Sweden raises its terror threat level to high for fear of attacks following recent Qur'an burnings
3 years ago by DoctorTYVM to c/news
If I can't walk down the streets of Tel Aviv dressed like Hitler then there is a problem.
If I can't drive through a small town in 'Bama with a 'I VOTED FOR HILARY' bumper sticker then there is a problem.
If I can't go to a Portland Cider Bar wearing a Make America Great Again hat then there is a problem.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about
Whataboutism
I think burning a book is not comparable to dressing like hitler
Whataboutism
You keep putting yourself into the position where you GO somewhere. Sure, don't go to Israel if you're a Nazi.
Don't go to Alabama at all.
Don't go to Portland as a supporter of fascism if you don't want to be labeled as a fascist.
Don't go to a 1st world country if you want to cut off people's heads for burning books. Don't go to places if you don't support the principles they've carved out there. It's not that hard.
Burning books doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone. Someone that would hurt other people for burning books doesn't deserve to live in a first world society. Whether it be the Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever. It doesn't even matter if they're baiting people into violence. They're just proving that these individuals have those insane violent tendencies inside of them.
I'm against burning books but if someone wants to, let them.
There's also a difference between burning one book and burning all examples of said book.
It's also a question of not applying your religion to others. Your religion does not allow you to burn your own book, but you can't impose that restriction on others, as long as it's a book that they own and are not burning someone else's book in the legal sense of ownership.
The recent example in Sweden was of an Iraq refugee who was protesting his treatment by Muslims in Iraq. He claims his right to free speech was suppressed in Iraq because of Islam.
So it's the same reason everyone protests: to raise awareness of an issue. A more polarising figure, Rasmus Paludan, has also burned qurans. He did so to raise awareness of the growing violence in Muslim communities in Sweden. They proved him right.
What do you mean "clearly... using his speech to start violence"? The only people starting violence are the people starting violence. There's no restriction on free speech for hurt feelings. If we only allowed people to practise free speech when it could never offend anyone else, we'd all be silent all the time. The entire premise of the concept is that we can express ourselves when it offends others. That's the whole point. Free speech arose as a central pillar of reason, science, and democracy during the Enlightenment when the Church would hang people for claiming the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Can you see why it's important that we allow people to dissent, disagree, and even antagonise one another?
Oh yes he is an asshole. As much as I despise religion I would never lower myself to the level of defacing a book. He is also an asshole with rights, rights being threatened by much worse assholes.
Burning books isn't promoting free speech. It's literally the opposite. It's sending the message that we don't accept your ideas. That's why the Nazis did it.
Of course it's free speech. Burning the American flag is free speech. Shitting on a picture of Donald Trump is free speech. Burning Bibles is free speech. All of these happen frequently.
There's a difference between burning one instance of one book as a protest and blacklisting hundreds of books and erasing all mentions of them and forcing everyone to not read them. One is declaring your dislike for something without affecting anyone, the other is erasing history. What you just did is a false equivalence.
Why would anyone want a book about pedophilia and war?
Lolita is quite good, as is All Quiet on the Western Front. There are so many amazing books out there about awful things. And yet every religious text is just absolutely dreadful, horribly poorly written, incoherent plot and structure, no character development, and don't even get me started about the dialogue. And I'm really not kidding just make a point, they just straight up fucking suck. Idk how anyone can possibly read that shit. They should be burned for being horrible books, let alone the religious connotation.
Very well aware. Before I lost my faith I was planning on making Bible studies my career. There is so little well written or good about that book. Even in the original languages. The very few parts well done are only done well in context. The Sermon on the Mount isn't one of the best speeches of all time, it is just so much better than anything else in that book that if you read it cover to cover it is jaw dropping.
Imagine living in a world where you fear for your citizens because someone could kill them as a revenge for some burnt books.
Some Americans feel the same way about those who burn a flag.
I have just noticed Americans calling for the killing of Democrats because they dare waving a LGBTQ flag. They are literally the same kind of people they hate, extremist Muslims
Yup.
Extreme fundamentalism from any angle is the same damned thing.
The same can apply to them then.
I abhor any form of physical violence which I always find unjustifiable.
Emotional and psychological violence is just as bad and can do just as much harm.
You don't even have to imagine. That's the sad part.
Unless a huge majority of muslim religious leaders are decrying seeking vengeance for things like this, and unless they're all telling their congregations to be peaceful, then it's a shit religion that I would be ashamed to be a part of.
The list is literally hundreds of thousands. Honestly, go into any mosque and ask the imam. Follow any Islamic leaders; in the US it’s people like Imam Omar Suleiman who post a lot on social media. Or imam Khalid Latif on YouTube.
So the majority of the muslim priests (imams) are loudly condemning it during their sermons? You sure?
If so, aight, fair enough.
But if I were you I'd do what a ton of people did for the catholic church during the whole child sex scandal, and leave to join an offshoot
Yes I’m sure, my mosque even livestreams the sermon on YouTube every week if you care to check.
The fact that illiterate farmers in Pakistan are hurting people doesn’t mean I need to change my religion and has nothing to do with my prayers to God. I have as much in common with them as I do with Jack the Ripper. Should I change my citizenship because my country is full of racists? No, because they have almost nothing in common with me. Asking me to do so is because you are unable to deal with the stereotypes in your mind, not me.
Salmon Rushdie
Sigh. The attack on him was condemned by Muslims and Muslim leaders worldwide. Those condemnations were all over Muslim social media and TV in Arabic, Urdu, Swahili, Malay, Bangla, Turkish, Kazan, Uzbek, and the list goes on. Did you even bother to check? Or do you just assume all Muslims are terrorists?
This is a ludicrous statement. Obviously Muslim leaders shouldn't support or endorse violent actions, but they do not have a responsibility to account for every misdeed done by members of their faith. Does every Christian church have to provide a response for every Christian nutjob?
Does every Christian church have to provide a response for every Christian nutjob?
Nope. They can remain silent and people like me will continue to point out their involvement. Please remain silent. Please please continue to let people do bad things in the name of Christ. Also Christ never existed.
How about stop letting certain groups have special treatment?
There is zero justification for going into some raging fit if someone burns a book. Yet all these left leaning European countries have tried to turn a blind eye or downplay every time one of these groups have assaulted or threatened someone.
Assimilate to a modern, 1st world culture, or go back to the stone age bullshit where you came from. You left whatever hellhole you came from because those countries are backwards-thinking conservative theocracies. Don't you dare come to these western countries and try to impose your backwards thinking onto the native folks already there. You Assimilate to their culture, they aren't going to walk on eggshells to appease your archaic religious nonsense. Fuck religion.
Yet all these left leaning European countries have tried to turn a blind eye or downplay every time one of these groups have assaulted or threatened someone.
Which countries do you mean? And could you explain how they ignored people assaulting other people?
I fail to see why this is a thing, or why you mention it's somehow a "left" thing.
The reason it's more significant now is that Turkey is using the book burning as an excuse to withhold approving NATO membership. After that it became news, before that it wasn't news. Meaning, no need to make up stuff about you making up things about "left leaning".
There has been a massive influx of Muslims into Europe over the last decade or so due to troubles in the Middle East. The Left has naively been welcoming them en masse not realizing that so many of these people have zero interest in assimilating into these new countries and instead want to bring with them the extremist conservative values they had back home. This has been happening all across Europe from Germany to the UK to France to Sweden. These people have been known to try pushing their ass backwards views on locals and the locals not really being able to do anything about it.
Fuck Turkey they are the worst the NATO member and fight with the rest of them
Sweden and Denmark for sure, maybe also Germany, UK & France.
Islamaphobia doesn't exist. A phobia is an irrational fear. It is perfectly rational to be afraid of people who's faith instructs them to kill the non-believers.
This isn't Islamophobia.
Islamophobia definitely exists, and is the phobia / hatred of all those who practice Islam, i.e. Muslims, via a generalization that all Muslims are extreme and dangerous. This is objectively false, and systemic Islamophobia needs to stop.
However, this here is cause for concern, as there are a few extreme fundamentalist Muslims calling for the death of people over a burned book. That's not Islamophobia, that's a fear response to a direct, physical threat.
Someone else in the thread mentioned some Americans calling for the death of anyone who burns the American flag. This is also extremely concerning.
No that would be called muslimophobia
That’s not a real word. Islamophobia means irrational fear or hatred of Islam and/or Muslims.
Only bigots try to split hairs on definitions like this and say things like “homophobia isn’t homophobia if you’re not afraid of gay people.”
Yes because an ideology is the same as being gay lol.
And yes it might not be a existing distinction but one that can be made. Most Religions are stupid ideologies that I hate. Doesn't mean I hate every Catholic for following an ideology that is for example homophobic as long as the person ignores that part of the ideology.
sahih hadeeth say who ever disrespects quran/mohammad/allah kill him.
No it does not. That’s a hateful myth spread by bigots who try and take things out of context. The sahih Hadith AND the Quran actually talk in great length about how to ignore trolls and ignorant people who bash you and your religion, and to “repel evil with Good.” The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself signed the charter of Medina that guaranteed religious freedom.
Stay back on topic. I’m a practicing Muslim, and there’s 2 billion Muslims out there. If my religion told me to kill people why is it so rare then?
Then why are apostates and non Muslims treated so terribly in the Muslim world? And don't tell me they aren't.
You sound like a nice guy. But your religion has far more than its fair share of fundamentalist jackasses, the kind of people who will threaten violence because a refugee halfway around the world burned a book.
thank you.
Burn every science book and eventually they'll be exactly rewritten. Burn every religious story and they're gone forever.
I wonder why they are so afraid of the religion of peace?
That didn't really answer my question. Whataboutism.
it's hardly whataboutism if your starting statement already alludes to the comparison.
Muslims allowing islam to be known as 'the religion of peace' is one of the biggest doublespeaky manipulations around. They're technically correct, because they're referring to this line from the quran: "There will be peace on earth when there is no more al-fitnah". Al-fitnah means 'disbelief' so what they're saying is, there WILL be peace on earth, once we've converted everyone to our religion (forcibly or otherwise).
I'm a bookworm, read voraciously, and as a sad lonely young teen who struggled to understand religious people, decided to read all the books. Hindu vedas; Christian old / new testament; Buddhist dhamapada; quran, and the hadith. Islam is an awful religion when taken literally, and the few islamic sects who are genuinely peaceful (eg ahmadi, sufi) are not even considered 'real muslims' by the more popular interpretations (eg sunni / shia / salafi).
Don't rely on out-of-context quotes from dodgy rightwingers, don't rely on out-of-context explanations from muslims seeking to proselytise and make excuses, EVERYONE should read it for themselves so you're debating on solid ground with facts on your side. My absolute favourite line from these particular religious texts is when Mohammed says he wants another wife to his (iirc final wife) Aisha. Aisha says something like, you've already had the maximum number of wives; Mo falls into a trance then says, don't worry, I just spoke to god and he says it's fine. She replies "Oh, how your god rushes to fulfil your desires". Even she knew it was a crock of shit.
It's not the religion they're worried about, it's the adherents. And if you're wondering why that is, there's two towers in New York that used to be there and aren't anymore.
Gotcha the ideas are perfect, it is the people who are wrong. Odd how often that is claimed
What? In what way did I claim that?
It’s not the religion they’re worried about, it’s the adherents.
Neither guns nor bullets are abstractions. Very poor analogy.
Religious texts are just about the only books I support burning, especially if the intent is to piss off the morons that think the books are true.
How can I make a donation to buy more korans and kerosene for them?
There's millions of those "sacred books" being printed by machines. Just go buy another one. They're dirt cheap too.
Its not like burning the quran is part of everyday life in society. More like they deliberate do it because they know its offensive for muslims, so its an obvious provocation disguised as freedom of expression. Im atheist btw and i despise religion in general, but sad to see reason being downvoted. Sorry i can't back you up on the comment sections, i cant afford to be judged right now.
I honestly don't understand why you're being downvoted. Book burning is probably one of the worst steps you can take towards being intolerant without directly harming people. There had to be so many more options that could've been taken that would've de-escalated the situation in a way that didn't involve destruction.
I think it's the fact that true tolerance would allow the burning of any book. Not all copies, not banning it from circulation, but the burning of an individual symbol as a means of expressing an idea is perfectly fine in most Americans' view. I share that view, I understand the nuance of the situation at hand, I'm aware the quaran is a holy book and that it sends a strong message.
But so does burning the American flag, as a symbol, to show that America's ideals and values are dead or do not apply for the people doing the burning. American flag burning was done with the intent to express that the symbol of freedom and equality that it was pushed as was not at all representative of the America those people were experiencing. America has a problem with nationalism, so much so they tossed "under god" in a "non-mandatory" (socially reinforced) pledge of allegiance you say every day before school starts all the way until you graduate. You can imagine burning the flag pissed those nationalists off too, but their vitriol and frustration is useless and unwarranted.
If you say the culture of Islam, or the culture of the people who see that book as their most holy symbol and use it to justify violence, is unwelcome in your nation, as an individual, that's completely fine to me. I don't love the blanket statement, but I do love that you can express it without fear of retaliation from your government and with the knowledge that you are as safe expressing that belief as you are expressing one more widely agreed upon.
If I disagree with you, I should debate you, i should seek to educate you, or be louder than you with my actions and words. That's not the way of every place in the world, but it is the way of any civilized people. Any who condone violence in response, even provoked violence, are closer to animals than their fellow man.
I want to agree with you but I can't. The world can't run by true tolerance; at least not in this day and age. There are too many beliefs, cultures, and ideas that are being eroded away by people that spout hatred. Why? Just because they can? Just because they have the right?
If anything, the closest we can be is intolerant of the intolerant. The people that burned the books were an "anti-Islam activist group". This sounds exactly like other hate groups like the proud boys, westboro baptist Church, the KKK, the EFF, Islamic extremists... These aren't people that are celebrating their free speech. They are people that are practicing legal hostility as a tool to oppress others. I'd say hate speech is a good line to draw when allowing people to have public demonstrations.
You don't believe in freedom of speech.
Burning the American flag is a different ordeal. When you invade their country in the name of “freedom” don’t expect love and rose.
Imagine the reverse, Iraq invading the US over fake claims of “chemical weapons” and imposing their political regime and destroying your whole way of life, imposing the Shariah Law (just like the US imposed their view of freedom). Would you still hold the same views? I think not.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
If I can't burn your holy book without terrorism there's a problem.
save