Everybody read Hamza Kashgari Day; this Monday, May 20

Since May 20, 2010, an annual protest has asked freedom-loving people to draw pictures of Mohammed. One person who was supposed to have benefitted from the 2012 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was Hamza Kashgari, a writer being held in a Saudi prison for tweeting ordinary and civilly experessed reflections on his relationship with Mohammed.

Kashgari is still in jail, awaiting trial. So, this year, maybe we ought to consider a different form of protest: reading what Kashgari wrote, which is

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

There are several points of discussion. Non-Mulsims might comment on whether this an effective form of protest, both as a reminder of the simple freedoms that can so easily be lost to pressure groups.

With our prolific Muslim members, I'd like to open a dialog about the verses themselves.

What’s wrong with any of these ideas, within a faithful Islamic framework?

Isn’t Mohammed a human being according to the Islamic faith?

Wouldn’t acquiescing in placing a “halo of divinity” around Mohammed be a serious lapse?

Isn’t bowing to a man for religious reasons idolatry?

These questions, and some discussion of the issues appear at

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

reply to post by eight bits


Never heard of this guy.... just did some basic wiki research now.

On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you've always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

Isn’t Mohammed a human being according to the Islamic faith?

Yes. He never claimed otherwise.

Wouldn’t acquiescing in placing a “halo of divinity” around Mohammed be a serious lapse?

Actually Hamza is mistaken when he speaks of the "halos of divinity" around Mohammad.
Mohammad never claimed any such thing, nor did any of his followers ascribe any kind of divinity to Mohammad. So Hamza is wrong on this one.

Isn’t bowing to a man for religious reasons idolatry?

Islam does not allow for bowing to a man in worship... of the kind reserved for God. So I don't think he was arrested for refusing to worship Mohammad... no Muslim is expected to worship Mohammad.
Rather, I think it was his second tweet, where he said he "hated" certain aspects of Mohammad that got him into trouble.

Also, Mohammad himself is known to have forgiven his enemies, some of whom wanted him dead. Its not a stretch to assume that Mohammad would forgive Hamza IF he had insulted him.

So I think they are overreacting to Hamzas tweets.

Scorpie

Rather, I think it was his second tweet, where he said he "hated" certain aspects of Mohammad that got him into trouble.

I agree that that's as close as I could get to something that might offend anybody in Kashgari's remarks, but I still can't get anything offensive from the sentence in which the remark appeared. To my mind, "loved parts, hated parts, and didn't understand parts" might apply to any historical figure at all.

Is there a prohibition against making any measured comment at all about Mohammed? Are there rules or guidelines about what can and can't be said by faithful followers?

reply to post by eight bits

To my mind, "loved parts, hated parts, and didn't understand parts" might apply to any historical figure at all.

Well, yes. But Mohammad would be more than just a historical figure to muslims... who revere him as a prophet of God.

Is there a prohibition against making any measured comment at all about Mohammed?

"Measured comments" can mean anything.... and in many cases end up being taken the wrong way.
For example, being Jewish and declaring "I love some aspects of Hitler, hate others and could not understand many more". Even though it was established that some aspects of Hitler was hated, the previous statement that some aspects were loved would not sit well with the Jews. Similarly, even though Hamza made it clear that he loved some aspects of Mohammad, his statement about hating some aspects of Mohammad would not have sat well with the Muslims, who had him arrested.

Associating "love" with someone who Jews believe should be hated is the same as associating "hate" with someone Muslims believe should be loved.

Are there rules or guidelines about what can and can't be said by faithful followers?

Muslims are expected to revere the prophets. Mohammad obviously gets special "attention" because he was, after all the one who established their religion. To the muslims in that part of the world, he would be as one of their own.

Regarding what can and can't be said, for the sake of personal well being, its better to keep silent than say anything negative.

Scorpie

Thank you for getting back to this. I really am trying to understand, rather than to present a position. (Beyond the obvious, that I favor the release of Kashgari.)

Well, yes. But Mohammad would be more than just a historical figure to muslims... who revere him as a prophet of God.

OK, but look at Moses or Abraham, who are revered for the same reason as Mohammed. Many devout Christians and Jews might say of these Old Testament or Jewish Bible prophets' lives that they "love some parts, hate others, and there are many more parts they don't understand." Even Christians and Jews who had different opinions might still realize that somebody else might think Moses was too violent (say), without concluding that the other person hates Moses.

For example, being Jewish and declaring "I love some aspects of Hitler, hate others and could not understand many more".

I agree that it would be provocative, but it isn't "I heart Hitler," either. I can imagine a Jewish person saying what you propose in the context of, say, reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is a long careful history of Hitler and the German Nazi movement. I can imagine the same person saying the same things about the subject of Karen Armstrong's Muhammad, when discussing that book.

Very little is black or else white. I can't think of any human being whose whole life is morally black or morally white. Prophets' lives especially. Many of them, like Mohammed, have a transformative experience in adulthood. What happened before then may or may not be pretty (Moses killed a man in anger and had to become a fugitive), and much of it, before or after the pivotal expereince, may not be easy to understand (Abraham's treatment of either of his sons).

So, we do disagree about this,

Regarding what can and can't be said, for the sake of personal well being, its better to keep silent than say anything negative.

That may be prudent advice anywhere, but there is nothing worth saying that couldn't possibly offend somebody, or be interpreted as "negative" in some sense or another. Granted, too, that the more people have an opinion on a subject, the more unsafe it is to voice a contrary opinion, and the more likely it is that any opinion will be seen as "contrary" by somebody.

OK, now the part I hope that you understand, whether you agree or not:

One tested remedy for offensive speech is to encourage more speech, while not restricting the speech which offends. The reason for that is that competition reliably promotes the emergence of truth. Sometimes, simply by comparing the original with the reaction, the difference between "I heart Hitler" and "There are things about Hitler I admire, along with what I hate or don't understand" receives the clarification that it plainly deserves.

Throwing somebody in jail for speech ends the conversation - not just the specific conversation that the person is in jail for, but all conversation on the same topic. It even inhibits conversation on topics "like" the topic the unlucky person was jailed for. This is reliable going to discourage speaking the truth - any truth that isn't happy talk.

If you want to know what scares a Westerner about state-entangled Islam, then this is it. There was a time in the West when somebody could be thrown in jail for saying about Jesus, or about the King, or about the local law for life what Kashgari wrote about Mohammed. Those were bad times, and the memory of them lingers. (I had dinner last night with people who grew up in such a state in Europe - this isn't ancient history for the West.) We aren't going back to those times.
-

Originally posted by eight bits
Since May 20, 2010, an annual protest has asked freedom-loving people to draw pictures of Mohammed.

I've never heard of this. Why isn't this more known? May 20th is a protest day in favor of freedom ... to draw pictures of Mohammed? I had to google .... and yes .... it really is!

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was an event held on May 20, 2010 in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park. Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadiths (sayings of and about Muhammad), though not by the Qur'an.[1] Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com (under the pen name Abu Talha al-Amrikee; later identified as Zachary Adam Chesser) had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was stabbed and shot to death.[2]

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic. .

Unfortunately, Southpark censored it's own muslim episode ... but .... Muhammad has been in the opening and in the 'super best friends' episode. (guilty pleasure .... I love Southpark)

reply to post by eight bits

OK, but look at Moses or Abraham, who are revered for the same reason as Mohammed. Many devout Christians and Jews might say of these Old Testament or Jewish Bible prophets' lives that they "love some parts, hate others, and there are many more parts they don't understand." Even Christians and Jews who had different opinions might still realize that somebody else might think Moses was too violent (say), without concluding that the other person hates Moses.

Being devoutly religious requires Christians, Jews and Muslims to revere and respect their prophets. Its not like being part of someones fan club. Also you will find that many Christians tend NOT to focus on the darker side of Moses' life... for example, his orders to Israelite soldiers to keep virgin females of the enemy.

Even if there are, like you say, Jews and Christians who say they hate certain aspects of their religions prophets, exactly what rule dictates that Muslims should follow suit and be as casual as Christians and Jews regarding their religion? Please tell me why muslims need to live their lives by Jewish / Christian standards.

I agree that it would be provocative, but it isn't "I heart Hitler," either. I can imagine a Jewish person saying what you propose in the context of, say, reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is a long careful history of Hitler and the German Nazi movement. I can imagine the same person saying the same things about the subject of Karen Armstrong's Muhammad, when discussing that book.

People tend to get upset when one of their own direct love towards an object of hate... and hate towards an object of love. So Jews would definitely react to "I love certain aspects of Hitler" the same way as they would if somebody said "I heart Hitler".

One tested remedy for offensive speech is to encourage more speech, while not restricting the speech which offends. The reason for that is that competition reliably promotes the emergence of truth. Sometimes, simply by comparing the original with the reaction, the difference between "I heart Hitler" and "There are things about Hitler I admire, along with what I hate or don't understand" receives the clarification that it plainly deserves.

Free speech is an illusion.
Denying the holocaust counts as free speech as well. Yet, we both know that it is "illegal" in certain countries. Granted, it is a big deal to Jews. Similarly, Mohammad is a big deal to Muslims.

If people with certain opinions regarding the holocaust are jailed in certain European countries... then why should it matter when Islamic countries jail those who hold certain opinions regarding Mohammad?
Answer this and you will find the answer to the question that you were asking. In the process, you will also learn what a farce "free speech" really is.

Throwing somebody in jail for speech ends the conversation - not just the specific conversation that the person is in jail for, but all conversation on the same topic.

Like I said earlier... I believe the authorities were over-reacting when they jailed Hamza.

If you want to know what scares a Westerner about state-entangled Islam, then this is it. There was a time in the West when somebody could be thrown in jail for saying about Jesus, or about the King, or about the local law for life what Kashgari wrote about Mohammed. Those were bad times, and the memory of them lingers. (I had dinner last night with people who grew up in such a state in Europe - this isn't ancient history for the West.) We aren't going back to those times.

Yes, you wont go back to those times because you have entered a new "era".
This is the reason why the west and the Islamic world will remain forever as opposing forces. One side has abandoned religion and established secular laws that make room for the mocking of God and His prophets... the other side hasn't.

Scorpie

Also you will find that many Christians tend NOT to focus on the darker side of Moses' life... for example, his orders to Israelite soldiers to keep virgin females of the enemy.

I agree, of course, that many Christians go for long intervals without thinking about such aspects of Moses' career. But those Christians who go in for apologetics do confront these things fairly regularly. It's a staple of "evil Bible" arguments, and yet these Christians maintain their reverence for Moses anyway, even if they acknowledge that something like this is difficult to justify.

There's nothing in what Kashagri wrote that rises to that level of confrontation. Actually, what he wrote would (I think) work well in apologetics: God chooses men for prophethood, so when you look at a prophet, you need to consider his whole career, not just the least defensible aspects of it. You need to remember that he was a man throughout the career.

Please tell me why muslims need to live their lives by Jewish / Christian standards.

They don't. But as I also said, there is an opportunity to learn here. You sometimes post as if you wonder what some Christians and Jews have against Islam. So, thinking about differences in standards, especially as they might apply to a specific case, can help shed light on that. It doesn't mean you must emulate anybody else, nor that anybody else must emulate you, either.

"Compared with what?" is always in order during a discussion, Scorpie. Other Abrahamics are an obvious and reasonable source of comparisons, especially since so many of the others' prophets and religious figures are also known in Islam.

People tend to get upset when one of their own direct love towards an object of hate... and hate towards an object of love. So Jews would definitely react to "I love certain aspects of Hitler" the same way as they would if somebody said "I heart Hitler".

I've already explained that I disagree with you about that, and why. It's a hypothetical anyway, so there won't ever be any definite resolution of it.

We are, however, talking about throwing somebody into jail for more than a year so far. I really doubt that many Jews would do that to a fellow Jew, even for the "I heart Hitler" case, and it is just ridiculous for a Jew who thought Hitler was kind to animals, say.

Denying the holocaust counts as free speech as well. Yet, we both know that it is "illegal" in certain countries.

Not in my country, it isn't. I don't have a vote any place else. In the United States, people can say the darnedest things every day, and never see the inside of a jail cell their whole lives.

If people with certain opinions regarding the holocaust are jailed in certain European countries... then why should it matter when Islamic countries jail those who hold certain opinions regarding Mohammad?

Who, in your view, is currently in jail in Europe for holding "certain opinions regarding the Holocaust?"

BTW, if the answer is nobody, because the clarity of some criminal law ensures that nobody violates the law, then that's kind of interesting, too, isn't it? Kashagri violated no law that a reasonable person could possibly know in advance that his three tweets would be a violation.

This is the reason why the west and the Islamic world will remain forever as opposing forces.

I thought Mohammed was the last prophet. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Kruschev said he would bury us.

www.findagrave.com...

Next.

One side has abandoned religion and established secular laws that make room for the mocking of God and His prophets... the other side hasn't.

That's interesting, but Kashgari didn't mock God. He didn't mock Mohammed, either. He treated Mohammed as what Islam teaches that Mohammed was, a man. On information and belief, Kashgari's family is from Central Asia, there's nothing "Western" about him anyway.

reply to post by eight bits

There's nothing in what Kashagri wrote that rises to that level of confrontation

There's nothing confrontational and I also said that this guy doesn't deserve to be jailed.
He could have phrased things better.

Who, in your view, is currently in jail in Europe for holding "certain opinions regarding the Holocaust?"

en.wikipedia.org...

I thought Mohammed was the last prophet. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Kruschev said he would bury us.

Not making prophecies or predictions here.... just stating why the West (in its current godless form) and Islam will never see eye to eye. Also, I don't know what Kruschev has to do with any of this.

On information and belief, Kashgari's family is from Central Asia, there's nothing "Western" about him anyway.

Wasn't talking about Kashgiri in that last paragraph... and never said he was "western".
I was talking about how the West has abandoned religion and has laws that make room for the mocking of God and His prophets.

Scorpie

There's nothing confrontational and I also said that this guy doesn't deserve to be jailed.

Yes, I appreciate that you personally exhort moderation.

He could have phrased things better.

In one sense, that's true. One of the elements of Western liberty, however, is to protect the form of expression. You are permiitted here to phrase things poorly without reprisal.

(Wikipedia link)

My question was

Who, in your view, is currently in jail in Europe for holding "certain opinions regarding the Holocaust?"

So your answer is Wolfgang Frolich in Austria? There is no link to the case, and there is a notation that this was his "third offense." It doesn't say anything at all about what the other two offenses were.

As your articles points out, Austria lost World War II, by the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers. A continuing effect of that war is denazification, prohibition of political activity on behalf of the Nazi party in the former Axis countries. The only Austrian laws your article cites are denazification laws, which prohibit Holocaust denial along with other Nazi political advocacy. So Frolich appears to have been a persistent Nazi activist, not just somebody who holds an opinion about the Holocaust.

I advocate that such opinions, speech and political activity should, by now, be lawful. However, the loss of freedoms is a frequent consequence of losing a war. It is regrettable.

just stating why the West (in its current godless form) and Islam will never see eye to eye. Also, I don't know what Kruschev has to do with any of this.

With respect to "eye to eye," then of course two groups that don't see eye to eye now won't ever do so unless one or both change. This is tautological.

Kruschev was offered as a recent example of a failed prediction that the West would abandon its commitment to liberty. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, but it does provide some perspective when evaluating statements about the prospects for future events, and the terms on which co-existence will occur.

"Godless" in context means that few in the West care what you or anybody else believes about God. That's at least half-way to a deal. The other half is reciprocity, including the tolerance of former Muslims living in the West who renounce their faith or innovate within Islam, like Baha'i.

Wasn't talking about Kashgiri in that last paragraph... and never said he was "western".

No, you didn't. You and I are, however, communicating on an open discussion board, and I have the prerogative to foresee possible confusion on the part of those reading our exchanges, and to provide information which prevents or corrects confusion. I did so in this case. Further, the purpose of the thread is to increase awareness of Hamza Kashgari. My remarks were consistent with that purpose.

I was talking about how the West has abandoned religion and has laws that make room for the mocking of God and His prophets

The "West" certainly hasn't abandoned religion. I can assure you that it's very popular in the United States. There has never been a national law regulating religious speech in the United States, and since shortly after the Civil War, there ought not to have been such a law at any level of government in the United States. Some religion-related laws did linger on, however, as recently as 50 years ago, and there are some dead-letter vestiges still "on the books."

The matter is treated as not the business of an American government. If you believe that somebody has spoken incorrectly about a religious subject, then your remedy is to speak yourself, point out the error, and state what you believe the correct information to be. An American state, then, is neither godless nor godly, but leaves this within each person's sphere of private concerns.

Other Western countries have different arrangements that reflect their histories and popular consensuses about the nature of liberty. That may include restrictions on expression thought to be dangerous (such as denazification in the case of former Axis powers, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) or to exceed an expression of opinion (inciting to violence, for example).