Muslims React To Garland Shooting With Strong Condemnation Of Violence

[edhopper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/04/muslims-react-garland-shooting_n_7204816.html

Glad to see this.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, spoke out in a statement.

"We condemn yesterday's attack on an anti-Islam event in Garland, Texas, without reservation," the organization declared in a statement. "We also reiterate our view that violence in response to anti-Islam programs like the one in Garland is more insulting to our faith than any cartoon, however defamatory. Bigoted speech can never be an excuse for violence."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Makes a great point that the program that instigated these crimes is far more of an

insult to their faith than any cartoon.

[cbayer]

2. Really well said.

[cbayer]

3. I am also very glad to see this.

[beam me up scottie]

4. "hosting the Draw Muhammad contest was Pamela Geller's right."

As part of the "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest" organized by the group on Sunday, the organization offered $10,000 to the best depiction of the Prophet in a "Draw Muhammad" contest.

Alia Salem, the director of the Dallas/Forth Worth chapter of CAIR said that hosting the Draw Muhammad contest was Pamela Geller's right.

"We should have free speech, and nobody’s stopping her from doing this, go ahead, maybe there’ll be some Muslims entering this, who knows," Salem told CBS.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Something more than few seem to not understand.

Stating that fact doesn't mean one is lending support, condoning, or finding acceptable the holding of the contest or its message.

[skepticscott]

9. Very true...some posters here have stated very plainly

that acknowledging the free speech rights of Geller and her group amounts to supporting them and "cheering" them on. Which is a hateful and deeply misguided message, to say the least.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196166

[edhopper]

15. I believe the term is

'embracing'.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Thank Darwnin SOMEONE involved in this broughaha understands Free Speech.

Well done.

[Yorktown]

5. it proves lots of muslims are good people. But their declaration is at odds with the canon

Blasphemy includes caricatures

Blasphemy against holy personages
* speaking ill of Allah.[16]
* finding fault with Muhammad.[17][18][19][20][21] Salafi scholar Muhammad Al-Munajjid indicates that the Islamic concept of Gheerah requires that Muslims protect the Prophet Mohammed from blasphemy.

The sentence is generally death:

Punishment by different Islamic schools of jurisprudence[edit]
The Quran does not explicitly mention any worldly punishment for blasphemy (sabb allah or sabb al-rasul), as it does for apostasy (riddah). Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[2][3][89]

Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. .. If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc.).[6][91]
Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, .. A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[94]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.[95][96]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.
Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[99] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[100]

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Most people are better than their religions, if they weren't, pluralistic societies wouldn't...

exist, yet they do, and successfully.

[Yorktown]

8. Yup. Agree 99%.

Some religions don't do much harm. I'll have to look what those Jains say.

Those, plus my Holy Church of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster.

(May the tomato sauce be upon it)

[skepticscott]

19. Those posters here who constantly preach

what a wonderful thing religion is for society would do well to imagine what society would be like if religious adherents all did everything their religion dictated.

[cbayer]

10. Being at "odds with the canon" is a good thing in this case.

Are you judging them?

[Yorktown]

11. What a silly question

I indirectly said they were good people.

But they do not live up to the fact their position is at odds with the doctrines of Islam. As I proved with my quotes.

And you carefully sidestep that point so as not to question your belief all religions hold a spark of truth.

Like I said, you are on Karen Armstrong's line of thinking. Not a compliment.

[cbayer]

12. They fully live up to the fact that their position is their honest interpretation of the

doctrines of Islam.

You don't get to decide which interpretation is right and you have proven nothing.

I don't hold a belief that all religions hold a spark of truth. You have made that up.

Karen Armstrong is an unknown to me. You comparing me to her means absolutely nothing.

[trotsky]

14. "You don't get to decide which interpretation is right and you have proven nothing."

Wow, just wow.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Well, trotsky. They finally agree with us.

Our work here is done.

[trotsky]

22. Ha! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

55. Wow! Wow! Wow! Just Wow!!!!!

Wowee!!! Done proven the Wow!!!!!

[cleanhippie]

16. "You don't get to decide which interpretation is right". The who does, cbayer, you?

YOU don't get to decide who gets to interpret their faith.


Except when you do, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. .

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Also, it took me about 2 minutes to find this, and there are probably better examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121857836#post92

I guess Truth is a moveable feast.

[cleanhippie]

26. Consistency is not a strong suit.

But hypocrisy certainly is.

[Yorktown]

33. You obviously do not bother to read what people post

You'd rather keep your cherished beliefs about the world, religions and people unchanged.

You prove you have not read/understood what I posted when you write

They fully live up to the fact that their position is their honest interpretation of the doctrines of Islam.
You don't get to decide which interpretation is right and you have proven nothing.

You make a confusion between how lay people live/interpret their religion,
and what the official canon of their religion is

You also make a malicious attempt to suggest I would be the person deciding "which interpretation is right". That's where I can confidently said you did not read/understand what I posted. What I posted twice, and a third time below now, is the official interpretation by the ulemas of the five leading schools of muslim faith which, taken together, represent the great majority of muslim believers.

You also show your ignorance of Islam. This islamic jurisprudence is the third source of Islamic law. By order of precedence, it is:
1- the Quran
2- the Sunnah (hadiths)
3- the Ijma (translation = consensus)
What is posted below are the 5 main schools of Ijam

The sentence is generally death:

Punishment by different Islamic schools of jurisprudence[edit]
The Quran does not explicitly mention any worldly punishment for blasphemy (sabb allah or sabb al-rasul), as it does for apostasy (riddah). Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) of Sunni and Shia madhabs have declared different punishments for the religious crime of blasphemy, and they vary between schools. These are as follows:[2][3][89]

Hanafi – views blasphemy as synonymous with apostasy, and therefore, accepts the repentance of apostates. .. If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc.).[6][91]
Maliki – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy for Muslim men, .. A non-Muslim who commits blasphemy against Islam must be punished; however, the blasphemer can escape punishment by converting and becoming a devout Muslim.[94]
Hanbali – view blasphemy as an offense distinct from, and more severe than apostasy. Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women, and repentance is not accepted.[95][96]
Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is death.
Ja'fari (Shia) – views blasphemy against Islam, the Prophet, or any of the Imams, to be punishable with death, if the blasphemer is a Muslim.[99] In case the blasphemer is a non-Muslim, he is given a chance to convert to Islam, or else killed.[100]

That's why I would like you to avoid using ad hominems like this one:

You don't get to decide which interpretation is right and you have proven nothing.

when what I brought was the proof as defined in the Islamic religion.


PS: since religion in general interest you, may I suggest you learn about them?

Talking about Islam without knowing the levels of jurisprudence is not very serious.
Have you ever read the Quran without skipping any ayah?

[cbayer]

34. No, see, I did read your uncited wiki links and responded directly to them elsewhere.

They are not part of the Islamic Canon (something which I'm not sure you can even define).

I don't claim to be any kind of religious scholar and particularly not an islamic scholar. But you posted (again with citation) stuff from wikipedia that
1) listed reasons individuals had been charged with blasphemy
2) stated clearly that the Quaran has no position on earthly punishments for blasphemy
3) listed the punishments enacted by various sects.

None of this is Islamic canon, unless wikipedia is included in there somewhere.

I don't think the statement from the OP violated Islamic Canon in any whatsoever and I don't think anything you have presented backs up that claim.

Saying "you have proven nothing" is not an ad hominem. On the other hand, saying "you would rather keep your cherished beliefs" is, because it addresses my character.

I've never read the Quran at all, but I do know that it doesn't address the earthly consequences of blasphemy and I do not think the statement made in this OP are inconsistent with the general tenants of Islam.

[Yorktown]

38. Again, you prove you do not read what people post

I am answering to your post numbered #34 above

They are not part of the Islamic Canon (something which I'm not sure you can even define).

This sentence is problematic, to be polite. Some stronger words come to mind.

In my post #33 just above, I defined for you the Islamic sources of jusiprudence
Quote:

This islamic jurisprudence is the third source of Islamic law. By order of precedence, it is:
1- the Quran
2- the Sunnah (hadiths)
3- the Ijma (translation = consensus)
What is posted below are the 5 main schools of Ijam

As for the fact I did not bother to mention it was wiki, the numbers in brackets were an obvious indication. But if you insist on it, I'll make a point to give references to my quotes.


But I am troubled: how can someone who seems to be interested by religion have not read the Quran. In essence, you're talking of what you don't know?

[cbayer]

39. Oh, please don't worry your precious little head about my not having read the Quaran.

As I said elsewhere, I'm interested in religion as a political issue. I really don't care about religions themselves so much.

I responded to your post because I think demands for strict interpretation of religious texts is a political issue and used to put people in boxes instead of accepting that they are making a political statement based on their beliefs, and a positive one at that.

I recognize that there is tremendous diversity among those that have religious beliefs, even if they use the same labels.

I object to strict fundamentalist and literalist interpretations that seem to say that these people can't really be muslims because their views are not consistent with some strict interpretation of Islamic canon (a term I have yet to see defined).

So, lose all your cares and troubles. I'm not going to read a single thing that you have advised me to and I am still going to discuss religion… a lot.

[Yorktown]

41. LOL what religious books have you read up to know?

Just curious.

I just want to learn what religions exactly you have some knowledge of?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Pretty sure you're already on her ignore list.

She's read the bible, badly. Thinks Noah's Ark is a beautiful story, despite the planet-wide genocide thing. Pretty sure your question won't be answered. Certainly not honestly.

[Yorktown]

49. Noah's Ark story is how I became an atheist at age 8.

But I want to respect everybody's belief in a spirit of inclusiveness.

After all, isn't the world of religion a wonderful one of shades of grey?

So if god is a genocidal maniac, why not respect what he decreed?

[cbayer]

48. Oh, I had periods in my life when I read many.

Some spoke to me, others not.

I'm not a religious scholar and have zero interest in becoming one. Those discussions bore me to death.

[Yorktown]

50. There is a middle ground between expert and ignorant

How can you discuss a subject you have not read about?

How can you discuss Islam if you haven't read the Quran (or a summary of its edicts)?

[cbayer]

52. I'm not ignorant and you are not expert.

We both occupy some middle ground.

I don't generally discuss the tenets of any religions. I don't generally discuss Islam. I discuss populations and politics and where things intersect.

Do you consider yourself an expert? A scholar? Why do you think you get to determine who's qualified or not to render an opinion on any given subject.

You tried to sound all authoritarian about what Islam "canon" said or didn't say. I looked up your sources and found them lacking and not able to substantiate your position in any way.

I may not be a religious scholar, but I know how to analyze information, and that's exactly what I did.

But all that aside, why does it even matter if this groups position is consistent with the position of other groups that also fall under the label of Muslim? Why did you even say it? What was your point?

[Yorktown]

53. with all due respect, you stated you are an ignorant of Islam

Ask any honest muslim, they will be unanimous to say you do not know what Islam means if you have not read the Quran.

But take comfort in the fact you are not alone: hundreds of millions of muslims in the world are illiterate and have never read the Quran either.

That's one of the reasons why Islam doesn't lose more believers. Because they just don't know what's in it.

PS: the following sentence is remarkably delusional:

You tried to sound all authoritarian about what Islam "canon" said or didn't say. I looked up your sources and found them lacking

I did not 'try' to 'sound authoritarian', I limited myself to quoting the different Ijmas on blasphemy. When you venture that 'looked up your sources and found them lacking', you are just saying you do not understand what Ijma is.

Please read about it, wiki article on 'the sources of Sharia"
fyi, Sharia = Islamic Law, so yes, it's the sources of jurisprudence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_sharia

[cbayer]

23. I finally got the chance to take a closer look at your wiki references here.

Your first excerpt is from a wiki list of examples of reasons people have been charged with blasphemy. In addition it includes:

naming a teddy bear Muhammad (Sudan).

It has nothing to do with The Canon. Actually, now that you brought that up, what is Islamic Canon? Does it include wikipedia?

Your second excerpt is from the same wiki page. This is the most important part, imo.

The Quran does not explicitly mention any worldly punishment for blasphemy

The rest are punishments that have been put in place by various sects and have nothing to do with The Canon.

I know you have not claimed to be an Islamic scholar, but your position that the statement expressed by the muslims in the OP are at odds with the canon is false.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. They are specified in Hadith's, which are analogous to the four gospel's claims of what Jesus said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

[Yorktown]

42. A (mild) correction

I was referring to the Ijma here.

The Ijmas being to the Quran+Sunnah what the Talmud is to the Torah.

A body of interpretation which ends up being the real deal in practical terms.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Yeah, i got you. And I agree.

If one didn't accept that, the bible would be pretty weird held to the same standard.

[samsingh]

28. they are not false in Afganistan and pakistan where people are routinely stoned to death

for any hint of blasphemy.

[cbayer]

32. That may be true, but that is not what the member said.

[Yorktown]

35. With all due respect, you are ignorant of Islam

You write

your position that the statement expressed by the muslims in the OP are at odds with the canon is false.

This statement is false and proves you are ignorant of what constitutes the sources of the Shariah.

The sources of jurisprudence, buy order of precedence are:
1- the Quran
2- the Sunnah (hadiths)
3= the Ijma (translation=consensus)

What I posted are the 5 main schools of Ijma = official sources of muslim canon.
That's why the Shariah is built by these very Ijmas.


If religions interest you, may I suggest you learn about them first?

[cbayer]

36. What is the definition of muslim canon?

The intersection of religion and politics interests me. Religions themselves, not so much.

I support the statement made by the group in the OP. I have seen them made before and I believe this is a valid position and interpretation.

If it's important for you to say that it's not entirely consistent with some yet to be defined canon, so be it. You probably think that pro-GLBT rights advocates who are christians are also not in line with their canon. That is what literalism and fundamentalism is all about.

Most of the world is grey when it comes to their religion.

[Yorktown]

40. You posted a few problematic statements here. (#36)

1- Definition of the muslim canon: see my post #38

2- I love that sentence of yours:

The intersection of religion and politics interests me. Religions themselves, not so much.

You state you are interested by the intersection of A (politics) and B (religion)
In Boolean logic, AπB (I took pi for intersect, I don't have the exact symbol)
But you also state you are not so much interested in B, religion.

Math question: how can you know what is in AπB if yu do not know what B is?

3- you write

I support the statement made by the group in the OP. I have seen them made before and I believe this is a valid position and interpretation.

In logical terms, what does it even mean?

You can't support a statement of fact. The fact is Texas muslims dissociated themselves from the killing. It's a fact which stays a fact regardless of the support of such or such individual. You might support the reinterpretation of Islam it represents (as stated here, I would too), but it still strays from the official current muslim jurisprudence.

4- Finally you write that gem:

Most of the world is grey when it comes to their religion.

That is your belief, one that you made up.

Ask the Vatican if their encyclicae are for the birds? Ask the al Azhar clerics if their Ijma is to be regarded as indicative only.

For the men in power in the religious organizations, the world is not shades of grey.

And they are calling the shots of canon (pun intended), not you.

[cbayer]

46. So Muslim canon is Islamic jurisprudence?

So I guess your statement that the statement conflicts with some (but not all) Islamic jurisprudence is technically correct?

I like the topic of religion in a very broad sense. I like the interplay between believers and non-believers, between believers and other believers, between non-believers and other non-believers. I like the interplay between religion and the state. None of this requires me to be a religious scholar. As I have said often and for a long time, I don't' really care what you believe or what religion you embrace or don't' embrace. I care about how you act on it.

BTW, that's not a math question. It's not even a logic question. You have defined religion in a way that is different than my definition in this context, so your "equation" is totally illogical.

Texas muslims should dissociate themselves from the killings. They bear no responsibility. Christians should dissociate themselves from Pamela Geller. They bear no responsibility.

The Vatican is not most of the catholic world. The members of the RCC are and the data confirms that they have deep divisions with the doctrine.

ISIS is not most of the Muslim world. Those who identity as muslim are and the data confirms that they have deep division with the doctrine held by ISIS.

I agree that for those in power, the world is generally not shades of grey. But they aren't most of the world.

They can call the shots all they want, but if people don't embrace it, it's meaningless.

[Yorktown]

54. I see you are not bound by logic or syntax

It does make debating more tricky.

If you say some questions are "not even a logic question", then anything goes.
If logic doesn't apply to reasoning, then we might all as well say what we want no matter what.
Which is what you do quite often

As for syntax ("So Muslim canon is Islamic jurisprudence?&quot , you could have wanted to play on the different levels of the word canon, but I suspect you do not use your words with enough precision for that.

The original meaning of canon was the sacred books, here the Quran (in theory, it would also include the Torah, Zabur and Injil, but that's a joke because they all were 'corrupted').

But the practical sense of canon is the regulation or dogma decreed by a church council, the provisions of canon law (Merriam Webster), so, yes, the jurisprudence = the Ijma

In practical muslim terms, the jurisprudence is called the Shariah (literally, the Law) and its sources -as I have posted about 5 times by now- are the Quran+Sunnah+Ijma
as explained in the wiki article "souurces of the Shariah)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_sharia

[trotsky]

13. "Bigoted speech can never be an excuse for violence."

I wish more DUers understood that. Hats off to CAIR.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. she was asking for it and don't you dare compare that to rape victims because words. nt.

[nil desperandum]

24. CAIR

the un-indicted co-conspirators of the US versus Holy Land Foundation et al....

Even the FBI wasn't able to follow the policy of avoiding non-investigative contacts with this Hamas linked organization...

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2013/e0707r-summary.pdf



They might be right in their condemnation, but I suspect their sincerity is perhaps less than honest.

[Yorktown]

43. CAIR is a sock puppet of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terrorist organization by a few countries.

Better still, the Muslim Brotherhood is the spiritual source of the Hamas, an organization which has been declared a terrorist organization by a lot of countries.

Note to cbayer: to people like CAIR, religion is not shades of grey.
It's their way (Quran, Sunnah, Ijma) or the highway.

[samsingh]

27. the troubling part is: We also reiterate our view that violence in response to anti-Islam programs

in the same breath they are condemning free speech. their view is to tell people to tolerate it - not accept it. This is double-speak, and will not quelch the more rapid members of the group.

if this is the most tolerant response from the community, there is much to fear.

[edhopper]

29. You misread that

"We also reiterate our view that violence in response to anti-Islam programs like the one in Garland is more insulting to our faith than any cartoon, however defamatory. Bigoted speech can never be an excuse for violence."

This is unequivocally against violence in the name of Islam.

And tolerating offensive speech is fine. Tolerate and response with speech is appropriate.

Why should they accept offensive speech, I don't accept what the Republicans say, I barely tolerate it.

[samsingh]

30. hopefully you or people you know are not unbalanced enough to become suicide bombers.

[edhopper]

31. not sure what that means

[Yorktown]

44. Bingo. Spot on. nt.

[AuntPatsy]

51. k & R