Is "Call to Prayer" sample offensive?

[compositeone]

Nobody will kill you for making a song.

I guess that's a similar thought to the one Salman Rushdie had.

salmon rushdie is still alive and well

The point being that many have tried to finish him off......

[sqook]

Dawkins should have stuck with writing science books, his views on this are as intolerant as the people he criticizes.

+1

Dawkins makes me feel ashamed to call myself an "athiest".

[andydes]

Good to see all the same old arguments coming out, as usual.

salmon rushdie is still alive and well

And he sold a lot of books as well. Some extremists should note the old adage that no publicity is bad publicity.

Anyway, I think if you use it in a respectful manner (and not as part of an album of massive dance tracks called “Off Yer Tits” or something) I doubt you’ll get a fatwa issued against you or anything. The trouble with the Danish cartoons is that they went out of their way to be controversial. Not that that justifies the reaction.

If you’re really concerned about it and think you might make any money out of it, why not donate a portion to a charity in Pakistan or something. Then surely even the most hardened crazy would have trouble complaining.

As far as I can tell, the call to prayer itself isn’t sacred anyway, but don’t quote me on that. An Islamic friend of mine once had an alarm clock which played the call to prayer (it was rarely set for sunrise) and I don’t remember anyone getting offended by those.

[edge100]

I guess that's a similar thought to the one Salman Rushdie had.

salmon rushdie is still alive and well

The point being that many have tried to finish him off......

Precisely the point.

The idea that you would kill over words is utter lunacy, but is indicative of a much larger problem: irrational belief. But as Sam Harris puts it, you must put yourself into the shoes of someone who actually believes the word of an invisible god. Unfortunately, we live in a time where this belief may kill us all; we can no longer afford the 'tolerance-at-the-expense-of-all-else' attitude we've grown accustomed to.

[edge100]

Dawkins should have stuck with writing science books, his views on this are as intolerant as the people he criticizes.

+1

Dawkins makes me feel ashamed to call myself an "athiest".

Except he's right; he's just not afraid to tell it like it is. We have developed this attitude that we must never offend, and we must always be tolerant; people who deny that the Earth is round are not taken seriously, but we make a special case for people who believe the Earth is six-thousand years old? The latter group is above critique? Give me a break.

Dawkins and Harris are what atheists should be; we simply cannot go on this way.

[M. Bréqs]

And please don't use the word 'honour killing'. It's a stupid term and was invented to sell newspapers. Nobody will kill you for making a song.

But Movies are a totally different thing - just ask Theo van Gogh. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead.

Personally, I would make the song. If you're not muslim, then you can use whatever you want. Non-muslims are NOT subject to muslim rules (yet). Just don't be surprised when some nutter tries to sink a kitchen knife in your stomach.

On another issue completely, watch out for copyright laws. If it's an illegal sample you're using, then it's a no-no regardless.

[M. Bréqs]

+1

Dawkins makes me feel ashamed to call myself an "athiest".

Except he's right; he's just not afraid to tell it like it is. We have developed this attitude that we must never offend, and we must always be tolerant; people who deny that the Earth is round are not taken seriously, but we make a special case for people who believe the Earth is six-thousand years old? The latter group is above critique? Give me a break.

Dawkins and Harris are what atheists should be; we simply cannot go on this way.

Good damn point.

I am allowed to critique and challenge your scientific beliefs. If you believe that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth, I have every right to challenge you. I also have the right to call you stupid. That's my opinion, and I am allowed to voice my opinion, it has nothing to do with "tolerance" or "diversity".

I am allowed to critique and challenge your ideological beliefs. If you believe that the entire world should be controlled by a single soviet government, I have every right to challenge you. I also have the right to call you stupid. I also have the right to call you evil. That's my opinion, and I am allowed to voice my opinion, it has nothing to do with "tolerance" or "diversity".

Why am I not allowed to critique and challenge religious beliefs? It's not racism - your religion is not determined by your genes. If you believe that your religion's founder violated the laws of observable physics, why can't I call bullshit? Why is it wrong to state that there is ample historical evidence in both the works of your religion and other sources that your founder was both a mass murderer and practicing pedophile? Why can't I call you stupid? Why can't I call you evil? Why would I be labeled "intolerant"?

How come, as soon as an invisible man is attached to your belief, that your position becomes unassailable?

Fncking bnllsh1t.

I don't agree that religion shouldn't be discriminated against. It's not based in uncontrollable factors, it's what you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. Like all other ideas, we should fear being indiscriminate with our acceptance of religion.

[noisetonepause]

Really? And where do you get that shit? And the "5 minutes of shouting Down with Denmark" and quickly moved on?

The story from Libya is from an article in Review of African Political Economy from 2006 (no. 108) by Alison Pargeter.

The story about Iran is from an Iranian friend (who I study Persian language with) who was there when it was peaking.

That the Lebanon riots were orchestrated is common knowledge. I also have friends who were there and paint a VERY different picture than was in the media at the time.

Actually, according to ALL reports, at least 139 people were killed in protests, mainly in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan in DIRECT relation to the controversy surrounding the 12 cartoons that were published in Jyllands-Posten.

There were riots, yes. Embassies were burned and people were killed, yes. I and many others (such as my friends, who were actually there, with Danish passports) will dispute that this riots were spontaneous and based on popular and common opinions.

Each cartoon showed The Prophet Muhammad in a fairly bad light,

Have you actually seen them? It was two or three of them that did. You should know that they were actually a very specific commentary on one event (where an islamophobe author had difficulty getting something to do it for the cover of his book) and that most of the cartoons reflected that.

[hambone1]

I don't agree that religion shouldn't be discriminated against. It's not based in uncontrollable factors, it's what you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. Like all other ideas, we should fear being indiscriminate with our acceptance of religion.

Great post... that really got me thinking. Now I realize that's how I feel. I just didn't understand it or know how to explain it.

[noisetonepause]

And please don't use the word 'honour killing'. It's a stupid term and was invented to sell newspapers. Nobody will kill you for making a song.

But Movies are a totally different thing - just ask Theo van Gogh. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead.

I was assuming that the OP's song wouldn't contain the lyrics "You fuck camels, you fuck goats, everything you believe in is a hoax, goat fucker goat fucker goat fucker goat fucker". If he stays clear of that, I think he'll be all right....

[andydes]

I don't know, if you have it drummed into you every day from your birth, you'll believe it despite anything. Otherwise people would be switching religions left right and centre. Indoctrination, mate.

[edge100]

I don't know, if you have it drummed into you every day from your birth, you'll believe it despite anything. Otherwise people would be switching religions left right and centre. Indoctrination, mate.

Yup. The number one reason people believe in god? Their parents did.

[M. Bréqs]

I don't know, if you have it drummed into you every day from your birth, you'll believe it despite anything. Otherwise people would be switching religions left right and centre. Indoctrination, mate.

Then let me draw an analogy;

You have a kid who grew up in a crappy home. His old man kicked the crap out of his mom all the time, and all that.

So this kid grows up into a violent man, BELIEVING that women are meant to be punching bags.

It's been drummed into him every day since birth, and he'll believe it despite anything. However...

Is it not out OBLIGATION to criticize this man's beliefs? He can't circumvent our criticism by citing intolerance "hey, I'm a wife-beater, it's what I believe, you can't discriminate against me!!!"

He can't claim that attacks against his firmly indoctrinated beliefs are discouraging "diversity". That would be insane.

But let me get this straight... firmly held beliefs that cause harm are protected from criticism if you incorporate an invisible dude and call them "religion". Fuck that.

[andydes]

I wonder how many people would respect me worshiping Zeus.

A few thousand years ago, that would have been expected of me if I lived in Greece.

I guess it comes down to weight of numbers.

[Tone Deft]

Just don't put any cowbell along with it, they must be separate.