Cartoons cause an uproar

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:57 pm

Kevin wrote:
And dissent in Islam is even more rare than it is in Christanity, since dissenters fear for their lives.


And this very statement speaks so much more loudly of the fact that the problem is not with Islam, but with that minority holding a particular brand of religious mentality in common with those of other religions.

Who is Islam?
Sometimes it is possible for an insane person to see, rightly, the insanity in another person.


Not if they’re insane on the same subject.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:26 am

ksolway wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:At least some of the cartoons seemed to be targeting (stereotyping) a whole distinct group, a class or category of people with a certain cultural or religious background.
Sometimes this generalizing is perfectly justified. Christians for example, as an entire group, believe some very, very, stupid things.
I don't see the difference here with the people outside that group believing as well in just as stupid things. But anyway that was not what I meant to say. My remark was about how we, 'the West', have defined discrimination and 'hate speech' and formulated laws and journalistic 'codes' against the expression of it. And they shouldn't be applied with the mood of the day. If for example similar cartoons were made with dark skinned people raping and robbing lighter skinned people, such thing wouldn't be accepted and called stigmatizing, even if it reflects certain realities in certain cities. So to say there's a freedom of expression in the Western press, as some claim, is in my opinion only a belief.
ksolway wrote:And dissent in Islam is even more rare than it is in Christianity, since dissenters fear for their lives.
True but only in the sense that there is no 'Christianity' anymore in the West that is afraid for her existence. It's replaced with something that couldn't care less about a dissenter or his possible effect. That's because of what I'd call the decline of meaning itself or nihilism.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

BREAKING NEWS

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:20 am

Diebert wrote:
How peculiar that the US government wanted to shut down the whole network, even through bombing as was discussed. Freedom of news and expression, hah! For all parties that boils down to have freedom only when it not threatens the way of thinking or living you hold dear so much....
Lo and behold, today G Dubbya says, "we condemn violence as a means to silence freedom of expression through the free press."

He must be right, despite his insanity.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:36 am

Funny how violence as a means to silence free speech in the press is not acceptable to Bush, but he bans pictures of US soldier's caskets arriving from Iraq. That's still a form of violence to the press, just less conspicuous. Obviously, limiting press freedom is ok when it suits him but not otherwise.

Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:18 pm

Diebert van Rhijn:

How peculiar that the US government wanted to shut down the whole network, even through bombing as was discussed. Freedom of news and expression, hah! For all parties that boils down to have freedom only when it not threatens the way of thinking or living you hold dear so much....
Did you witness president Bush saying he's considering bombing their network? Did you see Miss Rice mention it? If not, have you seen an actual quote from any significant person in the administration.
Regardless, if you're at war we all know that all's fair in love and war, it would be foolish not to do something about that which is advantageous to the enemy, if such is the case. Far worse is done all the time in times of war.
It's not a fair comparison, then.

avidaloca

Funny how violence as a means to silence free speech in the press is not acceptable to Bush, but he bans pictures of US soldier's caskets arriving from Iraq. That's still a form of violence to the press, just less conspicuous. Obviously, limiting press freedom is ok when it suits him but not otherwise.
The press are never free to do whatever they want, so it can be said limiting always occurs.
Americans don't want to restrict free expression, an original idea, for it may have great value to others. It's the expression of individual thought that must be free, and not so much the reporting of common facts.

Have either of you spent much time in the USA?
You have to be an American to know one.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:50 pm

I lived in New Jersey for over a month in the mid-90s.

I have little recollection of the American mentality by now but I do remember being impressed by the inclusivity of the place. European countries draw more lines between the natives and non-native population.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:26 pm

Lennyrizzo wrote:
Regardless, if you're at war we all know that all's fair in love and war, it would be foolish not to do something about that which is advantageous to the enemy,...
Well, that's rather convenient when your enemy is "terrorism" in a never-ending "War on Terror," don't you think?

A war on terror that began with the intention to destroy non-existent WMD; then it went on to proclaim an interest in bringing democracy...

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

CHOMSKY

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:27 pm

Beyond the ballot

January 6 2006
THE US President Bush called last month’s Iraqi elections a "major milestone in the march to democracy." They are indeed a milestone — just not the kind that Washington would welcome. Disregarding the standard declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, let’s review the history. When Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, the pretext, insistently repeated, was a "single question": Will Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction?


Within a few months this "single question" was answered the wrong way. Then, very quickly, the real reason for the invasion became Bush’s "messianic mission" to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Even apart from the timing, the democratisation bandwagon runs up against the fact that the United States has tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq.

Last January’s elections came about because of mass nonviolent resistance, for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol. (The violent insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular movement.) Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times, who wrote last March that "the reason (the elections) took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them."

Elections, if taken seriously, mean you pay some attention to the will of the population. The crucial question for an invading army is: "Do they want us to be here?"

There is no lack of information about the answer. One important source is a poll for the British Ministry of Defence this past August, carried out by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British Press. It found that 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and less than 1 per cent believe they are responsible for any improvement in security.

Analysts of the Brookings Institution in Washington report that in November, 80 per cent of Iraqis favoured "near-term US troop withdrawal." Other sources generally concur. So the coalition forces should withdraw, as the population wants them to, instead of trying desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that they can control. But Bush and Blair still refuse to set a timetable for withdrawal, limiting themselves to token withdrawals as their goals are achieved.

There’s a good reason why the United States cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. The issue can scarcely be raised because it conflicts with firmly established doctrine: We’re supposed to believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main export was pickles, not petroleum.

As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq’s oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shia Iran.

The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential clerics also have long-standing relations with Iran, including Sistani, who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.

Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial, bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too. This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia’s oil is. The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and controlling large portions of the world’s oil reserves. It’s not unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran’s lead in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.

Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling to act independently of the United States. China, however, can’t be intimidated. That’s why the United States is so frightened by China.

China is already establishing relations with Iran — and even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin of that power grid.

Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington. Also, a labour movement is forming in Iraq, a very important one. Washington insists on keeping Saddam Hussein’s bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour movement continues its organising work despite them.

Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But they’re persisting. They constitute one of the major democratising forces that have deep roots in Iraqi history, and that might revitalise, also much to the horror of the occupying forces. One critical question is how Westerners will react. Will we be on the side of the occupying forces trying to prevent democracy and sovereignty? Or will we be on the side of the Iraqi people?

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/ColumnistHo ... ky&col=yes

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:28 pm

Lennyrizzo wrote: Did you witness president Bush saying he's considering bombing their network? Did you see Miss Rice mention it? If not, have you seen an actual quote from any significant person in the administration.
One can only hope your worldview isn't build from official statements of politicians. As for evidence, just like the famous 'UN-eavesdropping' scandal, most of it remains buried in top-secret documents. We have only witness statement claiming to have read the contents, and of course there's the fact these witnesses have been sentenced because of leaking sensitive information. Free speech does not include revealing state secrets of course.
Apart from that, it's no secret the offices and reporters of Al Jazeera have been target of repeated US harassment for years now, including administrative attacks on their website, which had to relocate many times.

Regardless, if you're at war we all know that all's fair in love and war, it would be foolish not to do something about that which is advantageous to the enemy, if such is the case. Far worse is done all the time in times of war.
That's why free speech always ends in wartime. And since we're supposed to be engaged in a 'war on terrorism', I think your argument could as well be used for the silencing of some hate speech of a Danish nutcase editor with a clear agenda. It only serves the enemy to turn the masses into a frenzy. And they did.
Have either of you spent much time in the USA?
You have to be an American to know one.
Experiences in that area enough. What is interesting, you give the same response one would get from a Christian defending her religion. Seriously, one must stop being whatever one thinks one is, before knowing oneself is even possible.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:41 pm

Experiences in that area enough. What is interesting, you give the same response one would get from a Christian defending her religion. Seriously, one must stop being whatever one thinks one is, before knowing oneself is even possible.
What about the old QRS adage that it takes a genius to know one?

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:23 am

If genius is defined as the understanding of Ultimate Reality - Absolute Truths such as “all things are caused/lack inherent existence” - then we can see that, for one, a genius does not define himself by geographical borders and the objects and subjects therein compared to the objects and subjects “thereout.”

What more is there to be understood about an “American”? Everything else can be deduced about one from there.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:08 pm

Diebert wrote:
But at the core of each Western value you'll find nihilism and some decadent, feminine manifestations. It's hard to see when growing up in it and being part of it. But it's appeal is currently spreading that fast that soon we cannot use the term 'Western' anymore, just as we had to let go of 'Christendom' to name this type of civilisation.
I agree with you that Western culture is very Feminine; making it shallow and petty. In valuing it over many other cultures, I do so because I value the individual. I value the individual, because I value Truth - and Truth can be known only by the true individual. The chances of an individual arising in other more rigid cultures, is very small. For example: this forum is an example of Western culture's flexibility – even though the feminine rules – masculinity can still find places to express itself. Muslim culture, being profoundly feminine, could not allow such an ‘affront’.

The two cultures do not differ greatly, but where they do – there is an abyss dividing them. Below I’ve noted those differences.

Western culture:
(i)As young children, we believe our mother to be godlike; providing eternal happiness and ultimate protection. Girls grow to become women who embody that same impression. Boys must grow to become men, but wishing to relive those early experiences of comfort and joy, they latch onto women. Both sexes are locked into a relationship with the feminine – most stay in that relationship their entire lives.

(ii)Women influence every aspect of Western culture. They don’t do it by direct means; instead, their passivity presses men into ensuring that any desire woman may have, is made available to them. Since woman is unconscious, and has no internal structure binding her, she is constantly changing – as do her desires. Men, therefore, have to be highly adaptable to keep up with all her whims.

(iii)Men in the West retain a small degree of masculinity, but only because women desire their men to have a dash of it -- just to keep the two sexes from completely becoming one. Every so often, a man may arise and use his masculinity to its full potential – and become a true individual.

Muslim Culture:
(i)The same as Western culture, except the young children are introduced to another ‘mother’ – Allah. They are taught that through obedience and submission to Allah, and revering his prophet Muhammad, they will receive supreme protection and eternal happiness. These two 'new' mums are offering the same thing as their real mum, so it is an easy assimilation. The only thing is, the mother that nursed them can be left behind as they mature; Allah is more 'clingy', and wants to be part of every aspect of their life.

(ii)Unlike their sisters in the West, who have their men continuously create new worlds for them; Muslim women have their men create the same world over and over again for them. This static world suits them, because there they are able to unconsciously flow in extreme passivity. Western women have grown used to being able to unconsciously flow in many directions, and still have their whims met. This forces their men to continuously push onwards and outwards, and to be adaptable to new ideas. Muslim men, held back by their women, must occupy themselves within the confines of Islam. Because Muslim women don’t require their men to be adaptable, masculinity is hardly needed. The little the men do possess, gets used up by their cult. This explains why the two sexes are kept mostly separate - being so psychologically alike, if they were more integrated they wouldn’t be experiencing the emotional pleasure that they do now.

(iii)Whether they know it or not, the Feminine is highly valued in Muslim culture. The traits that go hand in hand with cults like Islam, are those of the feminine; passivity, submission, obedience and unconsciousness. Like all women, Muslim men don’t want to become individuals; instead they want to remain non-entities, and stay with the mob. Islam gives them the opportunity of never having to face the prospect of becoming an individual, by threatening violence towards anyone with individualistic tendencies. So the chances of a man arising with a strong masculine desire for individuality, is very small indeed. There hasn’t been any Great Philosopher of note come from that culture, but that may be because anyone found speaking the truth about the insanity inherent in Islam, or the cancer that is the feminine, is now dead.

Sue

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:46 pm

By that analysis, Western culture seems more honestly feminine, which itself is masculine by not covering up the truth.

The Muslim world in contrast seems ultra-feminine, deviously feminine, with deviousness being the core trait of the feminine-minded (ref. Weininger's "organic mendacity" of women). The pain of the ultra femininity of the Islamic world is subsumed into a denial and converse promotion of it as masculine. Any act such as the cartoons which exposes its embedded femininity gets attacked for fear the whole facade may crumble.

It's the same way many extreme women in the West want to harshly eliminate things (including men) which don't serve them. In Islam, the women are the men, and they want to destroy all which attacks their "woman" of Islam and Mohammed.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

WOULD YOU TRUST WHICH WOMAN?

Post by Leyla Shen » Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:45 am

Of course, the assumption in your argument is that you are speaking factually about all Muslims when you refer to Islam. I wonder what images you see (or “see”) when you think of a Muslim. When you write of one. When you think of Islam. Where do they come from?

Was Kemal Ataturk (to take an historical figure) anti-Islam? He unveiled the women, yet remained a Muslim. He educated the public, yet remained a Muslim. He “modernized” Turkey, in direct and violent opposition with (some of) his “brothers” (as well as the allied forces), yet remained a Muslim. (Granted, he is not considered a Great Philosopher but he made some significant changes.)

Even the adoption of an anti-Islam position against totalitarianism (that is, in defence of ideas such as individuality and, as a precursor, democracy) itself smacks of thought thick with totalitarian roots.

You, in referring to this society as feminine and therefore anti-thought, are anti-Western based on the more sweeping, underlying logic of your piece above. What exactly is your anti-Islamic discourse worth to it, the West (since I can assume from all of this that you are not talking to men)?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:56 am

sue hindmarsh wrote: I agree with you that Western culture is very Feminine; making it shallow and petty. In valuing it over many other cultures, I do so because I value the individual. I value the individual, because I value Truth - and Truth can be known only by the true individual.
No, I think you value it mainly because it's ultimately the group you belong to that does speak out and which has to be valued over any other group. The true individual from which you speak has no problem arising anywhere it needs to arise. Actually all indications are that it could rise even more effectively in a more oppressive environment, thereby sharpening the masculinity of the individual.
(iii)Men in the West retain a small degree of masculinity, but only because women desire their men to have a dash of it -- just to keep the two sexes from completely becoming one.
All of humanity is grasping for that 'dash of masculinity', while at the same time demonizing it. The social world is a woman. So what? This is all way beyond any Islam/Christianity or Muslim/West clash.
Muslim Culture:
(i)The same as Western culture, except the young children are introduced to another ‘mother’ – Allah. They are taught that through obedience and submission to Allah, and revering his prophet Muhammad, they will receive supreme protection and eternal happiness.

All we submit to can be called 'allah', 'god' or idol. Show me the difference with your Western individualist. At least Allah is still a more abstract concept that could be a stepping stone to a higher understanding and correct submission to Truth. A TV reality show or postmodern philosophy brings one even further away than Allah ever could.
Because Muslim women don’t require their men to be adaptable, masculinity is hardly needed. The little the men do possess, gets used up by their cult. This explains why the two sexes are kept mostly separate - being so psychologically alike, if they were more integrated they wouldn’t be experiencing the emotional pleasure that they do now.
Again you fail to demonstrate any real difference with the West, since you have argued before than men and women in general are almost equally feminine. What difference would the Muslim 'separation' then really cause? At least you could say they still have a healthy suspicion going. For what reason you think there's an 'emotional pleasure' created by their lack of integration?
There hasn’t been any Great Philosopher of note come from that culture, but that may be because anyone found speaking the truth about the insanity inherent in Islam, or the cancer that is the feminine, is now dead.
That is easily claimed but is it true though? We have to take into account the forces of anti-semitism (which always included rejection of Arab and Persian culture) over the centuries that have kept real interest into this subject to an absolute low. While it's no secret that without the exposure to the Islamic culture the West would never have crept out of the Middle Ages. Anyway, the West cannot really boast many Great Philosophers of late either. Last hundred years it seems like a void, in the age of the Great Individuality no less! And I don't count thinkers living in relative obscurity count since such people might live in the Muslim culture as well.

Quality philosophy in general had a better place in the Islam than it had in Christianity over the ages. Here's an overview. Now as for 'Great' philosophers, in the end it's up to the reader to decide what is Great and what is Small. But the genius of Islamic science and philosophy was one of the thriving forces of early Western civilization. If it wasn't for them the Greek wisdom would have probably been lost when the Roman empire fell.

Not that I expect you to read it all but you'd notice that philosophers like for example Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (13th century), ad-Din ash-Shiraz (17th century) and Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr (20th century) all have mastered the principles of causality and the Absolute, using much of the same reasoning thinkers like Quinn and Solway have used. The religious phrasings that make the texts harder to read is not more of a problem than they are in the writings of Spinoza or Kierkegaard. Many current Muslim philosophers are aware of the Western nihilism and reject it, not because they fear Western freedom and individuality in itself but because they can see the black hole to where mindless application of these leads to. The challenge is for them to look for new ways, using the abstract notions of Allah, to lead people to know divine Reality. I wish them all the best.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:30 am

Diebert - sound thoughts in a very worthwhile read.

Leunig publishes Holocaust cartoon
From: Agence France-Presse By Siavosh Ghazi in tehran
February 14, 2006

RENOWNED Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig has submitted the first entry in a controversial contest for cartoons of the Holocaust launched in Iran in a tit-for-tat move over the caricatures of the prophet Mohammed that have enraged Muslims worldwide.

"As a show of solidarity with the Muslim world, and an exercise in free speech, I would like to submit a cartoon to you on the theme of the Holocaust," Leunig was quoted as saying on Irancartoons.com, the website organising the competition with Iran's biggest selling newspaper Hamshahri, triggering outrage in the US and Germany in particular.
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already prompted international anger by dismissing the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

The first of the Melbourne-based Leunig's two cartoons on the website show a poor man with a Star of David on his back walking towards the Auschwitz death camp in 1945 with the words "Work Brings Freedom" over the entrance.

The second shows the same scene but depicting "Israel 2002" with the slogan "War Brings Peace" over the entrance and the same man walking towards it bearing a rifle.

"I have had some difficulty getting this work published in my own country, and I believe it would help highlight the hypocrisy of the West's attitude to free speech if you were to publish it," Leunig was quoted as saying.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Cartoons

Post by DHodges » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:04 am

Someone on the news was saying that depicting Mohammed is NOT forbidden by the Koran.

Is that true?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:24 am

Avidaloca, interesting update. I do wonder what will happen when the cartoons will be spread online through the blog culture etc.

DHodges, it's a bit of a complicated thing. The Koran certainly doesn't forbid it specifically. What it does condemn, just like the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments, is displaying living things because of the danger of worship of the image as idol. This is why lots of traditional Muslim art looks quite abstract: patterns, curly stuff and so on.

The various Muslim traditions vary a bit on this subject. But depicting Allah, Mohammed or any other prophet (including Jesus!) is prohibited in the Hadith, a collection of writings used by many Muslims as an authoritative addendum.

Personaly I don't see what it has to do with the cartoons themselves, since it was not created by a Muslim or for Muslims. But perhaps it fueled the feeling of being offended or something, when they were spread around the hyperlinked world.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:06 pm

Diebert wrote:
No, I think you value it mainly because it's ultimately the group you belong to that does speak out and which has to be valued over any other group. The true individual from which you speak has no problem arising anywhere it needs to arise. Actually all indications are that it could rise even more effectively in a more oppressive environment, thereby sharpening the masculinity of the individual.
People group together; it is our nature to do so. The individual, by definition, does not depend on any group. There are, of course, some circumstances that are more beneficial for his development; such as having the time and freedom to strengthen his mind. If he doesn't have that environment, he will find it much harder going.

Masculinity only survives in more open cultures because the feminine considers it ‘useable’ - but that can change very quickly. The West’s intensifying worship of the feminine could mean that anyone found openly lobbying for the continuance and advancement of the masculine mind - such as this forum does – will be stopped from pursuing its course.
All of humanity is grasping for that 'dash of masculinity', while at the same time demonizing it. The social world is a woman. So what? This is all way beyond any Islam/Christianity or Muslim/West clash.
No – the few humans left are fighting against the whole of society to preserve masculinity. The ‘dash’ left, mostly goes towards the development and furtherance of the feminine. “So what?” you ask – any “clash” between any peoples over religion, race, creed, money, love, land, or any other thing that takes their fancy, is totally irrational - being just another outpouring of the feminine. The only time a “clash” is acceptable, is when one form of irrationality is more destructive towards the survival of Truth than another – and, as I’ve already noted, having the time and freedom to think, is important for the development of an individual – so any culture that is able to provide such an environment is to be protected.
All we submit to can be called 'allah', 'god' or idol. Show me the difference with your Western individualist. At least Allah is still a more abstract concept that could be a stepping stone to a higher understanding and correct submission to Truth. A TV reality show or postmodern philosophy brings one even further away than Allah ever could.
Allah was not a true Great Man – he was in the right place at the right time; which is the usual story for the men, and women who have made their mark on history.

A true Great Man is timeless – depending neither on history or politics, nor fashion or trends – he understands the same Truth, no matter the era or circumstances he finds himself in.

“A TV reality show” and “postmodern philosophy” both show up the pettiness of Western culture, but they are not taken seriously by the whole of this culture. Only portions of our society take an interest in them, and out of them, only a few will dedicate their lives over to them completely.

A TV show, Allah, and academic philosophy are neither; good or bad, closer to, or further away from Reality than anything else in the universe. They could be useful tools in awakening the mind to an understanding of Reality; but then, it's hard to imagine a budding philosopher finding any of them inspiring for very long.
Again you fail to demonstrate any real difference with the West, since you have argued before than men and women in general are almost equally feminine. What difference would the Muslim 'separation' then really cause? At least you could say they still have a healthy suspicion going. For what reason you think there's an 'emotional pleasure' created by their lack of integration?
You remember the old saying, ‘opposites attract’ - only when there is that difference can men and women enjoy their conquering of, and submitting to, each other. If everyone is the same, the dynamics goes out the window. For example, have a look at how Western culture is dealing with a change in the dynamics happening right now:

Western men are now going to a lot more trouble over their appearance than they did a few decades ago. Cosmetics and skincare for men are starting to compete for shelf space alongside the women’s range. Men’s fashion; once pushed to the back corner of department stores; now are strategically placed up front to impact even greater sales. Men can find ‘advice’ in a plethora of men’s and women’s magazines, Sunday supplements and TV shows – all directed at making him; slimmer, fitter, smoother skinned, have shinier hair, whiter teeth, fresher breath, a better lover, fashionably dressed, a great cook, sexier smelling, a fantastic dad – all to make him a more acceptable male to females. And men are lapping this up and not just young single men who will try anything to ‘pull a chick’, but married men with children, and even single older men who are looking for a companion to see out their last decades with. All these guys are racing to become ‘better men’, because that is what it takes to get, and keep a woman these days.

And what are women doing now that they are getting a run for their money in the feminine stakes? They are being pushed to become even more feminine than they were before. Whereas a few decades ago women considered themselves worthy of the social and political change brought about by the feminist movement, they now hanker for the days of yore when men would treat a ‘lady’ like a precious jewel wrapped in the most delicate silk. And if you don’t believe me, take a look at what women are wearing these days, and at what they read and the films they go to.

* * *

Men and women from all cultures have the same dynamic happening - they just express it in different ways. The West can afford, both economically and psychologically, to allow its people the freedom to express themselves as they do; whereas the Muslim culture have to resort to easier and simpler options, such as keeping the sexes apart.
...you'd notice that philosophers like for example Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (13th century), ad-Din ash-Shiraz (17th century) and Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr (20th century) all have mastered the principles of causality and the Absolute, using much of the same reasoning... The religious phrasings that make the texts harder to read is not more of a problem than they are in the writings of Spinoza or Kierkegaard. Many current Muslim philosophers are aware of the Western nihilism and reject it, not because they fear Western freedom and individuality in itself but because they can see the black hole to where mindless application of these leads to. The challenge is for them to look for new ways, using the abstract notions of Allah, to lead people to know divine Reality. I wish them all the best.
Truth can be written in any language, but it will always say the same thing. It is extremely difficult for those who do not understand the Truth to distinguish what is true and what is false. Every now and then, someone may come up with something that sounds quite truthful, but if the rest of what he says is lies, you cannot consider him to be Wise. He's like a tiny drop of water surrounded by desert – no use to a man who thirsts for absolute certainty.

Men who lived their lives dedicated to their deep understanding of Truth, such as Kierkegaard, wrote with their future readers in mind - readers who would also understand the Truth.

Most people, from every culture, are caught in a cycle of life and death – making their lives, as well as their future lives a living hell. Because of this, I don’t “wish them the best” – I instead do my best to wipe from my own mind, and thereby all minds, the lies that keep Truth hidden.

Sue

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:46 pm

There is much I can write on this subject. I lived as Muslim for five years.

One of the first things I learned is that depiction of the prophet is forbidden. To depict him negatively in a cartoon form --well, you cannot do that and expect to live.

There are many rituals in Islam -- ablutions, for instance, before prayer.

The forbidding of depiction of the prophet seems like suppression of freedom to the west. That could be. Yet, freedom is not the same thing to a Pakistani as it is to an American.

I find this thing very hard to explain. I have heard it called a taboo. It is not taboo to draw a cartoon of the prophet. It is a profane act -- nearly comparable to taking a baby by his legs and slitting his throat in public. Most Americans would be appalled by such a thing. It is hard for westerners to imagine how this act could be comparable to an unfavorable depiction of the prophet of Islam. But it is like that. The cartoons in the European press cause that sort of pain in Muslims. Imagine if a Pakistani newspaper brought out an American baby -- blonde and fat and chortling -- and cut his throat in public. Imagine the reaction and uproar. Perhaps, Americans and others would bomb Pakistani embassies and fight in the streets, so heinous the crime.

I realize the comparison will seem preposterous to westerners. One thing is a living, defenseless being and the other thing is merely ink on paper. But, to Muslims, the prophet is exactly as pure and defenseless and as vulnerable and as perfect as a newborn American baby.

It could be a good thing that this confrontation occurred; that it is now out in the open. It could be a good thing that will force Islam to deal with the modern world; to become more secular. It could be that more and more unfavorable depictions of the prophet may desensitize Islamists. It could be a good thing if the western press puts forth a deluge of nasty prophet pictures.

All those things could be favorable.

I just think that it is wise to realize that we are dealing with the possibility of nuclear dynamite.

I admit that it was refreshing to see hatred directed at the Danes rather than Americans for a while. Had it been Americans who had published the cartoons, all of Europe and Canada and Australia would have clucked at our ignorance and barbarism. But, since the Danes are culturally much more highly developed and civilized than Americans, there is sympathy for the Danes among first world citizens.

It is somewhat ironic that this offense was perpetrated by a country held in high esteem among Muslim countries rather than The Great Satan.

I don't think I have expressed the crux of the problem precisely but I hope I may have presented something of it.

Faizi

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:52 pm

Sue wrote:
“So what?” you ask – any “clash” between any peoples over religion, race, creed, money, love, land, or any other thing that takes their fancy, is totally irrational - being just another outpouring of the feminine. The only time a “clash” is acceptable, is when one form of irrationality is more destructive towards the survival of Truth than another – and, as I’ve already noted, having the time and freedom to think, is important for the development of an individual – so any culture that is able to provide such an environment is to be protected.
I see this as the height of political, egotistical and colossal historic ignorance.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that supporting, say, the US aggression in the Middle East is justified merely because of the assumption that the West offers a future environment more conducive to thought -- and its propagation -- than the Middle East will?

Obviously, you have no idea, for instance, that the widespread use of paper technology (and thus books, etc) was delivered to you in the 900s courtesy of those barbaric Muslims who had no hint of supporting any type of masculinity for any reason: the Ottoman Empire. Notably, the Chinese had been using it for several hundred years before that.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:21 pm

Tying in with the golf thread, it looks like the Chinese were ahead of the West in that as well.

China: We invented golf
From: From correspondents in Hong Kong
February 14, 2006
ANCIENT paintings allegedly proving the Chinese invented the game of golf 1000 years ago are to go on display in Hong Kong.

The pictures from the 13th and 14th centuries show Chinese noblemen hitting balls into holes with clubs that look remarkably similar to modern golf clubs.
The paintings will go on display in an exhibition titled Ancient Chinese Pastimes in Hong Kong's Heritage Museum from March to June, the South China Morning Post reported.

Golf is widely believed to have been invented by the Scots in the 15th century but some Chinese historians argue that the game was being played in China by the year 945.

They point to evidence of a game called "chuiwan" - "chui" meaning to hit and "wan" meaning ball - and say the game was taken to Europe by Mongolian travellers.

Chief curator of the Hong Kong museum Tom Ming said: "The game shown in these drawings is very similar to modern day golf. (This is) very strong evidence that we invented the game."

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:22 pm

MKFaizi wrote:One of the first things I learned is that depiction of the prophet is forbidden. To depict him negatively in a cartoon form --well, you cannot do that and expect to live.


Imagine if Mohammed himself drew a self-mocking cartoon of himself. The Muslims would then have to kill Mohammed.
But, to Muslims, the prophet is exactly as pure and defenseless and as vulnerable and as perfect as a newborn American baby.
That's the problem. What kind of a religion worships a defenseless baby?

In Buddhism no thought is ever given to the Buddha being mocked. You could depict the Buddha doing all kinds of profane things, and I think the only reaction it would get from Buddhists would be either mild curiosity, or no interest whatsoever. Not that Buddhist are wise at all - but the religion is possibly a little more mature than the current incarnation of Islam.
It could be a good thing if the western press puts forth a deluge of nasty prophet pictures.


I think this is likely. Or at least, it will happen on the internet, since the press might feel physically threatened as they are an easy target.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:08 am

Leyla I see this as the height of political, egotistical and colossal historic ignorance. Are you honestly trying to tell me that supporting, say, the US aggression in the Middle East is justified merely because of the assumption that the West offers a future environment more conducive to thought -- and its propagation -- than the Middle East will?

What is your problem with this? That is exactly why I feel disgust for the Middle East atm. Their religion does not allow rationality to gather any momentum, to gain any foothold. It does not allow people to think freely.

Obviously, you have no idea, for instance, that the widespread use of paper technology (and thus books, etc) was delivered to you in the 900s courtesy of those barbaric Muslims who had no hint of supporting any type of masculinity for any reason: the Ottoman Empire. Notably, the Chinese had been using it for several hundred years before that.

To me this comment has zero relevance. Ask yourself what has been holding back the Muslims since the 900’s – only two centuries after the goose Muhammad made his viewpoints the spiritual law. It is more than the decline in their environment due to inappropriate farming, albeit that that is big factor.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:11 pm

What is your problem with this? That is exactly why I feel disgust for the Middle East atm. Their religion does not allow rationality to gather any momentum, to gain any foothold. It does not allow people to think freely.
That, James, is not your problem.

Since when is an expression of what I think "not allowing" someone else to think what they think?

Give me a break, dickhead.
To me this comment has zero relevance.


Frankly, I don't give a fuck what you "think" since it amounts to "not allowing" me to think freely.

There we go, problem solved.

Post Reply