"The Innocence of Muslims"

[trish]

I agree that faith in the unproven and unsubstantiated can be used for good as well as evil. Although many religions began as cults with con men for founders, the followers were mostly well intentioned men and women who also influenced their religion's evolution.

Embarrassing gammar correction: in the late of night the locution I was seeking was "It's a shame that..."

[Stavros]

As the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons of Muhammad -apparently a topical response to the notorious film- there is an intra-religious incident in which one group of Amish in Ohio have attacked another, cutting beards and hair.

Is this a hate crime by any standard? Should the Amish be allowed to deal with this issue outside of the law of the State of Ohio or Federal law? At what point should the state/federal govt intervene in the 'internal affairs' of a religion, be it the Amish, Orthodox Jews, or say, a dispute between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims that turned violent -isn't an act of violence an act of violence regardless of its context?

From the LA Times:

To an outsider, an Amish man's chest-length beard or an Amish woman's long locks might not appear all that remarkable. But they hold great religious significance to the Amish: They are symbols of one's devotion to God and to the Amish community.
That's why the head of an Amish splinter group and his followers are facing federal hate-crime charges in an unusual case playing out in Cleveland, Ohio.
Prosecutors have charged Sam Mullet Sr. with leading a band of 16 followers on a series of violent attacks targeting religious rivals: Defendants allegedly slashed off men's beards and hacked off at least one woman's hair. The assaults left victims shaken and in some cases, bloodied and battered.
Steve Nolt, a history professor at Goshen College in Indiana, and author of several books on Amish culture and history, told the Los Angeles Times that such forcible hair cutting is far more than a prank.
"The individuals who did this were targeting one of the most central symbols of manhood in Amish culture," Nolt said. "Choosing to cut the beard is making a pretty dramatic statement."
Hair, he explained, "is a sign of submission to the discipline to the church, and it's also a sign of your submission to the group and devotion to God."
Nolt said the case is being closely followed both by those outside the Amish community and by the Amish, known for their adherence to a simple, non-violent way of living.
"It's so troubling and shocking because of the religious symbolism that the beard holds," Nolt said. "This is just so unprecedented.... This is just completely outside anything that is a part of the Amish culture."
Amish women typically grow their hair long, and keep it covered. Men, meanwhile, often sport a clean-shaven face until they marry -- and then grow a beard that is never trimmed. (There are exceptions, Nolt said. Some single men also grow a beard out of devotion.)
"It's linked to being an adult member of the church," Nolt said. "In some settlements, a man will grow a beard as soon as he is baptized [which takes place around the age of 18].... Almost all Amish churches insist that the beard remains untrimmed."Mullet has been considered a problematic figure throughout the Amish community for some time, Nolt said. A 2006 gathering of Amish leaders took place in Pennsylvania in part to discuss how to deal with Mullet and with people joining or leaving his religious circle.
"The purpose of the meeting was the widespread recognition that there was something amiss," Nolt said.
By and large, the Amish are an insular group that prefers to handle problems without the interference of outsiders. One of the most feared forms of punishment within the community is "shunning" -- a type of excommunication in which the offender is ignored as if he or she ceases to exist.
But the hair-cutting incidents that took place last fall in eastern Ohio were far too serious, and came to the attention of local law enforcement.
There are about 275,000 Amish living in North America, Nolt said.
In testimony in the case earlier Wednesday, an Amish preacher testified that three of the defendants showed up at his home last fall and attacked his father.
According to the Associated Press, Andy Hershberger testified that his father begged the men not to shear him, but the men held him down. Minutes later, the hair from his father's beard had been cut and scattered across the floor, clumps of hair were missing from his father's head, and his scalp was bleeding.
Afterward, Hershberger said, his father was "shaking" and "the women and my dad were crying," he testified, according to the AP.
Defense attorneys don't deny the incidents took place, according to the news service.
They say that the Amish are bound by different religious rules, and that the government should not get involved. The defendants took their actions, their attorneys say, out of concern that some Amish were straying from their beliefs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2414485.story

[trish]

What is a hate crime?

My personal take is that it is a crime that has the following elements:

1) There is a crime in the ordinary sense (e.g. a person or persons are assaulted, or murdered, or robbed etc. or a person’s property is defaced, burnt down, destroyed etc.).

2) The intent of the crime was in part to send a violent warning (to a minority or ethnic or religious group) that “their kind” will not be tolerated by the perpetrators; or the intent was in part to punish the victim for being of the “wrong” minority or ethnic or religious group.

Notice that element (2) entails the consequence that a single hate crime against one primary victim is also a threat of violence against a group of people; i.e. there is a primary victim and there are secondary victims (e.g. when a sikh is beaten to a pulp or murdered out of religious hatred, then all sikhs are being threatened with violence). This second element is why (imo) hate crimes should accrue additional penalities; a single hate crime is more than one crime against more than one person.

The Amish case certainly meets condition (1) above, it was a physical assault on a number of persons. If the prosecuter can establish (2); i.e. it was a warning to others, and if I were on the jury I would be more than half-way toward finding this was a hate crime.

Publishing cartoons and YouTube satires of the Prophet are not physical assaults. In my estimation those sorts of offenses do not measure up to condition (1) and therefore are neither crimes nor a hate crimes. They are directed messages. But they are not messages warning of violence, they are messages intended to point out fallacies, silliness, hypocrisy, etc. ... they are satires and do not meet condition (2) of my admittedly personal definition of hate crime.

[Queens Guy]

I'll say that religion can have the opposite effect to what you describe. But most religious people rely on leadership, to help them prioritize numerous and complex principles. For example, when and why the concept of Mercy, is important, vs Justice. (Forgivingness is closely related to Mercy). I have a Koran that is over 1,500 pages. And the chapters, called Sura's are not placed chronologically, making it more difficult, for a causal reader. I consider it to be a high context book, in that one needs to understand what was going on in the Prophet's life when those words came from him. It's kind of like hearing only one side of a phone conversation. In such a case, it would be also important to know why the other party called.

Has anybody published a Koran that has the chapters arranged in chronological order?

It would be very useful in the discussion of 'Has Islam been 'corrupted' or is it violent at its heart?'

The earliest verses, written in Mecca make up the peaceful, loving and tolerant part. The latter verses, written in Medina, is the violent, hateful and intolerant part. And, since they hateful verses came after the peaceful verses, they overrule the peaceful ones.

[Prospero]

The Qur'an cannot be re-ordered. For believers the book, in Arabic, is a perfect entity handed down by Allah to the prophet. Not a word can be changed or omitted. That is one reason why damaging a Qur'an is considered so sacrilegous. When a Qur'an is disposed off finally it has to be given a funeral.

[Queens Guy]

The Qur'an cannot be re-ordered. For believers the book, in Arabic, is a perfect entity handed down by Allah to the prophet. Not a word can be changed or omitted. That is one reason why damaging a Qur'an is considered so sacrilegous. When a Qur'an is disposed off finally it has to be given a funeral.

The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book.

I'm not suggesting that any words be changed or omitted. Or that any Koran be damaged. Just that it be read in the order in which it was revealed.

[thombergeron]

It's becoming rather obvious that the stooges who filmed the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" are completely owned by the US government. Hence, the pertinent question is what the US government intended to get out of this. What they're getting out of it is demonstration of Arab hate. How that benefits anyone is an exercise I'll leave up to the student.

As an academic, you should aspire to argue with evidence rather than insinuation. From where I'm sitting, there's no evidence at all that the U.S. government had anything whatsoever to do with this shameful series of events.

It seems obvious to me that this was an amateur film made by an Egyptian Christian with long-standing ties to the cult-like Coptic community in Southern California. It's pretty clear that this was a ham-handed vanity project, and the filmmaker has gotten himself in way over his head. And it is apparent that local al Qaeda affiliates in the region have used the film for propaganda purposes, to incite protests that would serve as popular cover for targeted attacks against Western interests and their allies.

This is all based on current reporting from widely available outlets. If you have some secret evidence showing the obviousness of U.S. culpability, please share.

[jake9jake9]

I've been researching Islam for a while, it's quite interesting. Makes you realise that there's a lot of misconceptions about it due to the media, or how one may judge a religion based on how someone acts etc.

'An eye for an eye' would be a welcome change from the Muslim world.

Some Coptic Christian makes a youtube video that insults Muslims, then the Muslims should make a youtube video that insults Jesus Christ.

This was 4 lives for an insult. Far worse than 'an eye for an eye'.

Well, firstly, Jesus is their prophet (Christians believe Jesus is God, whilst Muslims believe Jesus is a messenger/Prophet of God).

Secondly, on a more serious level, if a Muslim was to insult him (or any of the Prophets like Moses, Solomon, David etc.), they would go out of the folds of their religion (ie. apostate/become disbelievers). So, although a Jew can insult Jesus, and a Christian can insult Muhammad, Muslims don't really have much to insult without it firing back on them.

I think what's more interesting is that, there's some Christians who are all up for "burning the Qur'an", without realising that, although the Bible never mentions "Mary" (mother of Jesus), the Qur'an has a whole chapter (called "Mary") that's dedicated to her and Jesus. So they end up burning a book that glorifies both Jesus and his mother.

And finally, in general, they're not allowed to insult other religions as their holy book says;

And do not insult those who invoke other than Allaah, lest they insult Allaah in enmity without knowledge.[Quran 6:108].

So the eye of an eye is impractical.

The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book.

I'm not suggesting that any words be changed or omitted. Or that any Koran be damaged. Just that it be read in the order in which it was revealed.

Muslims believe that the order of the chapters in the Qur'an are also through divine revelation to the Prophet Muhammad. That is to say, Muhammad himself received revelation that the order should be like so. It's believed to be done in that order with a specific purpose, that one chapter has significance to the other.

Explanation of Order

Such an order serves in delivering the message the Qur'an is put for, as it has got another purpose.

If you look at the first surah of the Qur'an, namely Al-Fatihah, you can perceive that it acts as a summary for the structure and the message of the Book (Qur'an) ahead of every reader.

Being Umm Al-Qur'an (the Mother of the Qur'an), it carries all its themes; it summarizes them. It tells us who Allah is: the source of all love and mercy. Therefore, knowing who He is, we should be thankful to Him and worship Him alone. We should seek His help, and He has all the power to give us whatever we need. It makes it clear that Allah is the only One Who can really guide. It speaks about life after death and the consequences of human action and behavior.

The same holds true for Surat Al-Baqarah. The first verses speak about the fact that this Book is above all doubts and it is beyond the abilities of doubters to try to challenge its validity. Then it gives a hint on its main theme — guiding the righteous — and then goes on to speak about the beginning of creation and the story of Adam to establish the theme that humankind is here on earth as a vicegerent of the Creator and should use the Book as a manual to carry out the mission in the right way.

All these themes and messages cannot be carried except through this logical order in which Allah commanded for the Qur'an to be put. If a surah like Al-`Alaq was to be put at the beginning instead of Al-Fatihah, it could have given a significance of course and give a message, but not the exact fully wonderful message that we can get from the order of the Qur'an as it is now.

http://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm

[hippifried]

A hate crime is basicly an act of terrorism. The only definitive difference is whether the act sought a political end. BHut that doesn't matter either, because officialdom won't admit that it's all the same. Incitement to hatred is the same thing, even though it's not illegal. All hate mongers know that the hatred will cause violence. They're just cowards trying to get somebody else to do their dirty work, while they hide behind a legit ideal of free speech.

As for Satire:
That's all fine & dandy as long as it isn't lies to incite hatred. We hear sll kinds of lip service given to a "right" to free speech, & I agree that free speech is basic to freedom in general, but there's no such thing as a right to impunity. When you go out of your way to piss someone off, feining surprize that they got pissed off is just another lie. Freedom comes with responsibilities. If you keep kicking the dog, don't claim to be shocked when you get bitten.

I haven't seen this video, & don't really care to, but it just seems to me that there's a whole lot of piling on with the bile toward the Muslim faith. I haven't seen or heard a plausible justification for it yet. Maybe it's just that, as far as hatred goes, they're the new kids on the block, & need to catch up to all the other derided groups. They finally made it to the front of the line.

[jake9jake9]

The earliest verses, written in Mecca make up the peaceful, loving and tolerant part. The latter verses, written in Medina, is the violent, hateful and intolerant part. And, since they hateful verses came after the peaceful verses, they overrule the peaceful ones.

You do know this verse came in the most "violent, hateful and intolerant" time?

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [2:256]

And this verse came when Muhammad's uncle not only got killed, but his body also got mutilated. In response to this, Muhammad understandably sought revenge, but these verses were immediately revealed therein -

(O Muhammad), invite them to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and dispute with them only in the most politest manner–for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His Path and who is rightly guided. And if you wish to retaliate, retaliate only in a way that is proportionate to the injury done to you. But if you endure patiently (instead of retaliating), it is better to do so. (O Muhammad), endure with patience. Truly, your patience is only possible with the help of God. Do not be grieved by them or distressed because of their schemes–for God is with those who are mindful of Him and who do good. [Qur'an 16:125]

Then there's the conquest of Mecca (where apart from 4 people, everyone was forgiven for the years of torture, killing and abuse they inflicted on the Muslims) and so on. Yes, there are violent verses during this period, but this is because the Muslims were at war with the Meccans who pretty much sought to wipe the Muslims out from existence. It's pretty much expected that verses telling the Muslims "you can now fight to defend yourselves" would come about.

In summary, I agree with Montgomery Watt (who's the most referenced Western Academic in Islamic studies) who says on this very issue;

Watt rejects the idea of Muhammad's moral failures from Meccan period to Medinian one and contends that such views has no solid grounds. He argues that "it is based on too facile a use of the principle that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Watt interprets incidents in the Medinan period in such a way that they mark "no failure in Muhammad to live to his ideals and no lapse from his moral principles." - Watt, Muhammad Prophet and Statesman