If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sudan's government are known for being authoritarian and have a terrible human rights record. Just look at what else is going on there at the moment.
I think people need to ditch their Islamaphobia before they say everything is Islam. Just like with any other religion, it is corrupted by people in power and interpreted in a way which maintains that power.
The media reports whatever is on its agenda.
Sharia law is explicitly and exclusively the preserve of Islam. Even the most die-hard apologist for religious barbarity won't deny that.
^ tbh, I'm not very sure about this myself.
I can see why some would consider it 'offensive'... because you are giving an inanimate iconographical object the name 'Muhammad', which means 'the praised one'... and when you consider Islams stance on idolatry, it becomes a bit of a risky thing to do.
^ Agreed.
There is very little justification, even Islamically, to punish this woman. The Sudanese should also consider that fact that she repented on numerous occasions.
The media merely reported this story about a British teacher arrested in Sudan after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Where did the media say that "all Muslims" are arresting her or that "all Muslims" support her arrest even?
Should this story not have been reported?
Have you jumped on this "blame the media" bandwagon too?
Fear of Islam and Muslim people in general. It's a bit of a buzz word that I don't really like using.
What a backward country, there's a few in Africa which are just as bad. I just wish the secular movements in these countries rise up and fight to remove all this barbaric shite.
Lets not divert the topic.
Bloody media! Why is it being so 'Islamophobic'!? Why is the media telling us these things!?
It's all the medias fault.
:rolleyes:
Yes, Sharia law is Islamic, but that does not mean all Muslims support it. The governments pick and choose the parts that suit them (as I wrote before).
Also, because Sudan has that interpretation of Sharia law, does not mean that it is a Muslim thing that all Muslims support.
Where did I say it was? It's fairer than a theocracy that's for sure.
Nobody is blaming the media for her imprisonment.
But of course the media selectively reports stories. How much do we hear about China for example? Yes, a lot of Muslim countries abuse human rights, but so do other states.
And yes, I do believe that certain strands of the media publish stories with the agenda of creating tension between their readers and Muslim and ethnic groups. You'd be naive not to.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you thought it did, just that I don't personally think that religion is a factor in human rights abuses.
Again, not perfect but better than a State that uses laws made in the 6th century to punish people. I don't see where you're going with this argument, somehow I get the impression you're trying to excuse the actions of Sudan here. Yes, secular nations are not perfect but give me them anyday over an Islamic State.
People are going to torture and maim each other, regardless of what excuse they use. History, ethnicity, religion, ideology. Our world leaders will keep themselves in power by whatever means possible.
Cruelty committed in the name or religion or in the name of anything else at the end of the day is still cruelty and still hurts the person on the other end.
Or the US or Israel?
But, gosh's lots of there human rights abuses against Moslems get reported ( a far disproporionate amount compared to other countries), so the idea of some media conspiracy against Moslem states seems a rather shaky view
Secularisation of any State is always the first step towards a more progressive society. Sudan has enough problems as it is without this barbaric, backward shite. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Leaders of secular states don't get to sentence people to 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear though, do they? Or a rape victim to 200 lashes for that matter. That barbarity is the prerogative of Sharia courts.
A secular country doesn't always mean a fair one; a theocracy practising Sharia law is always going to backwards, immoral and barbarous one.
There's no excusing what's gone on there, and you can't draw fallacious comparison between secular countries and religious, hick states.
As for your use of the word Islamophobe, I thought you'd have more sense than to fall for a term that has absolutely no meaning. It is used by people who think that faith should be beyond criticism, to make out that people who oppose a certain set of beliefs, dislike a certain set of teachings, or believe that said beliefs are poisonous to society, are somehow prejudice against a particular group of people. And I'd love for you to find an example of anyone you accuse of "Islamaphobia" being prejudiced against muslims, but you won't because it would quite rightly be against the rules of this message board. You might as well use the term naziphobe, conservaphobe or liberaphobe to attempt to dispell criticism in political debates. Suddenly the debate turns to religion and we have to step on eggshells?
And the reason I mentioned the Life Of Brian, is because it's the Islamic community in particular at the moment that needs to accept that everyone has the right to public criticise and make fun of a set of ideas, without having to fear violence, threats and harassment. And this isn't just a small minority in a few backwards countries, because the vast majority of British muslims support laws against criticising religious beliefs. I wonder if the MCB would've been so quick to condemn the Sudanese government if she had admitted to insulting Islam and it was clear cut that she did. I doubt they would, but I wonder why. The majority of the Christian population on the other hand accepted the right to free speech a long time ago, and so the worst you get is a few people writing articles in newspapers or maybe protesting at the cinema or theatre (exercising their right to free speech). I don't really mean to pick on the Islamic community, because it really is a wider issue of people believing that religions should somehow be beyond criticism. But there is still no doubt that the fiercest opposition to this necessity to free speech comes from believers in Islam. And the MCB can come out and criticise individual cases of "overreaction" all they want, but until they accept that no reaction should've been necessary at all, because everyone should have the right to criticise Islam (along with all other belief systems), they are in no way moderate in my book, and an obstacle to a truely secular and tolerant society.
A tolerant society isn't one where everyone is nicey nice and sweeps their opinions under the carpet for fear of offending someone. A tolerant society is one where ideas are openly and actively discussed and argued, without fear, and the good ideas thrive, and the bad ideas like sexism and homophobia die off (it's not happened yet, but go back 100 years and tell me we haven't made progress). And people won't get offended, because people are only offended by opinions that they're not used to hearing expressed. And if they do get offended, the so what? It's served us well so far in every other field, so it is the same standard to which we should hold religious belief.
Brilliant post.
Nobody has the right not to be offended. That is not a right, it is just tough. And as far as Islam goes, I would quote Wafa Sultan....
"Brother, you can believe in stones all you like, as long as you don't throw them at me."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ
Sudan's government did not get there by democratic means. Their population is also of mixed ethnicity.... Or it will be hopefully, unless the military and the janjaweed get their way (which is more tribal than Islam versus Christians and natives). :impissed:
Source?
Saudi is known to have a bad human rights record too. No, women cannot drive. Saudi has a monarch (I think) who calls the shots, Sudan is a one party state which used to be a democracy and was overthrown by a military coup. Yes it does have meaning. Oh that's just bullshit. :rolleyes:
The fact that you immediately accuse Islam of what an oppressive government did comes across as Islamophobia. Countries which are 'Muslim' are hugely diverse, as is Islam and the culture of the ethnic group associated to Islam.
What Islamic community?
And which 'community'? Sufi, Sunni or Shia? Or all? And Muslims from which country?
And do you have a source to back that up or did you just make it up or read it in the Daily Mail? And the MCB represent the views of all British Muslims do they?
What 'Christian population'? You can't compare Christianity in the UK to Islam in the UK or to any other religion brought over a few generations ago.Most 'Christians' don't even practice.
Right.
Yeah, but you tend to see a reaction from some Muslims that extreme because somebody has attacked them, or their religion. Have you ever spoken to a Muslim about their experiences in the UK?
Of course you get the odd right wing Muslim who naturally gets front page of the Sun (because all Muslims think the same obviously :rolleyes: ).
Nor do they represent the entirety of Islam.
No, I agree completely.
When people come to England they live by our rules/laws and if not and presuming they get caught they also get punished by our laws.
Why anyone would want to live in a country like that out of choice baffles me anyway. In Sharia law a mans evidence is equal to two womens - like WTF?? Cross-dressing, homosexuality, adultery and trying to convert a muslim to christianity carries the death penalty!! I won't be heading their to work thats for sure!!
Another manifestation of the old adage 'it's not religion, it's the religious'. It's such an intellectually bankrupt and egregiously wrong standpoint, it's laughable. You might as well say "Kim jong-il is just giving despotism a bad name".
The holy books aren't unknown to us non-believers. We know they're filled with bigotry, hatred and acts of unbelievable horror. We know the religious are forced into into cherry-picking the bits that suit and the bits that don't, for the very reason that organised religion in innately bent as fuck.
I must admit this defence of the Islamic Sharia law is a new one on me though.
To blame religion is to remove a degree of responsibility from individuals who are obviously full of hatred, or have some sort of obsession with power. Religion does not make them that way at all, just like religion did not make Nazi concentration camp guards. It's a mixture of things and isn't so simple as 'religion bad - atheism good'. Life isn't that simple. Yes it is 'bent as fuck'... But really, what isn't?
Who's defending Sharia law?
I am saying that Islam is diverse and we shouldn't make blanket statements about all Muslims or what Muslims believe. I question also, ow much interaction the people who make these claims have with Muslims and other minority groups.
I am not defending any human rights abuses, I am active myself on human rights and environmental issues and well read on them. I also have Muslim friends and am hoping to go to some Islamic Society meetings to learn more about Islam. I am not supporting either view... This is not a case of dualism, it's a case of realism and removing prejudices and searching the grey areas.
I will openly admit that terms such as 'racism' and 'islamophobe' have been used by some people who claim to be left, who challenge critics of multiculturalism... But there is a difference between challenging one Muslim, or one mosque and saying "Muslims this" or "Muslims that".
I also think the point that a secular society is somehow going to automatically better than a theocracy is hardly born out by the examples of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Humanity has show itself to be quite capable of acts of hideous violence and oppression regardless of whether it claims to be acting based on the Bible, the Communist manifesto, the Koran or the Little Red Book...
This is what I'm getting at.
Human rights abuses will take place regardless. In essence, we're all the same. Red blooded, corruptible and power hungry entities. We are also capable of great compassion and empathy.
We'll use anything to fool people in to believing we are acting in their interests.