Cultural differences between the muslim world and the western world : where does freedom really end?

Originally posted by dontreally
However, from a Muslims perspective, it is not liberal democracy that is the reference point, but Islam and Shari'a. People seem to forget that Muslims the world over from Mauritania to Indonesia have never had a separation of religion and state. Again, that was a development which naturally proceeded from Christianities separation. But Islam has not. They have had Caliphates, the latest collapsed just 90 years ago, to the horror of pious Muslims.

(emphase by me)

Indeed.

Originally posted by dontreally
Of course, most Arabs/Muslims would prefer democratic freedoms, as we see everyday with the Muslims we interact with in the west (US, Canada, Europe). I know many Muslims - particularly woman - who would despise living under the thumb of shari'a. One girl I know, Sogol, loves Iran but hates that when she wants to go out she has to wear a head scarf, can't leave the house after 9pm without a man with her, and other restrictions incompatible with democratic rights.

And indeed again.

Which leads me to believe that despite what "radical" (or historical, or original) islamic laws require, the people tend to accept more liberties and more freedom. Isn't it actually the leaders of those countries who, by refusing to deviate from their sacred texts, are keeping their people ignorant of other ways? By doing so, they obviously lead them into the belief that the rest of the world is evil, and ultimately their ennemy.

This being said, I certainly agree that in the past, the roman catholics were not any different, particularly the crusades are an example of that.

Is it scandalous if, but it's only a comparison, I would say that the muslim world is having its own crusades at this very moment in time? We did it on horses, with swords and mail armours. They have done it with planes in buildings.

Originally posted by dontreally

Is that a recognition that you are responding irrationally because you were provoked emotionally by my post??

LOL! No. It is a response to what I interpretted as your opinion that provoking emotion in others is important to do, in stirring up the action you think they should undertake. It was my opinion that I do not feel that to be necessary for me to do at this time. In my experience that tends to stimulate thoughtless act, which leads to irresponsibility (people not recognizing their own responsibility in what has happened to them)

I just thought the original kernel of your thought made no sense. Of course, Now I see that you had clearly good intentions, but the end result of that intention was not in 'provoking critical thought' but in leading people to a useless position in which they ignore the imminent threat at hand.

Thanks for sharing your opinion of my thought, and you are welcome to it (though I disagree! ).

I find it curious that you have such knowledge of "the end result" of my sharing my views?
I wonder how you are so aware of the internal reactions and long term processes that my input over time on this subject has triggered in so many other people?

How did you gather this information from them?

Is it possible that we are on different fronts, with different modes of action? That you seek immediate visible confirmation of your influence upon the world and others? And I do not ?

Time has shown me that influence is sometimes something that moves deeper when it is less obvious and immediate.

But then I am a Capricorn, we tend to take the long roads, and invest over time in bigger things, rather than hurry to get the superificial ones!

To each their roads and their roles!

______________________________________________________________________________
But on the question of the changing of world dominating religions...

I do see it as something that mght be unavoidable. This happens periodically, in cycles, through human history.
The rises to power are often pretty nasty and bloody, and start with the kind of view the Muslims have- it is perfectly adapted to this goal.
The Christians had a similar view and practice, and it got them on the top and once there, it slowly disbursed, became less concentrated, began to evolve towards more spiritual practice... from violence and martyrism, to peace and tolerance; from expanding power and boundries to retreating them around the self awareness.

Then the next religion begins to rise....

Yeah, my human personality is all involved in the drama in this point of time as it should be,
but another part of me is up on a higher point, seeing things before they come, both the pleasurable and the painful, and it is still a pretty nice view!

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm sorry you in Europe don't have freedom of speech as we do in the USA. You'll never know the joy that comes with totally being free in this manner. It seems you in Europe are still in imprisoned under a dictator if you cannot express your feelings without fear on being jailed.

I have to react to this. I suppose you've never come to Europe.

We do have real freedom of speech and freedom. From what we see from here, much more than in the US actually.

edit on 21-9-2012 by SpookyVince because: (no reason given)

I see. I admitted I didn't know much about Europes freedom of Speech laws. Tell that to Artoo Detoo. I was just going on what he said - He seems to think Europeans don't have the same freedom Americans do.

And for the record, you dont have freedom of speech ,as you do in the USA, in the rest of the world. People have been fined and imprisoned in Europe for expressing their scepticsm about the Holocaust.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I see. I admitted I didn't know much about Europes freedom of Speech laws. Tell that to Artoo Detoo. I was just going on what he said - He seems to think Europeans don't have the same freedom Americans do.

And for the record, you dont have freedom of speech ,as you do in the USA, in the rest of the world. People have been fined and imprisoned in Europe for expressing their scepticsm about the Holocaust.

Fact is, we simply may see some things in a different way. We seem to think over here that we are at least as free as you are over there in the US. Now again, cultural differences may change the view.

But about negationism, revisionism, racism or antisemitism in particular, it is true that we have laws that strictly forbid people to express such opinions. Probably in great part because we were the theater of those horrible events and many of today's freedom rights in Europe, many of today's laws, and in fact a great part of our society has been built on the ashes of the WW2.

This being said, it is not illegal for instance, i.e. it is not racist, to say that people of different ethnic origins are different. It is however illegal to say that blacks are all stupid and white are the clever ones. (this is obviously for the example, and certainly not a statement of my opinion)

But back on the original subject, what makes those drawings not illegal is the fact that they're not actually aimed at making a religion ridicule. It is a mockery, by people who are not members of that religion. And it is understandable that adepts of that religion feel offended or outraged even by them.

What is less understandable however, is the fact that they simply can't just move on and they feel like they have to "go to war" with all those who won't fight with them against those drawings, against that movie, etc. At least it is less understandable in our, western world, point of view.

Originally posted by SpookyVince


This being said, I certainly agree that in the past, the roman catholics were not any different, particularly the crusades are an example of that.

Is it scandalous if, but it's only a comparison, I would say that the muslim world is having its own crusades at this very moment in time? We did it on horses, with swords and mail armours. They have done it with planes in buildings.

I share this view, as I mentioned in my post.

I think it is interesting to look at history through this perspective, and consider the way the Christian religion evolved through time! Their Holy Scripture includes values upon both aggressivity and passivity (seen notably between the Old Testament and the New Testament).
The leaders of the organized religion simply put emphasis upon the aggressivity virtues when they wanted to expand boundries.....
as their hunger for expansion was relieved, the passivity virtues were emphasized more (as they then served to help control the masses they had taken domination of).

This seems to me to be a natural evolution of an entity and consciousness (which would make sense, since religion and society are cosntructed by human consciousness and so will reflect itself!).

None of us have total freedom in our respective countries- there ARE limits, always. Even in the US, you are not allowed to just go around killing people for fun and amusement- your freedom is limited.
Everything and everyone outside that limit is "other", "not self".... not part of the entity.

When a religion/entity is in the stage of rising power (something like the passage of teenhood into adulthood) that can be seen in their belief system- respect for "other", even acknowledgement of "other" as having any meaning, value, role, or existence, is rejected. A major collective narcissism!

But they grow with time and their philosophy evolves, slowly admitting that perhaps "other" is bad, but God will destroy them, it is not my duty to do so.
Then "perhaps "other" exists as evil in order to create contrast, for me to know good,
Perhaps "other" exists to challenge me and tempt me, for me to grow through resistance training,
Perhaps "other" isn't always evil? Maybe in some contexts it is okay?
Perhaps both self and other are equal and necessary for creation to happen?


It is interesting to look at it this way, but important to remember that there are also individuals within these organized religions, and they might not personally be in sync with the current stage of the religion, and might be doing thigns like not focusing on the particular part of the religion the leaders are emphasizing in the moment.

reply to post by Bluesma


That's probably the closest to what I think indeed.

I have just, literally seconds ago, posted quite right the same thought here. That is, give or take, how Sartre was defining freedom.

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I have just, literally seconds ago, posted quite right the same thought here. That is, give or take, how Sartre was defining freedom.

Quoting yourself is bad I know That thread I linked has been removed.

What I was saying there, basically, is that total freedom does not and probably should not exist. Total freedom, without any restrtaints, would mean that if I don't like you, then I have the right to kill you. Just as you also have the same right, unrestrained, to kill me if you disagree.

There must be limits to freedom. Your freedom ends where the others' start. Those limits are what makes it so that everyone around you is as free as you can be. If you go over your limits of freedom, then you're reducing someone else's freedom one way or another by preventing them from enjoying their own freedom entirely.

reply to post by SpookyVince


Well it seems we think similarly on this, indeed!
I was interested in seeing your post you linked to, but it seems to be gone..?

reply to post by SpookyVince


I haven't read through the responses here, but I have a feeling you will face the same kind of thread hijacking as I have when trying to create a discussion about the coming domestic problems we will all face as opposing groups use these events for propaganda.

Well done on this thread. You've created a very logical and clear representation of your thoughts.

I have suggested from the beginning that freedom of opinion and expression comes with some responsibilities. It's interesting to see that there are many in the US specifically who have a hypocritical view of freedom. For instance, there are a lot of Americans screaming about how pathetic it is that a drawing or a film causes such anger and violence.

But, at the same time, hundreds of thousands of Christians in America are defending the word "marriage", because they believe that same sex couples using that word destroys something in their religion. They might not be attacking embassies (if there were "gay embassies" I'm certain they would be if the law passes in favor!) but is this not exactly the same form of opinion?

It's a religious group becoming offended by something that is outside of their lives. Just as extremists in the Muslim world see this as an attack on their faith, Christians see the proposal of using the word Marriage in same sex partnerships as an attack on their faith too.

I find that extremely hypocritical.

Following on from that, there are also Christian groups in the USA who fought to have Ellen Degeneres taken off the air, because they believed that her homosexuality was a bad influence on society. Then there are those who complain about gay pride marches, suggesting that influence society, or they're "rubbing it in people's faces". I always hear comments from Homophobes on here saying things like "just keep it to yourself".

How is that freedom? Are these people not exactly the same? They preach about how their nation is so free and they have the right to express themselves, and they use that expression of opinion to try to prevent others from having the same freedoms!

My point is this - those using their freedoms in the US to openly campaign for others to be silenced or restricted are a minority, just as those in the Muslim world protesting are a minority. But it is interesting to see a complete lack of comprehension on this issue - the hypocrisies are there for all to see, but no one wants to mention it because it shows that the Christian faith has no higher ground here. They might not be protesting in the streets and burning down embassies, but they are still claiming to be free to express themselves as they wish on one hand, while trying to silence and restrict others with an opposing view.

I recognize that the French magazine has a right to print what they want. But I do question their motives, and I do question their morality.

My mother told me (when she was told about me swearing in school by the teacher) "you have the right to say what you want, but you will bear the consequences." The same applies here - just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean that you MUST say something.

Those being violent are always responsible for their violence. And while it might not be right that the magazine is seen as a catalyst - because they are only using their freedoms - they have to accept that they have been partly responsible because they stated something others deemed offensive. Whether the resulting action is right or wrong, they knew what the likely outcome would be, and they chose to do it anyway.

IMO, the creators of the video, and those publishing the cartoon, are partly responsible, because they knew what the response would likely be, and they chose to use their right to say something as an incitement.

I'm going to say this again, because I know some right-wingers on here will immediately attack anyone who dares to do anything but immediately attack all Muslims in the world - I agree that the violence and protest is wrong, pathetic, and an extreme over-reaction, but welcome to reality. Like it or not, this was predictable, and yet some in the West keep poking at that hornets nest. It's like we're constantly taunting an angry dog in a yard, and then we're blaming the owner of that dog when it smashes through the fence and attacks someone.

muslim world and the western world : where does freedom really end?




For the Muslim culture.... individual freedom ends at their front door...
Their lifestyle is dictated by the Clerics & Imams who instruct the masses that their whole existance is based on 'Submission'
freedom is behind closed doors & even then the adults have to be careful to not betray their freedoms by not being blasphemous to Islam Law, even by accident.


the masses are instructed by speakers at their Mosques to participate in protests, the protests are not totally 100% self driven by antagonized Muslims... the normally detached masses are cajoled by the Clerics to do these mass riots/protests, as prt of their duty to the Faith of Submission

the radicals & fundamentalists...although a fringe of Islam are a well treated and greatly esteemed faction of the Islamic body, an intregal part of the whole, they too are utilized by the Clerics/Imams/etc to achieve a political or spiritual means to an End.


the western mind is free to do as One's conscience dictates...but they must be willing to accept the consequences of their free acts or free words... which could include the reprisials of fundamental or Salafist Islam

appeasing the Muslim world is not the answer, nor is trying to integrate the two cultures

It amazes that too few of us Westerners are considering the fact that the riots that turned violent and deadly didn't occur on Western soil. I suppose it can be argued that embassies are legally regarded as sovereign to it's country, however by choosing that argument we ignore the fact that these are countries unsettled by Western policy, our freedom of speech does not apply there. These horrible events haven't taken place on Western soil where freedom of speech is treasured by populaces.

In Islamic nations we have on going revolutions trying to birth democracy, an incredibly difficult thing to do solely and damn near impossible with constant threat and corrupt influence from external sources. The majority want the West gone so that they can begin piecing their civilizations together again, so that they can find their own paths to democracy. It may well be that their democracies never go as far to allow insult to Allah or Mohammed, that isn't for us to judge within their own sovereign borders, only within our own.

Something else not taken into consideration is that we are to suppose all of this ugliness is caused by one video and one cartoon. I think the last straw scenario is more apt. They want us gone, we have been devastating, traumatizing and murdering the people of Islam for decades and at an increasing pace since 9/11. I think they are justified in that desire, that is not to be taken as they are justified in murdering people but let's keep things in perspective... it is literally handfuls out of billions over reacting in such a way.

We can be said to have over reacted once upon a time too and I would agree 100%.