British Muslims picket Downing Street in protest of Charlie Hebdo cartoons

[MrsTawdry]

So the Daily Mail report it as "thousands" whilst the Telegraph say "at least a thousand"

Can't find ANY other sources for it. How is this ok? Free speech yes...but...

Why?

I never asked!

You are making things up as you go along.

indeed.

monty python probably hit the limit when it came to offending christianity and they never got prosecuted for anything.

I think there was an attempt to prosecute over that Jerry Springer musical thing. The courts were having none of it.

Maybe s/he's thinking of that?

My favourite thing about Life Of Brian was the TV debate John Cleese & Michael Palin had with some doddery old Christian bishop (or something) afterwards. They only barely held on to their tempers!!

they are completly entitled to be offended. I think the cartoons were in fucking bad taste to be honest

however, not sure what Downing Street can do about it|!

oh and "The horrific event this week, towards the Jordanian pilot, were done in the name of Islam. If I were a Muslim I'd be demostrating against that"

I dont agree, I dont see ISIS as "Muslims" any more frankly, its gone beyond religion.

You're right, paris, IS has nothing much to do with Islam, ordinary Muslims or religion at all.

And maybe the cartoons were in bad taste IF you're a Muslim who cares much about depicting the prophet (although there are posts on here indicating that not all Muslims do), and yes people have a right to be offended, but no, I don't think it's reasonable to ask the government to look at them as an issue. I also thought the petition presented was religion-specific rhetoric dressed up and presented in a Trojan horse of concern for 'global civility', whatever that might be, and was very dubious indeed.

the beauty of a free country is people can protest about what they like really!

for some people, MN getting het up about "pink lego sets" might also be seen as a non issue, and yet for some people its very emotive

my worry is those psychos ISIS - who seem to attract new members way too fast for my liking...

Where on earth does this nonsensical attitude come from? ISIS have "nothing to do with Islam" or religion?

You can say it and say it and say it until you're blue in the face, and you are wrong every time.

And you may not see them as Muslims but they most certainly do.

Well, yes they see themselves as Muslims in a way that fits their extremist agenda.

I mean that the huge majority of Muslims are like the huge majority of Christians: just getting on with their lives and worshipping privately.

I'd describe IS as a small group of outliers, justifying horrific acts by pointing to the aspects of theological texts and tenets that seem to them to make those acts excusable.

But the point is they can point to those theological texts to justify their actions. Those theological texts condone every single thing they are doing. So it's absolutely crap to pretend that none of it has anything to do with Islam or religion.

Everything they are doing, Mohammed did. Would you say Mohammed's actions had nothing to do with Islam?

That it has little to do with ordinary Muslims is true.

But, unlike you, I don't use the words "Muslim" and "Islam" synonymously.

You're right Caffe The UK repealed its blasphemy law in 2008. I'm behind the times, (rather than "making things up as I go along"), as you put it. You are wrong however that no one tried to prosecute Rushdie. UK, Muslims (in '89 I believe), tried, unsuccessfully, to invoke the common laws of blasphemy against the author and his publishers, Viking Penguin. Look it up!

The German writer Gunter Grass said the images in C. Hebdo reminded him of the hate filled images of Jews published in Der Sturmer magazine in Germany just before WW2. (The publisher of this rag was tried at Nuremberg and executed BTW, convicted of spreading hate speech). I imagine this editor put up (in his mind at least), a response similar to yours - of - “it’s just a cartoon, (swear word), and "A cartoon hurts NO ONE”
As for Consensus indicates universal agreement, and we don't have that regarding "taste". .. The point I was making is that : on the question of what is good taste, it’s left up to society to discourage it politically and morally. And not be legislated against.

romparistoberlin So when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway in 2011, did you hit the streets in protest then, shouting 'not in my name'. After all his was an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda? But if you were a Muslim, you definitely would be protesting over Isis' atrocities?

The killings in Paris & Copenhagen were appalling and shocking. But the idea that violence by self-proclaimed Jihadists is the only threat to liberty in Western societies ignores other, more immediate dangers. Here In Britain people have been arrested for making anti-military or anti-police comments on social media. Mass surveillance has had a chilling effect on journalism and on the practice of the law. In 2013, (the numbers for last year are not available just yet), there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,”.. Compare that to, (dare I call them) Jewish terrorists? According to the 2014 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them (including children and the elderly) and also vandalised scores of mosques and Christian churches. This of course is a less known fact, ie, not splattered across the news repeatedly. Let's keep a bit of perspective here.

Caffe, 'But, unlike you, I don't use the words "Muslim" and "Islam" synonymously.'

I think that's nit-picking and I'm quite sure you know very well what I mean. It's not constructive or necessary either; I am on the same side as you in this debate.

Where are the pastors who preach Breivik's creed?

sour, IMO Gunther Grass has called it wrong.

The images of Jews in Der Sturmer magazine in Germany just before WW2 were of REAL PEOPLE.

The images in Charlie Hebdo were of a figure who some people who follow one religion consider it wrong to depict.

There is an appreciable difference.

sourdrawers You tried to say that blasphemy laws don't extend to Muslims, which is why Salman Rushdie couldn't be prosecuted.

Aside from the fact that we don't have blasphemy laws here anymore (and how could you miss that), it is a FACT that Christians cannot prosecute for things they find offensive either. As per the Jerry Springer musical thing.

So stop playing the "poor, oppressed British Muslims" card. You are treated exactly the same as any other religious group under the law.

The problem is, that's not what you want. You want special treatment and to be allowed to dictate what other people think and say so that your feelings don't get hurt.

What is so monumentally precious about your feelings that laws should spring up to protect them?

And how dare you follow the sentence The killings in Paris & Copenhagen were appalling and shocking with a BUT!? There is no BUT. The moment you introduce one you introduce an attempt at justification. And there is none.

And absolutely no one is suggesting that Jihadis are the only threat. They are currently the biggest.

Only There are no "sides". Just people I agree with and people I don't. Same goes for you presumably.

Actually, it's not nit-picking at all. It goes to the very, very heart of the issue we are debating.

When you say "This has nothing to do with Islam" you are wrong. When you say "This has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims" you are right.

Criticising the texts, tenets and doctrines of Islam (as we must) is not at all the same thing as criticising every single Muslim in the world by default. So many people assume that it is.....and start yelping about "racism" and "Islamophobia".

If we criticise the texts, then we, by extension, criticise the behaviours that they might give rise to. And this can only apply to those people who are exhibiting those behaviours. So NOT all Muslims.

OK, I'll rephrase. How's this?

'IS have nothing to do with Islam as interpreted and practised by the vast majority of Muslims.'

And I'll point out that you misquote me: I said 'IS', as above; I didn't say 'This has nothing to do with ...'.

I don't believe we 'must' criticise the tenets of Islam as a matter of course – or of Christianity or whatever other faith, for that matter. I DO believe we must criticise and speak out when an aspect of a faith is used to foul ends.

CaffeLatteIceCream

we must stop meeting like this!!!! every vaguely Islammy thread and "pop" here we are

Wasn't trying to directly quote you, just to give a flavour of what the bone of contention was.

Well to IS have nothing to do with Islam as interpreted ....etc I would say...so what?

I might also go further and say, ordinary Muslims are interpreting the texts wrongly (although I am glad that they are) and IS are interpreting them correctly.

How do we know this? Well, if anyone was a good, observant Muslim, Mohammed was. And he would be the poster boy for IS if he was alive today.

Yes, we MUST criticise the tenets of Islam. That you think we shouldn't suggests that you don't really know what they are. ISIS do. The men who marry 9 year olds do. The men who beat their wives do. The police officers who prosecute raped women do. The practicers of female mutilation do.

But you don't.

And I will criticise whatever aspects of Christianity hurt people too. Killing gay people, as mandated in the Bible, is carried out in parts of the world, you know. As it putting witches to death.

But we shouldn't be criticising?

I'm afraid I have to, because I have a conscience.

Maybe that's because we feel the issue is important, Paris. I know I do.

Well, thanks a lot for insinuating that I don't have a conscience, Caffe. And for telling me that I'm clueless about Islam.

We actually agree on pretty much everything that's being discussed here. As to the rest, maybe I'm not getting my points across clearly or maybe you're determined to misunderstand me and argue over semantics and imagined shades of meaning. I suspect the latter.

If that little comment to Paris was intended to suggest that I don't feel this issue is important, please be assured that I do.

I'm off now. I'm tired of your pointless argumentativeness towards me.

Cafee so many How dare you's How dare anyone take a different view to you ?

If I was insinuating anything it was that you don't really know what you're talking about. And actually, I was defending MY criticism of religious tenets against YOUR insinuation that I am wrong to do so.

Why would my response to Paris have anything to do with you!!

Blimey.

When that "different view" is a backhanded attempt to justify the COLD BLOODED MURDERS OF 12 people, "how dare you is the least of it".

Seriously, how dare you? Can you answer that?

I agree that we currently face a major threat, not just from Jihadis, but from the rise of Islamicism in general - Islamicism as I understand it being the attempt or the wish to impose Islamic views and behaviour on others, this petition being a fine example.

And I actually think that yes it is crucial to criticise and mock Islam, and any other religion which supports or can be used to support oppressive behaviour.

If people in the west had not had the courage to criticise and challenge Christianity in the past, we would never have had the relatively free society we have today. (Of course it's very imperfect, but compared to what I see of most Muslim societies, it seems pretty damn good.)

We need to be really vigilant if we want to conserve the freedoms and equalities that have been so hard fought for in the UK and other European countries.

And yes, there are indeed Muslims who are not only not offended by the cartoons, but who actively wish people to continue these kinds of criticisms and challenges of their own religion. Because they too cherish freedom and equality.

Iram Ramzan is one, and she wrote an excellent piece in the wake of the Paris murders, which I am quoting liberally from here:

Many people criticising the cartoons have been conflating racism with criticism of religion. The former is abhorrent and we have laws against this. The latter is perfectly legitimate.

We should remember that European enlightenment was a product of centuries of challenges to religious authority, after which secularism was able to flourish. That is one of the reasons why reactionaries abandon the Muslim world: silenced in their own countries, they seek refuge in the liberal West, only to undermine its principles from within.

What we need is for people to continue to blaspheme, else we will be complicit in the Islamists gaining strength and destroying us all. They are organised, determined and, armed with deadly weapons and the belief that they have a divine power on their side, they will prevail.

Dissenting voices I have come across with Muslim communities have expressed fear for the future. If we do not defend our rights and freedoms then, to paraphrase Pastor Niemöller, one day there will be no one left to speak for us.

It's an excellent and courageous article and well worth reading in full here. It was written before this petition, in the wake of the Paris murders, and actually starts from the point that in the furore about the cartoons/provocation angle, the fact that four people were murdered simply for being Jewish has been almost completely ignored.

She has links on her blog to other "dissenting voices". As a left wing non Muslim myself who's increasingly concerned by some of the rhetoric of the left - the idea that saying anything negative about Islam or any Muslims is racist and Islamophobic - it's a breath of fresh air to find these voices.

That is a superb post, Talking. And thank you for the link.

Maajid Nawaz is also a superb voice to listen to on this matter.

And to watch on YT as he's very easy on the eye