember that one of the strengths of this society is the right to question and to challenge, and that humour has long been a tool for that to happen.

But there will always be those who feel that religion is not only absolute and unquestionable, but also no laughing matter.

"It doesn't matter if the picture didn't look like Mohammad (not that we could know if it did). The simple fact of depicting the guy is deeply offensive to Muslims worldwide. "

• MistressMia, I find it offensive when they say Peace be upon him about a warlord and paedophile. does that mean they should be force to stop saying that anywhere outside of there own homes?

You're right, it's not entirely absolute. There are certain restrictions but these are mostly to do with protection of individuals or states from harm, maintaining public order etc NOT about ideas or beliefs:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not only the information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society.

And from:

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 1510 (2006) Freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs:

12. The Assembly is of the opinion that freedom of expression as protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not be further restricted to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups. At the same time, the Assembly emphasises that hate speech against any religious group is not compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1510.htm#1#1

I am sorry but if people are offended by others drawing a picture of Mohammed they need therapy or to go to countries where cartoons are banned. There should be no restriction on people drawing cartoons of Mohammed Jesus or anyone else. The Jesus and Mo cartoons are an important part of free speech in the UK.

If anyone believes in an invented God is part of a religion so weak it cannot manage a few cartoons from atheists then it cannot be much of a religion. They will be banning music in state primary schools yet.... ah yes that has begun too.

Surely the old paedophile accusation has to be taken within historical context?
Eg. When written, the age of consent was a) not enshrined in law and b) far, far younger for obvious reasons.

- MistressMia, I find it offensive when they say Peace be upon him about a warlord and paedophile. does that mean they should be force to stop saying that anywhere outside of there own homes?

No....you being offended is just tough. Muslims have every right to say that, just as you have every right to call a historical figure a warlord and paedophile.

There were protests about 'Jesus Christ Superstar' when it came out, and 'The Life of Brian'
I'd rather see rational debate and peaceful protests about something than an outright ban, because that way lies knee-jerk reactions, alienation of different groups and increased prejudice.
The meat of DM headlines 'Christmas offensive to Muslims' variety. And numbers of well-intentioned and uninformed people tip-toing around things rather than just asking straight out and finding if a compromise is possible.

I agree dawndonna. Along with the question of how old the Virgin Mary was.

• MistressMia,

No....you being offended is just tough. Muslims have every right to say that, just as you have every right to call a historical figure a warlord and paedophile.

In the same way I have every right to wear a t-shirt showing an historical figure?

"Surely the old paedophile accusation has to be taken within historical context?
Eg. When written, the age of consent was a) not enshrined in law and b) far, far younger for obvious reasons."

But if for some reason that changed the law today to say sex with an 9-11yo was ok would that make the scum doing it any less of a paedophile ?

Not really a relevant point, Territ we're discussing a supposed historical document, not the law of today.

The thing I was always taught about Islam was that it was a perfect system for all time, so I really don't get this historical context argument.

Clearly others also take literally the 'all time' directive and that coupled with emulating the deeds and actions of Muhammed, as he was 'the most perfect being' as being desirable, has led to the disgusting situation of child brides in the Muslim world. Here's a report a few years ago from RAWA a womens group in Afghanistan, where the problem is particularly acute

www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html

In the same way we don't hold all Catholics responsible for abuse, we cannot for others either.