So, imagine your grandfather was in the nazi camps, he struggles to stay alive every day, he doesn't lie, cheat, or do anyone wrong, he does stand his ground, he defends the weak, feeds the poor even if it's his own food, how would you feel if someone mocked him in your face? called him a warlord, a traitor, a nazi associate, made derogatory cartoons of him etc.
And this just doesn't come close to what he did and the battles he fought and the pain he's been through, all done to praise God and obey his commands, all to spread the message of God to the world, and he's been reciting a verse about the Idols and how they've wasted a lot of lives along with another verse, and he cries and raises his hands to the sky saying: Oh God my people, my people.
as in "God I am afraid for my people".
Not sure why any Muslim would scold you about that, as far as I am aware it's not obligatory but strongly encouraged
This encouragement doesn't apply to non-Muslims, like at all.
I think there are shortcomings on our side speaking of explaining our religion to the western audience but trust me it's not easy because any conservative Sunni Muslim who speaks out is being silenced and you're being left with Shia and liberal Muslims, and you're not going to get anything related to Islam from these people, for now you can follow Daniel Haqiqatjou and Sheikh Uthman Ibn farook.
One final thing I have to clarify is, Shia aren't representatives of Islam, why? simple as their books are based on dreams this is the short version, the long version is something you have to research for yourself.
Yes, it's cringe because it's said as a laughing matter and can have no consequences nowadays or it mostly doesn't.
I used to think this way too before and I am still not liberal but the thing with racism is, the start might be jokes but once it's systematic because "nobody cares it's just jokes" those same words might start to hit differently.
The liberals can be overreaching about such matters, but I personally think racial slurs shouldn't be tolerated a lot.
The point is, banning things does not solve problems. It just complicates things, force people to act in certain ways to make sure they aren't racist, instead of being genuine. When I'm accepted into interviews for jobs that aren't going to hire me anyway... it just wastes my time and their time.
The problem isn't much about racism, it is about some people act like jerks. And people can be jerks with or without racism.
The point of banning racism is so people don't feel comfortable doing it in public
Because once that's there, systematic racism is going to be back, things won't stop at the random jerk level.
Being a jerk might be because someone had a bad day etc, it's not loaded, you can counter it and it's not organized hate.
But racism is different, racism targets anyone who looks like you, and it's usually organized efforts and loaded with ideas about dehumanizing people.
sometimes things escalate and this same random jerk might murder you if they think there is a high chance they will escape the justice system because you're basically a subhuman under the new laws that these lighthearted racists passed.
You can't make everyone good and decent, but you can for sure punish the racists and limit their access to power and that's what banning does in this case.
What would be illegal under this law? If a couple guys are sitting having a beer at home discussing their opinion on the difference in races and how some are better than others would that be illegal? If the neighbor overhead and turned them in, how long would they go to jail for over this private conversation that had previously been protected by the 1st? Would you advocate taking their children away from them? Does this law extend to people saying bad things about whites? What other speech would be outlawed as dangerous? What political ideas are banned? The 1st amendment exists for a very important reason. Restricting speech is a slippery slope that can rapidly lead to the party in power staying in power by banning opposing ideas.
Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines, once violated you leave no place for respect anymore?
Is it a hard concept or is it entitlement that makes you feel you have the upper moral ground?
What do you all think about the UN forcing LGBTQ+ rights on Muslims in their own countries?
Do you consider that "freedoms" too? or is it proxy colonization?
I wonder.
My heart goes for this teacher I am sure if someone depicted her or anyone, she cares about in a derogatory manner she'd be so happy and grateful and quite tolerant, she'd joke about it I guess especially if the picture was shown to a wide audience.
I'd have loved to see people making derogatory cartoons of someone she loves and sharing them on the internet and seeing how much of a tolerant and freedom advocate she is.
Must be so hard for the atheists to understand that we care about our prophet and to stop mocking him and just be decent people.
You have to mock religious people or otherwise you're not the cool kid I guess, because disbelieving gives you extra brain points, who gives them? nvm, they just pop up out of nowhere.
Your account has posted literally about nothing but flamewar topics. That's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Moreover, "bite me" is pure flamebait and even trolling. I'm sympathetic to the discomfort of being in a small minority, surrounded by hostile views and so on, and how it creates a tendency to pre-emptively lash out in this way. But it's still extremely against the rules here.
I agree with the parts of your comment that are arguing for tolerance, understanding the other's point of view, and not mocking religious people. Nonetheless your account is not using this site as intended. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and start using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.
> Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines
I accept they have, but I'm not obligated to respect them. Imagine a world where it's sufficient to declare an arbitrary redline to force the rest of humanity to respect it.
I think you have a point because she warned the students, gave them a chance to leave and asked them to contact her if they find any issues with this.
I don't know why they did that to her they should have left the class and contacted her later to take exemption from the classes she's going to use those pictures in.
I don't know how to feel about this but firing her and complaining to the administration before contacting her to clarify the situation, these are 2 wrongs I won't defend.
Because she knew it's prohibited and it's not what we do and everyone seems to be taking their free speech dig at our prophet and I would assume this is no different, because there is literally no reason to bring that image.
However, I think they should have left the class and contacted her regarding this subject and firing her probably was an overkill and done to make the problem go away, though not sure why the student complained to the administration before contacting her despite her giving warnings to the students.
It seems that the case for banning it is not universal among believers, and might be differently portrayed as a case for not worshipping it (or any other image).
The reason for "bringing it" to an art history class is that it is historical art.
Oh, give me a break, treat the Indian Muslims half as good as the Hindus are treated in Qatar then we speak.
people were being killed in the streets, with sticks, no legal protection women getting raped, not to mention the obsession with raping kids in temples and whatnot in India not long ago I think someone published here on HN an article about the Indian police planting evidence on victims computers.
Not to mention taking the citizenship from the Indian muslims
Not to mention street shitting, not to mention praying for covid and for toilets and every single dirty thing one can think of.
Not to mention bathing in cow dung.
Not to mention the extremely cruel caste system which has no basis but inner discrimination and separating the society.
will you rage against these practices or show any sign of disagreement to the Indian government? we don't see any such efforts on your side so If anything I would say Qatar should stop accepting Hindus.
You've done nothing to the muslims but murdered them, raped their women, offended them, mocked their religion and prophet lately too, and you don't even deserve to have temples built in their land, you're the only danger to humanity because if things get out of hands you will make the whole planet a one big literal shithole.
can't hold themselves for a week till they're back? my heart goes for them, God lord, how can one spend a week without sex, horrible, must invade the country and establish democracy.
Oh ofc, one should never take such a thing so kindly, only the Muslims in the west should respect the cultures and the traditions and learn religious tolerance.
weird how the westerners actually don't tolerate others and it's you either agree with me or you're an enemy sort of attitude.
I thought this attitude usually stems only from these hateful religious zealots who refuse to "integrate" or "tolerate" others.
Westerners have problems with themselves being forced to do things they don't want.
Muslims have problems with others eating pork or having premarital sex. Or how MAGA people and Muslims both have problems with others being gay or lesbian.
Westerners don't force immigrants Muslims or others Muslims to have pre-marital sex, but Muslims force Westerners to not have pre-marital sex.
Westerners will tolerate or won't pay attention at all if Muslims or whatever other group are abstaining from pre-marital sex, but Muslims won't tolerate Westerners having pre-marital sex.
The sole focus is on living and letting live, and not forcing anything on others.
Liberalism is about tolerating people different from you. And it should go both ways.
(By Muslims, here, I mean, practising, Sunnah abiding, conservative Muslims. I do not mean to pigeonhole.)
> Liberalism is about tolerating people different from you. And it should go both ways.
No it should not, Islam isn't liberal, nor it is some conservative nationalistic ideology.
It's a religion, a strict one.
When people tolerate your set of ideas about life you should tolerate theirs too, unless you'd be fine with Muslims pushing Islam down your throat in your country, or well do you accept allowing Muslims to marry 4 women in your country? It's all done with consent tho, nothing is forced really, so will you support that? it's personal for us, is it not? I accept to be properly executed by the terms specified in Islam if I commit intentional -ps. first degree- murder, and If for any reason I do that to a Muslim his family might rightfully ask for me to be executed, and if they end up not accepting money or forgiving me, who are you ( by your own standards ) to step in and tell me and them that this is wrong? by what logic will you do that? that if you actually care to be consistent here and go to the fullest with the "it's personal" thing.
Will you support allowing Muslims in your country to practice sharia law? including public executions for murderers, kidnappers etc? as far as the majority of them agree and ask for that? isn't this how democracy basically works? isn't this their "personal preference" for a ruling model as a group of people? or do you want to "STOP THEM" from getting their rights which they will all give consent to and agree on?
there is no such thing as "personal" because society is..? you guessed, yes, people, any sexual relationship outside Islam is forbidden, you disagree? feel free to leave or not to come, you don't have any right to bend the rules or force people to accept your ideas unless we have the same right to bend your rules in your own country, which is apparently not the case, if you plan on bringing Kamala Harris or any such figure such as any gay / feminist selfproclaimed Muslim, please don't.
Muslims aren't fond of living in a police state, there are actual recommendations against spying and doxxing or intentionally policing people to punish them, and originally if you admit a sin in the court and ask to be punished the actual response from the judge should be to refuse punishing you unless you keep asking 3 times afaik.
I am not an expert so take my word with a grain of salt, I might be wrong about some of the details but the general idea is how it should be.
And that is about the matters ( sins ) between people and God, hence when it's not related to hurting others.
That is the rule for the Muslims, for the nonMuslims I am not sure.
But my point is, liberalism might make sense to you, for me, and lots of other people, secularism doesn't make any sense, unless you can come up with a reasonable explanation for how the universe was created without an intelligent creator, and any theory that would say it came out of nowhere, it makes no sense to me, yet I don't think I should force my ideology on you, you on the other hand, want to either force your ideology onto others or call them names.
once I can have all my sharia rights preserved in the USA or the west because I am a Muslim and that is my right, I will support LGBTQ+ rights in Islamic countries ( just a metaphor to state I will never do same as the USA or any secular state will never give the Muslims any rights besides of what they decide to be their rights ).
We also have the right to decide what rights the LGBTQ+ get and which rights they don't, or do we not? Because you think you're the only one entitled to do that?
Hope this clarifies the situation.
[ Edit ]: Sorry for the text-wall, I hate doing that but I had to.
> Of course everything we do is affecting society somehow
Yeah, somehow Europe is now aging, weird, ha?
> If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than yours and vice versa.
So, Who defines or measures this? you? great, should start a "you religion", this is starting to take shape.
Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
Populations have a lifecycle too.
Forcing people to reproduce does not seem like a worthwile solution to me.
> So, Who defines or measures this?
It is self-organizing, for humans ideally by debate, since they can. Since you mention animals above: they are much more straight-forward about their laws than humans. We overcomplicate things, but if I can make a call, it would be to simplify laws to the most basic level and try to keep them clear of religion and cultural norms.
> Now If a drug dealer says his actions do affect him far more than his buyers, it should make sense for his opinion to outweigh the court's opinion because he's getting much more money hence his trade is affecting him much more than the little amounts he sells individually to people.
I think a better example would be a corporation that gives people cancer for profit, because in the case of the drug dealer it is not always clear if any harm was actually caused.
Just judging it by CancerCorp's profit would be obviously ignorant and binary, because it would not take the harm that was directly caused into consideration.
At the end, some kind of balance needs to be established.
This is what nature does, right?
why do you think killing your child and eating him is a bad idea.
animals do that, and we're animals, so give me a reason as why to this being a bad idea and you will gladly get me to agree with your very self-contradictory opinion.
You don't have values, nor a measurement to define what's good and what's not, not to mention "respect" ideas or people.
You only have one thing to appreciate as an atheist, which is materialism and anything that serves your goals by any means necessary.
> If you are not harming anyone, there is no limit.
Yes, I am sure your opinion is the one should be enforced everywhere, but excuse my rudeness, because of what exactly?
Because you feel entitled? or what?
Excuse me but this is laughable, the logic not the case, I am sorry for the girl who've been through this but corruption exists everywhere and you're coming for far-fetched conclusions based on hearsay.
Pro lgbtq+ laws have far worse consequences.
A trans sexually assaulted an American man's daughter in the school bath then they triggered the dad in the court and when he couldn't take it anymore they accused him of DV, it was pretty traumatizing to even watch the video of the man raging for what happened to his daughter only to be accused of DV.
another man got 16 years for merely taking down a flag and burning it, arson I know but also 16 years, I think nowadays you'd get around that for murder.
I am sure I can bring you more examples of Sweden pulling children from their families if they suspect they're teaching them anything related to Islam as in to oppose going out on school trips or as in refusing to wear half naked clothes when going to school etc, heard a lot of them and kids where crying to get back to their family, I am sure an actually oppressed kid won't look so comfy and happy with his abusers or even get red face crying just wanting to get back to their families, the difference is, the media doesn't care about these because they're not seculars, me not hearing about these from a dude on the youtube I would have had no clue.
Nothing creepy tho, as far as it's all under the umbrella of secular western standards.
The flag burning is a problem with over-imprisoning, that is widely regarded as a big problem with America, and I'm not sure why pro-lgbtq+ laws are an issue here.
I didn't bother to try to research your rant about Sweden.
okay I think I was wrong on the trans issue, he seems to be actually a male and he either brute forced his way to the bathroom or identified as gender fluid but anyways I will cut it and say I was wrong.
they're at the very least trying to force a minority ideology over the general majority.
And that is quite the opposite of democracy and freedom.
pushing the ideas of a minority as taken for granted is how authoritarian systems work.
the issue is also pushing the "European standards", Muslims are not opposed to gays if they get treated, quite the opposite the Islamic opinion is that God will reward them because they're struggling and they should be treated and taken care of.
speaking of the European standards, I don't buy it anymore, used to, but not anymore.
Their lies clearly show up when the European values make the LGBTQ+ / feminist struggles heroic after years of secular oppression of the Muslims only to blame all the failures and mistakes of the secular ruling systems on the Muslims and Islam.
Anyone called the SA prince a terrorist when he chopped off Khashoukji to pieces and put his body parts in trash bags? No, not really.
Have any humanitarian organization shed any lights on the Muslims being thrown in jails and tortured and murdered and the women probably raped? Nope, they'd probably support the local narrative by claiming these to be fanatics or terrorists etc.
all I am attempting to do is to show you that corruption doesn't only exist in Qatar, it does exist outside too despite that you're trying to be overdramatic about it.
Also it's their country, if you refuse to comply with the local laws you can refrain from travelling.
same as if a Muslim refuses to comply with the laws of a western country he or she can go back to their country or to a more culturally appropriate place for them.
What's mindboggling is the amount of criticism of such a little thing.
ps. you won't need to stay more than a week probably, and unless you have issues I doubt it would be hard to refrain from banging someone for a week till you get back.
Weird how so many people feel entitled to change the laws and ideologies of others but would call out any such attempts being done onto them as brainwashing or fanaticism etc.
Yes it probably is, but I don't think it's bad in this context because I am not trying to gaslight anyone I am trying to give a sight on the other side.
You mentioned one story, and I will take it for granted, yes laws can be abused, don't date in Qatar, you can go out, have fun, go on trips etc.
But don't expect them to change their laws for you, unless I can expect your country to change their laws to allow me to practice my religion to the fullest.
By the way, a rapist can face execution if he did it under the threat of a gun / knife, if not he's supposed to get 80 / 100 lashes iirc.
But also getting out half-naked, dating, staying in a room alone with a female isn't allowed either.
That is under Sharia rule ( which doesn't exist nowadays ), not sure about the laws in Qatar.
Once I see the west supporting and cheering a man with 4 obeying, covered up wives and calling anyone who disagrees Islamophobic and any player who decides not to support that idea will be considered to be sanctioned like what happened to Idrissa Gueye when he refused to show support for LGBTQ+, I will support the LGBTQ+ rights (neither will ever happen).
And no, you can't force women into marriage and they can ask for divorce.
And this just doesn't come close to what he did and the battles he fought and the pain he's been through, all done to praise God and obey his commands, all to spread the message of God to the world, and he's been reciting a verse about the Idols and how they've wasted a lot of lives along with another verse, and he cries and raises his hands to the sky saying: Oh God my people, my people. as in "God I am afraid for my people".
He's dearer to us than ourselves.