01-12-2015, 03:52 AM
Thanks for answering, Mo.
I didn't realize that you hadn't been in the west for nearly 30 years. I understand how that would limit your ability to imagine how an attack by two sets of terrorists -- one with alleged links to AQAP and the other IS -- might affect Muslims living in western societies.
It's hard for me to follow your train of thought though, in terms of "us" and "them" and which, if either, you consider yourself.
I do, however, clearly understand and agree with your assertion that you can't choose to live in in Yemen (which I assume is what you now refer to as "home") and expect Yemenis to adhere to the customs or rights you would have known in Hungary or Germany. Nor can you run through the streets in Village People style without expecting negative repercussions. When in Rome...
But, while I respect your current positions as best I understand them, I am confused as to why you very strongly and passionately suggested early in this thread that western press should refrain from depicting Muhammad whilst mocking Islam (because, I presume, depiction of the prophet is prohibited in Islam and therefore provocative and deeply insulting to Muslims).
What you're saying now and what you said then don't reconcile for me because religious and political satire is indeed a right and custom for citizens of democratic western societies. It reads to me as if your strong and passionate suggestion upthread regarding how western media should self-censor was selfishly motivated, in that such satire might have inconvenient or negative impacts to those of you western-born individuals who have chosen to live and assimilate in Islamic countries, or that such satire might offend your Muslim friends.
Suggesting that freedom of the western press should conform to Muslim sensitives for such reasons is less logical than you running through the streets of Yemen like one of the Village People, IMO. It's more like suggesting that the Village People, whilst performing in NYC, should put their damned shirts on, lose the leather chaps and tight jeans, and pretend to be straight so as not to offend those in predominantly Islamic countries.
Anyway, for me, freedom of religion is important and I like the cultural, racial, and religious diversity found in major western cities. Unless you view violence and/or murder to be righteous or acceptable responses to real or perceived religious insults, I'm not gonna have a problem with you going through the legal motions and putting down roots in my neck of woods -- worship as you please.
Which leads to what appears to me to be the big questions for many non-Muslims: do all/most devout Muslims really believe that violence and death are justifiable responses to real or perceived insults to the prophet, or do only extremist Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists support that interpretation of the Quran in present day? And, what's the ratio of Muslims who believe it's righteous to avenge the prophet by any and all means vs. Muslims who subscribe to the belief that the Quran prohibits violence against anyone who isn't posing an immediate physical threat?
Interesting times...
I didn't realize that you hadn't been in the west for nearly 30 years. I understand how that would limit your ability to imagine how an attack by two sets of terrorists -- one with alleged links to AQAP and the other IS -- might affect Muslims living in western societies.
It's hard for me to follow your train of thought though, in terms of "us" and "them" and which, if either, you consider yourself.
I do, however, clearly understand and agree with your assertion that you can't choose to live in in Yemen (which I assume is what you now refer to as "home") and expect Yemenis to adhere to the customs or rights you would have known in Hungary or Germany. Nor can you run through the streets in Village People style without expecting negative repercussions. When in Rome...
But, while I respect your current positions as best I understand them, I am confused as to why you very strongly and passionately suggested early in this thread that western press should refrain from depicting Muhammad whilst mocking Islam (because, I presume, depiction of the prophet is prohibited in Islam and therefore provocative and deeply insulting to Muslims).
What you're saying now and what you said then don't reconcile for me because religious and political satire is indeed a right and custom for citizens of democratic western societies. It reads to me as if your strong and passionate suggestion upthread regarding how western media should self-censor was selfishly motivated, in that such satire might have inconvenient or negative impacts to those of you western-born individuals who have chosen to live and assimilate in Islamic countries, or that such satire might offend your Muslim friends.
Suggesting that freedom of the western press should conform to Muslim sensitives for such reasons is less logical than you running through the streets of Yemen like one of the Village People, IMO. It's more like suggesting that the Village People, whilst performing in NYC, should put their damned shirts on, lose the leather chaps and tight jeans, and pretend to be straight so as not to offend those in predominantly Islamic countries.
Anyway, for me, freedom of religion is important and I like the cultural, racial, and religious diversity found in major western cities. Unless you view violence and/or murder to be righteous or acceptable responses to real or perceived religious insults, I'm not gonna have a problem with you going through the legal motions and putting down roots in my neck of woods -- worship as you please.
Which leads to what appears to me to be the big questions for many non-Muslims: do all/most devout Muslims really believe that violence and death are justifiable responses to real or perceived insults to the prophet, or do only extremist Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists support that interpretation of the Quran in present day? And, what's the ratio of Muslims who believe it's righteous to avenge the prophet by any and all means vs. Muslims who subscribe to the belief that the Quran prohibits violence against anyone who isn't posing an immediate physical threat?
Interesting times...