Irony in Islam

[Jim]

Armed militants angered by a cartoon drawing of the Prophet Muhammad published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world... The cartoons include an image of Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings

 

This would be funny if it weren't so serious.

[Sisyphus]

Religious extremists rarely have much sense of irony. Just look at some of the stuff Pat Robertson has said recently.

[Jim]

Religious extremists rarely have much sense of irony. Just look at some of the stuff Pat Robertson has said recently.

 

Yep. It is a less extreme but similar mindset. It is what results when human beings require that everything be shoved through a single filter.

[ecoli]

But, I think what is most ironic at all is the repsonse to the cartoon.

 

More than 300 students demonstrated in Pakistan, chanting "Death to France!" and "Death to Denmark!" — two of the countries where newspapers published the drawings. Other protests were held in Syria and Lebanon.

Gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus entered four hotels to search for foreigners to abduct and warned their owners not to host guests from several European countries. Gunmen said they were also searching apartments in Nablus for Europeans.

"Any citizens of these countries, who are present in Gaza, will put themselves in danger," a Fatah-affiliated gunman said outside the EU Commission's office in Gaza, flanked by two masked men holding rifles.

 

In order to protest a controversial cartoon, they wound up enacting the stereotype that the cartoon was portraying. I'm not sure what to make of it after noting that, however.

[Bettina]

A lot of truly innocent people are going to either have their throats cut or be beheaded because of the religious extremism of some (yes I'm going to say it again) uncivilized countries. Its just sickening.

 

Bettina

[budullewraagh]

if we look to the merriam webster definition of the word "uncivilized," we see "not civilized, see barbarous." when we do see "barbarous," we see "uncivilized, lacking culture or refinement." to my recollection, decapitation had nothing to do with lack of civilization. as it turns out, it indeed does not. so, in conclusion, we find that you cannot call "these nations" "uncivilized" on the fact that there are beheadings, throat cuttings, etc

[Tiger's Eye]

if we look to the merriam webster definition of the word "uncivilized," we see "not civilized, see barbarous." when we do see "barbarous," we see "uncivilized, lacking culture or refinement." to my recollection, decapitation had nothing to do with lack of civilization. as it turns out, it indeed does not. so, in conclusion, we find that you cannot call "these nations" "uncivilized" on the fact that there are beheadings, throat cuttings, etc

 

LOL. Interesting deduction.

[john5746]

Intolerant would be a more appropriate adjective.

[Jim]

if we look to the merriam webster definition of the word "uncivilized," we see "not civilized, see barbarous." when we do see "barbarous," we see "uncivilized, lacking culture or refinement." to my recollection, decapitation had nothing to do with lack of civilization. as it turns out, it indeed does not. so, in conclusion, we find that you cannot call "these nations" "uncivilized" on the fact that there are beheadings, throat cuttings, etc

 

While you have that dictionary open, you might look up pedantic and pleonastic.

[Bettina]

if we look to the merriam webster definition of the word "uncivilized," we see "not civilized, see barbarous." when we do see "barbarous," we see "uncivilized, lacking culture or refinement." to my recollection, decapitation had nothing to do with lack of civilization. as it turns out, it indeed does not. so, in conclusion, we find that you cannot call "these nations" "uncivilized" on the fact that there are beheadings, throat cuttings, etc

 

I get your point, but I disagree. The term uncivilized has many meanings which include barbarous and savage. The latter refers to a culture that is primitive, brutal and vicious and I can't find a better word that describes these kind of people, but I kind of like savage.

 

All the words you can find may have slightly different connotations, but their all in the same bottle labeled... murder.

 

So, I will stay with uncivilized unless I change it to savage.

 

Bettina

[Tiger's Eye]

While we're on the topic of looking up terms, might as well look up the definitions for "culture", "country", and "religion". In reference to this specific issue concerning the comic strip, this is a religious clash. I don't see how calling a country or culture "uncivilized" is relevant in this thread, since it is a group of people belonging to a specific religion, not a specific culture (though, generally, Islam is a part of several cultures, not vice versa. Same goes for countries), that is angry by this event.

[Aardvark]

But' date=' I think what is most ironic at all is the repsonse to the cartoon.

 

 

 

In order to protest a controversial cartoon, they wound up enacting the stereotype that the cartoon was portraying. I'm not sure what to make of it after noting that, however.[/quote']

 

You could make of it that the cartoons are prescient warnings of the growth of brutal, aggressive tendencies in Islam.

[Severian]

While you have that dictionary open, you might look up pedantic and pleonastic.

 

Pleonastic pretty much sums up this thread I think.

[budullewraagh]

it's interesting that you mention the word "savage," bettina. while, according to thesaurus.com, barbarous is not synonymous with savage, barbarian is. so let's pretend that barbarous was. "savage" can be defined as "not domesticated or under human control, (see untamed)"

 

when we look at "untamed," we find that the definition is "in a natural state; not tamed or domesticated or cultivated; "wild geese"; "edible wild plants."" this is pretty interesting, because according to your logic, many islamic nations exist in the "natural state." should we really have a problem if they are only being "natural?" or do you take back the part about them being "savage?"

[Aardvark]

i

should we really have a problem if they are only being "natural?" or do you take back the part about them being "savage?"

 

Being 'natural' does not imply being morally right. That is the naturalist fallacy. Also, it seems quite reasonable to characterise some Islamic societies as being 'savage'.

 

Unless you think that killing homosexuals by bulldozing walls over them and killing young women in 'honour' killings and killing anyone who dares convert from Islam and hacking limbs off criminals are not examples of savage behaviour?

[budullewraagh]

oh but i never said being "natural" implied morality. however, i asked the question of whether we should look down upon those who are only being natural if you happen to think they are savage.

 

if it is natural for humans to "kill homosexuals by bulldozing walls over them and kill young women in 'honour' killings and kill anyone who dares convert from Islam and hacking limbs off criminals" then certain islamic nations exhibit savage qualities. if it is not natural, they do not necessarily exhibit savage qualities.

[Aardvark]

if it is not natural, they do not necessarily exhibit savage qualities.

 

It's possible to be both unnatural and savage.

[budullewraagh]

your post really says nothign to me. i presented information concerning the relationship between "savage" behavior and "natural" behavior, which seemed to negate any possibility of one being both unnatural and savage. but if you actually believe that is possible, please do explain

[Bettina]

it's interesting that you mention the word "savage' date='" bettina. while, according to thesaurus.com, barbarous is not synonymous with savage, barbarian is. so let's pretend that barbarous was. "savage" can be defined as "not domesticated or under human control, (see untamed)"

 

when we look at "untamed," we find that the definition is "in a natural state; not tamed or domesticated or cultivated; "wild geese"; "edible wild plants."" this is pretty interesting, because according to your logic, many islamic nations exist in the "natural state." should we really have a problem if they are only being "natural?" or do you take back the part about them being "savage?"[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what your defining as natural. If you want, I will say that "savage" is a "natural" state for them, which is indicative to an "uncivilized" culture. I just don't want to add any butter to how I feel about the Islamic religion. I go with Aardvark too.

 

Bettina

 

P.S. From American Heritage Dictionary... Natural: Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

 

Its all the same bottle.

[reverse]

I think those guys are pretty serious about trying to capture the image of god on paper.

 

It’s not even the fact that it’s a funny cartoon.

 

That’s why the front of all the temples are beautiful calligraphic script …and no pictures.

 

That’s funny I just found a 14th century Islam lustration of Muhammad placing a black stone into the Kaaba at Mecca.

 

Yet a 16th Century Painting shows Muhammads head as a ball of fire ( to get around the sacrilege ).

 

Seems the rules changed over time..?

[budullewraagh]

bettina, i addressed your two options. you chose neither.

 

there is severe fallacy in your statement that ""savage" is a "natural" state for them, which is indicative to an "uncivilized" culture." "savage" refers to the natural "state." you cannot say that "uncivilized" is a "natural" state for a given ethnicity, or species for that matter. "uncivilized" itself is the "natural" state.

 

assuming that you believe that arabs are savage, i now ask you whether you can blame them for being "natural."

[Bettina]

bettina' date=' i addressed your two options. you chose neither.

 

there is severe fallacy in your statement that ""savage" is a "natural" state for them, which is indicative to an "uncivilized" culture." "savage" refers to the natural "state." you cannot say that "uncivilized" is a "natural" state for a given ethnicity, or species for that matter. "uncivilized" itself is the "natural" state.

 

assuming that you believe that arabs are savage, i now ask you whether you can blame them for being "natural."[/quote']

 

I don't know what your trying to tell me. Is it semantics that is misguiding my answer? If it is, I can pick some better words to describe them. Just tell me what you want me to say.

 

Bettina

[JohnB]

Unless you think that killing homosexuals by bulldozing walls over them and killing young women in 'honour' killings and killing anyone who dares convert from Islam and hacking limbs off criminals are not examples of savage behaviour?

You mean compared to the totally civilized behaviour of sticking people in a small room for 10-15 years, seeing the sun twice a day. Then strapping them to a table and murdering them by a process that takes many times longer?

 

To top it all off, your authorities actually sterilize the needle. How bloody hypocritical. You're happy to kill him, but you don't want to make him sick?

 

(The "you" here refers to the US authorities, not any person on this forum.)

 

There is an irony in that citizens whose nation sits at number 4 in the world for executions (according the Amnesty International) are calling other nations "uncivilized" especially when only one Islamic nation (Iran) killed more people than the US.

 

2004 executions;

1. China :at least 3,400.

2. Iran :159

3. Viet Nam :64 (at least)

4. USA :59

Scource.

[Bettina]

You mean compared to the totally civilized behaviour of sticking people in a small room for 10-15 years' date=' seeing the sun twice a day. Then strapping them to a table and murdering them by a process that takes many times longer?

 

To top it all off, your authorities actually sterilize the needle. How bloody hypocritical. You're happy to kill him, but you don't want to make him sick?

 

(The "you" here refers to the US authorities, not any person on this forum.)

 

There is an irony in that citizens whose nation sits at number 4 in the world for executions (according the Amnesty International) are calling other nations "uncivilized" especially when only one Islamic nation (Iran) killed more people than the US.

 

2004 executions;

1. China :at least 3,400.

2. Iran :159

3. Viet Nam :64 (at least)

4. USA :59

Scource.

 

There is a big difference between number 4 and the other three.

 

The USA executes those who have murdered other people or for other crimes against humanity. The others have executed people for speaking out against the government, drawing cartoons, disliking islam, not wearing a veil, just being an infidel.... I could go on and on and on.... but I'm sure you get the picture of what is civilized and what is not.

 

Bettina

[Severian]

The others have executed people for speaking out against the government, drawing cartoons, disliking islam, not wearing a veil, just being an infidel....

 

Can you back any of these up? Has anyone in Iran ever been executed for 'disliking Islam' for example?