I thought it might be useful for you guys to read this article in BBC News today.
"A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan."
Search the article on Google. Since I'm still new I can't post links yet.
If you think such a thing as freedom of speech exists then you're wrong.
The truth is that it only exists if it suits the needs of the country you live in or certain governments. In most cases this will be a non-muslim government.
If it doesn't suit their needs then you can kiss your freedom of speech goodbye because it's a one sided freedom that is there to serve the laws of the country you live in just like the U.N.
For e.g. let's take Jews and The Holocaust. If anyone tries to deny The Holocaust then it's considered a crime in many countries. That's a special privilege they get for the "huge helping hand" they provide to the world.
Yet if any the sacred history of any other religion is denied or questioned like the recent Channel 4 Documentary, then it's not considered a crime. That's "Freedom of Speech".
Another is example this forum or any publicly open forum or message board.
Do you think that just because this is a Islamic Forum that only muslims or average citizens are are reading these posts?
Do you think you can exercise your freedom of speech on a forum like this?
Think again. For every member there's around 10 guests.
I guarantee you, there are people who are paid full time to monitor every post on public forums like these and other forums and popular social networks.
After all how do you think the guy above got found out?
Every word you type is monitored. Anything you say that is mildly worrying to Uncle Sam is noted down including your IP address and everything else.
You think I'm paranoid? It's time you woke up to the reality of public forums!
Just be careful and watch what you say in public.
Don't give people an excuse to take away your freedoms.
I thought it might be useful for you guys to read this article in BBC News today.
"A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan."
Search the article on Google. Since I'm still new I can't post links yet.
If you think such a thing as freedom of speech exists then you're wrong.
The truth is that it only exists if it suits the needs of the country you live in or certain governments. In most cases this will be a non-muslim government.
That's not quite true. That guy was free to say that British troops should not be in Afghanistan. He was free to protest about it all he wanted, to go to his local town centre and shout and scream about it if he so wished.
He cannot call for people to be killed - that's where the crime is here.
In the same way, I could protest about Islam/Christianity/Judaism if I wanted, but I could not call for the deaths of Muslims/Christians/Jews.
I do agree though that it's a very fine line and a difficult one to judge. As a general rule (here in the UK) anything which incites violence or hatred against others is not allowed.
Difficult distinction to make though.
Freedom of speech is no excuse for insulting religious symbols
[ 15/09/2012 - 09:59 PM ]
By Khalid Amayreh* in occupied Jerusalem
The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film "innocence of Muslims" have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.
They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.
The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media's role hasn't exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.
In the final analysis, the media didn't make the news, it just reported it.
The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.
But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.
I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.
But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.
This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.
Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.
However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.
There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.
And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.
In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.
Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.
In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel's right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.
The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.
But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.
I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.
We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism.
* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
observer
09-16-2012, 02:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister harb
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I think this is a good aim - finding that balance; well, that's a lot harder. You have to be able to criticise religion in a free society, it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?
Fair enough. You have a point. Maybe he should have expressed his dis-contentment in other ways.
But according to the BBC news' wording of what he said, his words could be interpreted in different ways.
One way of interpreting it is that it was just his own personal opinion about how he felt because according to your own media sources and statistics as well as your own expert politicians, many admit that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more harm than achieve what they set out to achieve and many are opposed to the wars.
To me it doesn't sound like he made a call for people to be killed because I'm sure that person was aware of the consequences of making such a stupid statement like that in public.
The only reason he got convicted was because he made that statement whilst residing in a country that is opposed to his views and where they call the shots and decide what is or isn't freedom of speech when it suits their purposes.
And that was my point in the original post in this thread that freedom of speech is something that exists only when it serves the purpose of the host nation. Otherwise it's just an illusion like many other so called freedoms.
Personally, I feel really sorry for your troops because they are just being used for the purposes of capitalistic gain (admitted by some of your top brass) which is being disguised and promoted by the media as Patriotism. The sad reality is that they or their families will most likely never be recompensed enough for the great sacrifices they are making for their country. They won't ever see any of the gains being made from the huge oil and mineral contracts being arranged behind the scenes which is what they're really fighting for (although they think they're doing it for their country)
What's even sadder is that the average citizen never really has a say in foreign policy because the end decision is made without their approval just like it did with Iraq which makes me wonder how democratic a democracy really is.
it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?
I don't know what is the baseline? Seems like libel and slander/hate and inflammatory instigation are all forms of free speech but at the same time punishable by law if the 'right party' is the one under the assault. Is that part of the package in the west? I grew up in the midst of people who have respect even for the guy who shines your shoe and all of a sudden we've to rid of fine manners to meet on a level.. and it is unfortunate that we've to lower ourselves to combat what you or they deem 'free speech'
The war is hugely unpopular here - the soldiers are well respected though, mainly because it is widely recognized that it's not their fault that they are there - governments start wars, not soldiers.
His posting appeared to suggest that soldiers deserved to die which is seen here as incitement. But I agree that it's really difficult drawing that line.
I think he was also punished harshly as we have recently had here a crackdown on internet hate speech - insulting anyone because of race/religion/profession is being punished as a message that you can't say whatever you want on the net - the limits are the same as in "real" society.
format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa2012
What's even sadder is that the average citizen never really has a say in foreign policy because the end decision is made without their approval just like it did with Iraq which makes me wonder how democratic a democracy really is.
Definitely. One million marched against invading Iraq in London - the government, as you say, just didn't listen.
I don't know what is the baseline? Seems like libel and slander/hate and inflammatory instigation are all forms of free speech but at the same time punishable by law if the 'right party' is the one under the assault. Is that part of the package in the west? I grew up in the midst of people who have respect even for the guy who shines your shoe and all of a sudden we've to rid of fine manners to meet on a level.. and it is unfortunate that we've to lower ourselves to combat what you or they deem 'free speech'
I don't agree that the west is without manners, I think that's very unfair.
Although I think you're right when you ask "what is the baseline?". No-one really knows, which is why it is constantly tested (and lawyers make big money!!!).
ech'
I don't agree that the west is without manners, I think that's very unfair.
Motivated by litigation unfortunately from what I have seen. And those (that I am friends with) who are what you'd consider WASPS have in spite of overt good manners s dark side of horrible prejudices that rear their ugly heads every now and then that it takes my breath away and I don't usually take the 'jokes' although not directed toward me but say black people or Mexicans or whomever they deem inferior as funny.
Although I think you're right when you ask "what is the baseline?". No-one really knows, which is why it is constantly tested (and lawyers make big money!!!).
I agree especially with the last part of that statement!
The war is hugely unpopular here - the soldiers are well respected though, mainly because it is widely recognized that it's not their fault that they are there - governments start wars, not soldiers.
His posting appeared to suggest that soldiers deserved to die which is seen here as incitement. But I agree that it's really difficult drawing that line.
I think he was also punished harshly as we have recently had here a crackdown on internet hate speech - insulting anyone because of race/religion/profession is being punished as a message that you can't say whatever you want on the net - the limits are the same as in "real" society.
Definitely. One million marched against invading Iraq in London - the government, as you say, just didn't listen.
Ok fair enough. He should have thought more carefully about what he said.
I'm glad we agree on some important points which many people seem to miss in the midst of all the created confusion and mis-information being published in the media.
We need to learn more to "read between the lines" so to speak.
Which is why it is so important for people to get their information or the news from a no. of sources, preferably independent.
Relying too much on one source of media can result in getting a biased one-sided view of the reality of things.
There's a wide range of sources we can refer to besides newspapers like on-line internet forums, radio, TV and specialist magazines and websites.
I've always found forums and radio interviews and analyses to be far more useful and interesting than newspapers because they are often made by educated, informed and balanced people.
Ok fair enough. He should have thought more carefully about what he said.
I'm glad we agree on some important points which many people seem to miss in the midst of all the created confusion and mis-information being published in the media.
We need to learn more to "read between the lines" so to speak.
Which is why it is so important for people to get their information or the news from a no. of sources, preferably independent.
Relying too much on one source of media can result in getting a biased one-sided view of the reality of things.
There's a wide range of sources we can refer to besides newspapers like on-line internet forums, radio, TV and specialist magazines and websites.
I've always found forums and radio interviews and analyses to be far more useful and interesting than newspapers because they are often made by educated, informed and balanced people.
Totally agree - with the net now news and information can be got from so many sources - people just need to start using them!
Totally agree - with the net now news and information can be got from so many sources - people just need to start using them!
Yes, definitely.
Huge newspaper advertising contracts can sometimes influence the way that a particular story or stories is/are published so it's best to read around for a balanced view on any given topic.
Hi observer, and welcome to the LI forum. :thankyou:
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
I do agree though that it's a very fine line and a difficult one to judge. As a general rule (here in the UK) anything which incites violence or hatred against others is not allowed.
Difficult distinction to make though.
Is there legislation other than the one relating to hate crime?
As far as I understand hate crime only covers disability, gender-identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation. So I am not sure how this could apply to the example given of somebody calling for the death of certain people.
Hate crime involves any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic. The definition covers five main strands, in particular - disability, gender-identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation.
I think this is a good aim - finding that balance; well, that's a lot harder. You have to be able to criticise religion in a free society, it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?
Even if they might not like it, I think everyone would be able to accept criticisms if it is based on FACTS, don't you agree?
Assalam alaikum
No, Justified to attack muslims only
image of the Pope with a yellow stain.............. Hamburg court banned the magazine from publishing the images and from further distributing the issue.
In Germany, a satirical magazine called Titanic, featured in its cover of its July edition, an altered image of the Pope with a yellow stain (color of Vatican flag) on the front (below his belly) of his white robes with the headline, "Hallelujah in the Vatican - the leak is found."
Satirical mag shows Pope with pee stain
Vatican threatens to sue
By QMI Agency
The Vatican has threatened to sue a satirical magazine in Germany over their July edition because it features an altered image of the Pope with a yellow stain on the front of his white robes with the headline, "Hallelujah in the Vatican - the leak is found."
The cover story of the latest issue of Titanic is about the so-called Vatileaks scandal, where internal documents have been made public, including information about the church's tax problems, scandals involving priests and correspondence involving the Pope.
"Press freedom is valued as very important, but from experience we know that religious satire is problematic and often polarizing," says Kremer.
By Wednesday lunchtime, some 40 complaints had been made to the Presserat. "People feel that their religious feeling has been violated and they also believe that the Pope's human dignity is being violated by that picture," Kremer says.
Even if they might not like it, I think everyone would be able to accept criticisms if it is based on FACTS, don't you agree?
But that's where it's difficult isn't it? Any "fact" that lies outside the teachings of a religion (and especially outside the "holy book" of that religion) is going to be disputed by that religion, surely?
So what do we say? Criticism is only allowed within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised? I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
But that's Germany - a country with very strong religious hatred laws - the film in question was made in the US. The joke in question would have been allowed in the US.
I can't link, but Google the Benetton "Pope gay kiss" advert. That was hugely offensive to Catholics but was not banned everywhere.
But that's where it's difficult isn't it? Any "fact" that lies outside the teachings of a religion (and especially outside the "holy book" of that religion) is going to be disputed by that religion, surely?
Sure, it may get disputed by the followers of that religion. And your point is?
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
So what do we say? Criticism is only allowed within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised? I wouldn't be comfortable with that.
Did I even say that criticism is only allowed "within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised"??
you are pulling strawman and red herrings left and right.
I guess 1.6 billion people being offended is no comparison to the above, since they’re Muslim of course.
Poland:
On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about €5000 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.[4]
So if you insult the pope you get to pay a fine, but if you insult the prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him you get a freedom of speech award!
On 26–27 January 2005, 28 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the Polish authorities for allegedly insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[5]
You get into trouble if you insult a merciless dictator, but if you insult a merciful prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him you are a threat to freedom of speech
In October 2006, a Polish man was arrested in Warsaw after expressing his dissatisfaction with the leadership of Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by passing gas loudly
So they cannot accept that one of their own should protest by passing out gas loudly, but Muslims are supposed to bear all insults to their prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him however mean or disgusting they are.
And, now the bastion of free speech, Denmark,
In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]
Anyone see the double standards or am I only the one in the house ? Denmark is the same country that celebrated the cartoonist for his courage and heroism.
In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lese-majesty in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a “*****” and described several sexual acts he would like to perform on her to a police officer
Call the prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him all that you want to call, but you cant call the queen anything but good! Freedom of speech!
Norway:
Article 101 states: ‘If any defamation is exercised against the King or the Regent, the guilty is punished with a fine or up to five years of prison
Spain:
The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain’s lese-majesty laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007
But you are free to draw inappropriate cartoons of the prophet, May peace and blessing be upon him.
So how do we criticise religion only sticking to the "facts" then, as you suggest?
Are you telling me you have never criticized anything based on facts?
Or have you always criticized things based on your imagination and fantasy?
I thought as an atheist you'd be more aggressive in forcing anyone to believe anything based on facts? Or do you pick and choose which one should be based on facts and which are fee for all?
Are you telling me you have never criticized anything based on facts?
I think we're getting our wires crossed here.
You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.
For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.
If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?
So how do we criticise religion only sticking to the "facts" then, as you suggest?
I think what he means is simply intellectual discourse or if not discourse then at least something done in a proper manner. Simply put, done respectfully. I'm sure you agree that mocking and criticizing are two different things. There are plenty of books that criticize Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I think people can respect that.
I think what he means is simply intellectual discourse or if not discourse then at least something done in a proper manner. Simply put, done respectfully. I'm sure you agree that mocking and criticizing are two different things. There are plenty of books that criticize Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I think people can respect that.
Definitely, I completely agree with this. I think one of the greatest rights of all is the right to agree to disagree.
You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.
For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.
If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?
You're getting lost in semantics!
Everything even subjective sciences like psychology have a system that's agreed upon.
Perhaps you simply have no desire to do the homework and prefer a dance around the subject matter but that at the end of the day is your problem not ours and indeed doesn't change or detract from the facts any!
You're getting lost in semantics!
Everything even subjective sciences like psychology have a system that's agreed upon.
Perhaps you simply have no desire to do the homework and prefer a dance around the subject matter but that at the end of the day is your problem not ours and indeed doesn't change or detract from the facts any!
Best,
Ok, so how do we agree upon a system to criticise religion? I don't see that the argument is becoming "lost in semantics" at all.
Ok, so how do we agree upon a system to criticise religion? I don't see that the argument is becoming "lost in semantics" at all.
Textual integrity, logical consistency, supernatural eloquence, transcendence, guidance, miraculous nature, prophecies, there are loads of ways..
Everything has a system, your being unlearned in that system doesn't make it incorrect or non-factual, it merely means that you're unlearned, when you're unlearned you criticize but not systematically and not in anyway that would cause more than ire to the masses not because what you've to say is worth while, but because have low tolerance for stupidity!
Textual integrity, logical consistency, supernatural eloquence, transcendence, guidance, miraculous nature, prophecies, there are loads of ways..
Everything has a system, your being unlearned in that system doesn't make it incorrect or non-factual, it merely means that you're unlearned, when you're unlearned you criticize but not systematically and not in anyway that would cause more than ire to the masses not because what you've to say is worth while, but because have low tolerance for stupidity!
So where did you learn how to criticise with "supernatural eloquence" then?
You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.
For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.
If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?
I am glad you brought a specific example.
I am not insulted at all when you said you believe Al Qur'an is not the word of God, then we can discuss, and as sister منوة الخيال mentioned, we can evaluate and argue whether Al Qur'an is the word of God based on logically, intellectually and/or academically accepted criteria.
I am not sure if you have any limit at all to what is defined as "criticism" of religion. How do you define criticism and thus is allowed and are there anything that should not be okay when discussing faith and religion? Or are you of the opinion that "freedom of speech" cover everything?
So where did you learn how to criticise with "supernatural eloquence" then?
Every messenger came upon his people with a miracle that stood out from what was miraculous at the time.. Moses (P) happened upon Egypt where magic was there thing, and he showed them stuff that the best magicians (the pharaohs best priests) of the time knew was not an illusion. Jesus (P) happened upon people who were into medicine and again with his healing the lepers and the blind was something miraculous for its time. Prophet Mohammed happened upon people whose prose and poetry was their bread and butter, they used to put the best of their poetry to hang on Kaaba for prizes and yet no one could bring a sura like the Quran (which is the Quranic challenge) even if it be as short as suret Al'kawthar.
Perhaps I have an advantage is that I read the best they'd to offer and no one can offer what they offered just merely look at the Burdah poem in original tongue and then have a look at the Quran.. there's nothing like it.
Of course you'll come to me with, of what of the non-Arabic speakers.. well everyone who becomes Muslim has to at least learn a little Arabic if to merely complete their prayers, and although it isn't a contributing to accepting Islam for Arabic speakers makeup about 20% of the Muslim world the book on its own is absolutely spellbinding, if you just take it from the matter of the law of combinatorics or the fact that verses are sometimes revealed 20 years apart yet flow in consistency, lyricism, meaning yet there was no computer to file or an assistant boy to sort through the files while it covers every subject from the laws of inheritance to politics, economics, social structure, ideology, jurisprudence and the affairs of the state, all coming from an illiterate man is truly beyond mind blowing!
Other than that if you honestly wish to criticize based on that factor alone (supernatural eloquence) then again I see no other way around it. You should at least start from an acceptable baseline and not simply mouth off because you don't understand and don't like that others are so ensnared.. you should meet people on a level not bathe them in empty rhetoric!
Every messenger came upon his people with a miracle that stood out from what was miraculous at the time.. Moses (P) happened upon Egypt where magic was there thing, and he showed them stuff that the best magicians (the pharaohs best priests) of the time knew was not an illusion. Jesus (P) happened upon people who were into medicine and again with his healing the lepers and the blind was something miraculous for its time. Prophet Mohammed happened upon people whose prose and poetry was their bread and butter, they used to put the best of their poetry to hang on Kaaba for prizes and yet no one could bring a sura like the Quran (which is the Quranic challenge) even if it be as short as suret Al'kawthar.
Perhaps I have an advantage is that I read the best they'd to offer and no one can offer what they offered just merely look at the Burdah poem in original tongue and then have a look at the Quran.. there's nothing like it.
Of course you'll come to me with, of what of the non-Arabic speakers.. well everyone who becomes Muslim has to at least learn a little Arabic if to merely complete their prayers, and although it isn't a contributing to accepting Islam for Arabic speakers makeup about 20% of the Muslim world the book on its own is absolutely spellbinding, if you just take it from the matter of the law of combinatorics or the fact that verses are sometimes revealed 20 years apart yet flow in consistency, lyricism, meaning yet there was no computer to file or an assistant boy to sort through the files while it covers every subject from the laws of inheritance to politics, economics, social structure, ideology, jurisprudence and the affairs of the state, all coming from an illiterate man is truly beyond mind blowing!
Other than that if you honestly wish to criticize based on that factor alone (supernatural eloquence) then again I see no other way around it. You should at least start from an acceptable baseline and not simply mouth off because you don't understand and don't like that others are so ensnared.. you should meet people on a level not bathe them in empty rhetoric!
best,
Just one thing - I haven't actually criticised anything in this thread - just asked where the limit is, where does acceptable criticism change into unacceptable insult. I certainly haven't "mouthed off" (I don't think) or engaged in "empty rhetoric".
Just one thing - I haven't actually criticised anything in this thread - just asked where the limit is, where does acceptable criticism change into unacceptable insult. I certainly haven't "mouthed off" (I don't think) or engaged in "empty rhetoric".
and when I wrote 'you' I didn't mean you observer .. just a general statement of those who do..
I am not sure if you have any limit at all to what is defined as "criticism" of religion. How do you define criticism and thus is allowed and are there anything that should not be okay when discussing faith and religion? Or are you of the opinion that "freedom of speech" cover everything?
I think that we need limits on offending people, yes, but I don't know where they should go to be honest.
I don't, however, like the idea that we may get to a situation where, prior to publishing something, people are trying to work out if their material will offend if they publish. That doesn't seem healthy to me. I personally believe that no subject should be "taboo" generally.
I think that we need limits on offending people, yes, but I don't know where they should go to be honest.
I don't, however, like the idea that we may get to a situation where, prior to publishing something, people are trying to work out if their material will offend if they publish. That doesn't seem healthy to me. I personally believe that no subject should be "taboo" generally.
If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.
If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.
I think that's a pretty good starting point.
It's never going to be black and white though - and things like comedy are always going to push levels of offensiveness.
If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.
How often does that work? The truth is not always something unanimously accepted. If some speaker speaks out on something the local government doesn't see as truth or want to be seen as truth they crack down on him/her.
That is why the laws of free speech generally protect anything even the ridiculous stuff that is a bit out there because who is to say what is too far out there. It can than easily turn into the rule of majority or the strong. This is how so many countries went of the deep end and what freedom of speech tries to protect from.
Any laws that clearly rule out insulting content could be misused way to easily. Some factions like conservative Christians even get insulted by stuff that is never meant as an insult but simple indifference.
Free speech will remain a really fuzzy thing that allows most anything in general unless there is a clear objective reason not to, like hate preaching, call to hurt, kill, bully and so on.
Some things are legal because outlawing them is considered to require laws that can cause more potential harm than they will do good.
If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.
People can only stick to the facts and never include their personal biases or emotions in their work or their art? That world will never exist and should not be required to.
People should be allowed to offend others. I argue that there are people that should be offended for what they believe and what they do, and laws should allow that. Should I be afraid of offending a member of the KKK for insulting their beliefs? Should it be illegal for me to insult L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? What is the criteria for who is allowed to and who is not allowed to be insulted?
After all, if people want to argue that it should be illegal to insult someone or their beliefs then a good portion of the posters on this forum would be in handcuffs already.
In the United States your right to free speech is protected, but it is a two edged sword. It means that you can say whatever you want about other people and their beliefs, but that they can do the same to you and yours. When you limit such speech you get what you have in other countries, which is intimidation of minority religions and the damming of thoughts and ideas. You get the overreaction to the Holocaust in Austria, the protection of royalty in Europe which was mentioned earlier, and the threat of going to jail or even death on the rumor of insulting Islam in Pakistan by any religious minority.
How often does that work? The truth is not always something unanimously accepted. If some speaker speaks out on something the local government doesn't see as truth or want to be seen as truth they crack down on him/her.
That is why the laws of free speech generally protect anything even the ridiculous stuff that is a bit out there because who is to say what is too far out there. It can than easily turn into the rule of majority or the strong. This is how so many countries went of the deep end and what freedom of speech tries to protect from.
Any laws that clearly rule out insulting content could be misused way to easily. Some factions like conservative Christians even get insulted by stuff that is never meant as an insult but simple indifference.
Free speech will remain a really fuzzy thing that allows most anything in general unless there is a clear objective reason not to, like hate preaching, call to hurt, kill, bully and so on.
Some things are legal because outlawing them is considered to require laws that can cause more potential harm than they will do good.
The laws are largely arbitrary and such is the case when the devices are left to men to decide what is and what isn't-- some people are just not happy until they've pushed for every vice.. at any rate said laws so far seem to protect only what is antithetical to what is good. Just ask folks like Fincklstein, who lost his job for speaking out against Zionist brutalities or others who were thrown in jail for questioning the holocaust or laws those who are fined for speaking out against the almost over night niqaab bans that take place. So let's not tread that line as the way we see it is pure hypocrisy on your part. Nothing but pure hypocrisy and selective justice.
The speech you speak of and promote is nothing short of libel and slander/hate speech that's meant to inflame people and cause mob mentality.. and in fact you shouldn't act so surprised when that is the end result. Others simply don't and won't and shouldn't subscribe to your brand of justice, your brand of democracy nor your brand of freedom!
People can only stick to the facts and never include their personal biases or emotions in their work or their art? That world will never exist and should not be required to.
what's artistic about a guy taking a dump and asking us to sniff it?
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
People should be allowed to offend others. I argue that there are people that should be offended for what they believe and what they do, and laws should allow that. Should I be afraid of offending a member of the KKK for insulting their beliefs? Should it be illegal for me to insult L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? What is the criteria for who is allowed to and who is not allowed to be insulted?
Again if you stick to the facts of folks killing merely the color of someone's skin or because xenu wants you to confess your tax returns then no one should be offended. Islam isn't a secret occult society- I don't see Muslims interviewed to counter what folks allege we believe, they simply concoct it. If the news were merely about passive transmission and not active creation, and concoction then people might consider what you subscribe to as 'freedom of speech' as having some semblance of credibility!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
After all, if people want to argue that it should be illegal to insult someone or their beliefs then a good portion of the posters on this forum would be in handcuffs already.
Not only that but held without trials too.. just ask folks like Babar .. thank you for proving my point and western hypocrisy!
what's artistic about a guy taking a dump and asking us to sniff it?
To me and you? Nothing. To others it may have merit, though. You want to have artistic merit police? I sure don't.
Again if you stick to the facts of folks killing merely the color of someone's skin or because xenu wants you to confess your tax returns then no one should be offended.
So you are arguing that if someone made a video and posted it on Youtube with the sole intent of offending the KKK that the person should be arrested? How long should their sentence be compared to someone who made a video to insult Muslims?
If the news were merely about passive transmission and not active creation, and concoction then people might consider what you subscribe to as 'freedom of speech' as having some semblance of credibility!
Now you want truth police also? Who exactly would you put in charge of this?
You and I both know that peoples bias will creep into what they do, including the news. If you ran a news show it would be different than if I ran one. They could both be entirely truthful, yet convey different things. We could interpret things differently, so that your "facts" would contradict my "facts". Freedom of Speech, though, allows both of us to present our facts.
Not only that but held without trials too.. just ask folks like Babar .. thank you for proving my point and western hypocrisy!
Are you referring to Babar Ahmad? If so, what has that got at all to do with Freedom of Speech, which is the subject of this thread? I don't see how his case in any way shows any hypocrisy in the US policy towards free speech. That was a complete non sequitur.
To me and you? Nothing. To others it may have merit, though. You want to have artistic merit police? I sure don't.
Sure I do- I minored in Art History in undergrad. so why not? This might come as a shock to you but alot of 'Art'/garbage gets rejected!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Now you want truth police also? Who exactly would you put in charge of this?
You and I both know that peoples bias will creep into what they do, including the news. If you ran a news show it would be different than if I ran one. They could both be entirely truthful, yet convey different things. We could interpret things differently, so that your "facts" would contradict my "facts". Freedom of Speech, though, allows both of us to present our facts.
I notice the desire of atheists to constantly keep things general as to not gauge a meaningful discussion. As to who would put me or anyone in charge- a little innate God given common sense goes a long way - the same way any normal person of reason can go to the market and pick out fresh fruits from rotten ones. The same way your body can recognize outside cells, and the same way folks can distinguish weed from grass. It isn't that difficult. Some folks are just not happy unless pushing for every vice!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Are you referring to Babar Ahmad? If so, what has that got at all to do with Freedom of Speech, which is the subject of this thread? I don't see how his case in any way shows any hypocrisy in the US policy towards free speech. That was a complete non sequitur.
He was an example you'd recognize as I doubt you follow up with folks who are dragged everyday to the court systems or are harassed by the FBI for reading/speaking/ watching material that they deem inappropriate- it stays, quite relevant, you just can't deal with it and keep steering the conversation to the lowest common ground!
This kind of reminds me of the old "If she can wear a burqa to a bank I should be able to wear a skimask." issue.
We as humans beings are capable of reasoning so why do we have to pretend as if it's impossible to tell the difference between something done with the intent to produce proper discourse or with malicious intent.
There is a lot of thought that goes into laws and all the possible non intended consequences.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
Just ask folks like Fincklstein, who lost his job for speaking out against Zionist brutalities or others who were thrown in jail for questioning the holocaust or laws those who are fined for speaking out against the almost over night niqaab bans that take place.
It is also difficult to protect whistleblowers but does this mean we should hand the discriminatory employers with yet another tool to legally impose their own prejudice. The laws against holocaust denial are in place only in some countries and are there to force the population to face their history and not evade it.
The laws aren't perfect but making making them more restrictive would have many adverse effects.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
So let's not tread that line as the way we see it is pure hypocrisy on your part. Nothing but pure hypocrisy and selective justice.
You are being unreasonable. How about responding to my arguments? It seems you didn't read my post and are simply responding to some generic free speech defender in your own imagination.
Just naming certain incidents doesn't make your point. First one would need to know the exact reasons why judges ruled to decide whether the laws have been misused or the laws are at fault, or if it was just. Secondly out ruling more would simple make such cases escalate and make our democracies disappear. Interest groups will always have their influence but we should seek to limit them not do the opposite and hand them yet more tools.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
The speech you speak of and promote is nothing short of libel and slander/hate speech that's meant to inflame people and cause mob mentality.. and in fact you shouldn't act so surprised when that is the end result. Others simply don't and won't and shouldn't subscribe to your brand of justice, your brand of democracy nor your brand of freedom!
What is that brand of democracy you speak of? My brand is the standard democratic model that has also been implemented in Lybia when they wrote their new constitution. I am not sure what you understand in democracy. Being allowed to vote your tyrant in place every four years is not what is meant with democracy by most people. Minority rights are important too.
China justifies most of their censorship with protecting the peace. So did the Germans in the 3rd Reich. Read Mein Kampf.
Mob mentality is cause by populism combined with angry people that want to blame someone. Sure people can be inflamed by speech that is legally protected but that is also what democracy is. Activism and demonstrations are an important part of it. There are limitations against hate speech. Against deliberately inflaming a mob to burn down mosques, or bully a certain minority.
Demanding respect is not something one can sue for. It is just about impossible for most people to take seriously L. Ron Hubbard. What is holy to one sounds ridiculous to the other. Mocking is also a form of questioning and reminding in a less serious fashion. The cabarett that mocks the Catholics priest and the abuse scandal also make sure those issues aren't forgotten and ignored. Should it be forbidden to mock the pope because some adore him. My father is Catholic yet thinks very little of the Vatican.
I also think Muslims would be seriously impeded by such laws, since effectively the gay people could sue everyone that simple articulates his own religions positions on an issue. Or women that feel insulted by patriarchic ideologies.
The only time free speech should be overridden is for serious clearly destructive ideas like hate preaching inciting violence. For example in Germany members of a nationalist ultra right party want to publicly stage the content of this movie, to defend free speech as they say. Because of quite obvious consequences and the questionable message this can be forbidden.
You do need a permit for demonstrations but generally they are not allowed to deny it to you.
Personally I don't see how you imagine there to be an alternative to the laws in place that do not discriminate against certain believes yet prohibits an expression of opinion like this movie.
I say there are place where laws a good and need and there are some where they are counter productive or impossible. In those cases one needs other instruments to deal with problems, effectively the citizens need to learn to deal with it. For example boycotting a company that mistreats employees while still acting within the legal boundaries.
My brand is the standard democratic model that has also been implemented in Lybia when they wrote their new constitution. I am not sure what you understand in democracy. Being allowed to vote your tyrant in place every four years is not what is meant with democracy by most people. Minority rights are important too.
Before I respond to any of this what country do you live in?
There is a lot of thought that goes into laws and all the possible non intended consequences.
Who decides those in a 'free democratic' society? certainly isn't we the people is it?- if they're the ones who make them!
It is also difficult to protect whistleblowers but does this mean we should hand the discriminatory employers with yet another tool to legally impose their own prejudice. The laws against holocaust denial are in place only in some countries and are there to force the population to face their history and not evade it.
But that's in fact what's being done. Prejudices are being imposed, history is being concocted and not questioned, just ask Palestinians on how their history books are being re-written and children as young as 3 are being taken as political prisoners and force fed bull ****!
while the promotion of anything and everything anti-Islamic without the slightest reference to historical facts or counter opinion is being presented and on daily basis as factual!
The laws aren't perfect but making making them more restrictive would have many adverse effects.
You are being unreasonable. How about responding to my arguments? It seems you didn't read my post and are simply responding to some generic free speech defender in your own imagination.
They're selectively restrictive to the group deemed most undesirable. Browse your history books for a change and that far back either.
further, what argument have you brought forth? in fact the ones who are sticking to the generic rhetoric is you and your pals!
Just naming certain incidents doesn't make your point. First one would need to know the exact reasons why judges ruled to decide whether the laws have been misused or the laws are at fault, or if it was just. Secondly out ruling more would simple make such cases escalate and make our democracies disappear. Interest groups will always have their influence but we should seek to limit them not do the opposite and hand them yet more tools.
Then what are you arguing if not from events that shape our perspective? or are you simply interested in dropping blanket statements from which the reader is to glean as he may or for you to redefine the terms as you see fit. You're delusional if you think that you've any freedom in any western society. You're free only to express one brand of ideology no more no less.
What is that brand of democracy you speak of? My brand is the standard democratic model that has also been implemented in Lybia when they wrote their new constitution. I am not sure what you understand in democracy. Being allowed to vote your tyrant in place every four years is not what is meant with democracy by most people. Minority rights are important too.
Actually it is your understanding that is questionable. Else pray do tell what country's constitution is based on the exception? Why am I not seeing Muslims running for president, it is almost going to be illegal to be Muslim, as some folks are pushing to investigate the likes of huma who is far divorced from Islam to her connection with the 'brotherhood' - so please get real about minorities just so I wouldn't lose interest reading!
26 states are implementing anti-sharia law as if it is something that's even remotely at the outskirts of their society or even if how it would affect them at all if they're non-Muslims.
democracy means folks decide whom to elect it isn't a law nor a system set in place. It simply means that 50+1 can usurp 50-1 and minorities play a marginal role and a Muslim minority plays none at all. So no thanks keep that crap in your own backyard and sing its praises there but quit exporting it by force political or physical!
China justifies most of their censorship with protecting the peace. So did the Germans in the 3rd Reich. Read Mein Kampf.
Mob mentality is cause by populism combined with angry people that want to blame someone. Sure people can be inflamed by speech that is legally protected but that is also what democracy is. Activism and demonstrations are an important part of it. There are limitations against hate speech. Against deliberately inflaming a mob to burn down mosques, or bully a certain minority.
It is no different in the west and if you would take the blinders off and get out of the bubble you'd see a history replete with the same!
Demanding respect is not something one can sue for. It is just about impossible for most people to take seriously L. Ron Hubbard. What is holy to one sounds ridiculous to the other. Mocking is also a form of questioning and reminding in a less serious fashion. The cabarett that mocks the Catholics priest and the abuse scandal also make sure those issues aren't forgotten and ignored. Should it be forbidden to mock the pope because some adore him. My father is Catholic yet thinks very little of the Vatican.
Again, passive transmission and active creation are two separate issues.
Frankly demanding respect to folks who have no self respect is moot!
I also think Muslims would be seriously impeded by such laws, since effectively the gay people could sue everyone that simple articulates his own religions positions on an issue. Or women that feel insulted by patriarchic ideologies.
What would they sue for exactly?
The only time free speech should be overridden is for serious clearly destructive ideas like hate preaching inciting violence. For example in Germany members of a nationalist ultra right party want to publicly stage the content of this movie, to defend free speech as they say. Because of quite obvious consequences and the questionable message this can be forbidden.
You do need a permit for demonstrations but generally they are not allowed to deny it to you.
And you'd call the video and similar what? it isn't inciting hate?
Personally I don't see how you imagine there to be an alternative to the laws in place that do not discriminate against certain believes yet prohibits an expression of opinion like this movie.
I say there are place where laws a good and need and there are some where they are counter productive or impossible. In those cases one needs other instruments to deal with problems, effectively the citizens need to learn to deal with it. For example boycotting a company that mistreats employees while still acting within the legal boundaries.
I have no hopes of laws being put in place or any good change being made at all. The west is already on the edge of total economic collapse perhaps Rockefeller and Rothschild can come save the day under certain conditions the same way they impose them on other countries and you're already running under third world style despots. So I am not sure why you're so exasperated about so-called freedoms you allege you've. Try putting on a different hat and see how far that so-called freedom takes you.
I think part of the problem is that we are talking about a rule that is enforced differently in different parts of the West. You cannot speak of "The West" as a unified thing on the subject. To say that the "The West" is hypocritical by bringing up an example in one country that is not the case in most, if not any other, is disingenuous. The laws in Austria are different from Israel is different from the United States.
Sure I do- I minored in Art History in undergrad. so why not? This might come as a shock to you but alot of 'Art'/garbage gets rejected!
The fact that you would entertain the idea of the government deciding what is art and what isn't only serves to show the great divide in our opinions. Your version would allow people to make completely subjective decisions on what is and what is not allowed. You argue for facts, then argue that your opinion should be the deciding factor. It is exactly that attitude that permits authoritarian states to not exist but flourish.
As to who would put me or anyone in charge- a little innate God given common sense goes a long way - the same way any normal person of reason can go to the market and pick out fresh fruits from rotten ones.
But you and I disagree fundamentally on many things. You call some things common sense which I call ludicrous. Wouldn't common sense make want to keep you away from any kind of authority over me? And what exactly would you do to something that someone spent a lot of time creating and you did not consider art? Please tell me what it would be and how it would make society better.
Who decides those in a 'free democratic' society? certainly isn't we the people is it- if they're the ones who make them!
Yes, but the laws should be written so that it cannot become a tyranny of the majority. In my opinion that means the minority, whether it be based on race or religion or any other thing, has the right to speak their mind freely without fear of persecution and laws need to be in place to keep it that way.
What would they sue for exactly?
Off the top of my head... calling for their death?
And you'd call the video and similar what? it isn't inciting hate?
It is inciting hatred of Mohammed, and ergo Islam. I do not see it inciting people to commit acts of violence against Muslims which is what he was talking about.
If you want to start arguing that people should not make videos inciting hatred at all then you would have to ban videos made to incite hatred against the US government, Israel, and many other things that you may not like. In that case Youtube would have to take down a whole lot more videos.
Try putting on a different hat and see how far that so-called freedom takes you.
The latest Pew polls show that 55% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims while only 35% have a favorable view of Atheists. On average they like you better than me, so I am aware of how far it takes me.
I also know that the last two businesses that I consulted on and helped open I was working with Muslim owners. The last group were spending all their extra money trying to get the rest of their family into the United States because they feel they would have much better lives here than there and both groups made it clear they were happy in the US. I also know that since 2001 over 600 Mosques have opened in the United States and I know that there are over 100,000 Muslims moving to the United States every year.
Since you want to talk facts, the facts are that the freedoms allowed in the United States, both social and economic, are much desired by Muslims. If the US were the hell hole for Muslims that you like to infer then the immigration would be away, not into, the country.
I think part of the problem is that we are talking about a rule that is enforced differently in different parts of the West. You cannot speak of "The West" as a unified thing on the subject. To say that the "The West" is hypocritical by bringing up an example in one country that is not the case in most, if not any other, is disingenuous. The laws in Austria are different from Israel is different from the United States.
Having an opinion and the law are separate things - if you use one unified law to make one thing criminal then you shouldn't undermine that law when it comes to another group of people!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The fact that you would entertain the idea of the government deciding what is art and what isn't only serves to show the great divide in our opinions. Your version would allow people to make completely subjective decisions on what is and what is not allowed. You argue for facts, then argue that your opinion should be the deciding factor. It is exactly that attitude that permits authoritarian states to not exist but flourish.
subjective opinion is often used and arbitrarily to decide one thing from another but once it id decided it is stuck to as a baseline.. Are you any less schizophrenic at 6 weeks into bizarre symptoms than you're at 6 month, why then the six weeks would qualify you at schizophreniform? If this isn't your area of expertise then you're simply passing off opinion which no one really cares for, you just annoy everyone with what you personally deem important or smart or whatever, when it is anything but!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
But you and I disagree fundamentally on many things. You call some things common sense which I call ludicrous. Wouldn't common sense make want to keep you away from any kind of authority over me? And what exactly would you do to something that someone spent a lot of time creating and you did not consider art? Please tell me what it would be and how it would make society better.
This is semantics I told you and repeatedly I don't like general blanket statements. They have no insight nor study and just waste everyone's time!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Yes, but the laws should be written so that it cannot become a tyranny of the majority. In my opinion that means the minority, whether it be based on race or religion or any other thing, has the right to speak their mind freely without fear of persecution and laws need to be in place to keep it that way.
They should be but they're not!
Any law can be amended by the majority that's what democracy is and in my opinion pales completely to an islamic council/shura system!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Off the top of my head... calling for their death?
calling for someone's death is freedom of speech innit? Also how would someone call for their death unless catching them in the act? Will homos start copulating in the streets like donkeys for that to take place?
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
It is inciting hatred of Mohammed, and ergo Islam. I do not see it inciting people to commit acts of violence against Muslims which is what he was talking about.
If you want to start arguing that people should not make videos inciting hatred at all then you would have to ban videos made to incite hatred against the US government, Israel, and many other things that you may not like. In that case Youtube would have to take down a whole lot more videos.
well then I implore you both to go down the street dressed as niqabis and see how that pans out for you!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The latest Pew polls show that 55% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims while only 35% have a favorable view of Atheists. On average they like you better than me, so I am aware of how far it takes me.
I don't subscribe to polls and the latest I have seen states 37% favorable to Muslims.. people manipulate stats all the time and they're inconsequential whose poll are you running, what are the confounders, from where have you sampled what is the power of the study etc. etc.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
I also know that the last two businesses that I consulted on and helped open I was working with Muslim owners. The last group were spending all their extra money trying to get the rest of their family into the United States because they feel they would have much better lives here than there and both groups made it clear they were happy in the US. I also know that since 2001 over 600 Mosques have opened in the United States and I know that there are over 100,000 Muslims moving to the United States every year.
People in the east always think they'll like it better if they come here until they come here.. that's a fact from many and not from one family!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Since you want to talk facts, the facts are that the freedoms allowed in the United States, both social and economic, are much desired by Muslims. If the US were the hell hole for Muslims that you like to infer then the immigration would be away, not into, the country.
People often try for the lesser of two evils. I know already of several families who have immigrated out of the U.S including die hard WASPs. It is all a matter of perspective. I have been myself trying to move overseas, the places I have been too so far are a mini America unfortunately with globalization countries keep very little of their personal identity!
The latest Pew polls show that 55% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims while only 35% have a favorable view of Atheists.
I find that VERY hard to believe. What was the sample size? 20 people? The target audience for that poll? What was the margin of error? What exactly is "favorable"? I would like to see the questions asked in that poll. I'll believe that when Muslim women who wear the hijab can walk out of their houses in America without fear of being verbally attacked and harassed. And when mothers on public trains don't move their children away from a Muslim woman because she thinks her very presence on the train is going to somehow harm her child. Or when a Muslim woman can walk on a university campus without wondering if everyone is staring and laughing at her. Or when a Muslim woman can walk into a place of employment with her hijab on and get the job without being dismissed for simply being a Muslim.
Or on 9/11 anniversaries, when you can walk out of your home as a Muslim without every other Joe, Dick and Jane on the street not looking at you with burning hatred in their eyes. Or when Muslim children in American classrooms don't have all of their classmates looking at them like they single handedly carried out the events on that tragic day.
It's interesting to me the way people like you tend to quote stats and statistics but don't think about how those actually apply to reality. Try to look at it from perspective for a moment and see if that makes any sense to you. Though I was never an atheist, before I came to Islam I did hang out with the atheist crowd and life was a whole lot easier for me back then than it is now. I was viewed more favorably.
You're delusional if you think that you've any freedom in any western society. You're free only to express one brand of ideology no more no less.
That is simply wrong there are many ideologies competing and constantly fighting over this and that. In a cosmopolitan society there are some rules to ensure a peaceful free life for everyone. That doesn't mean everybody can do whatever they want. You cannot beat your children no matter what you claim your religion says. There are commonly agreed values that are imposed. Like in many situations womens rights collide with old patriarchic traditional religious interpretations and it then has to be decided what is more important. In the US there is a huge debate about those.
I just don't view things as pessimistic as you.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
I have no hopes of laws being put in place or any good change being made at all.
Great. I do trust our laws. I live in a very safe, very friendly country with many helpful people and our crime rate is so low that I see a police car in my town actually moving 3 times a year. We must be doing something right here.
I would prefer it some of the stupid tabloid newspaper were forbidden and people actually valued journalism but there is no chance of that ever happening.
If you have no hopes I am sorry but I think we are not so far on the wrong track.
There are some problems that aren't properly tackled. Like the age distribution where the elderly have more votes and thus certain legislation is problematic. It sucks that someone that reads two lines in a tabloid gets a vote with the same weight as someone that actually tries to form an informed opinion.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. -Churchill
I certainly don't want a theocracy, I would be more inclined to go to China with their hegemonial totalitarianism.
Democracy has a value and there are still ways to improve it. The pirate internet parties do promote a new more active involvement in politicial decision making of the public and more transparency. Democracy has its costs. It is way more inefficient and slow and it demands both educated and active participation to work. It doesn't come for free.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Can all we agree that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, must be exercised responsibly?
Rights can be abused, and that's the crux of the discussion here.
I would agree.
I tried to make a case that some forms of it can not responsibly be criminalized and therefore remain legal unless of course you change the type of government. The people need to learn to deal with it in some productive fashion.
I can only say how the demonstrations are seen in much of the so called west and especially the liberal circles. It seems as if the internet connect countries and cultures that have never been exposed to any such criticism or mockery. Now they haven't learned to simply stand above such low trifling insults. One judges the content and the source in combination. If a high ranking politician or well educated professor insults someone or some people, people are upset and demand apologies. If some lowlife ultra rants about some nonsense, that is just ignored as everybody would feel like lowering oneself to that level by acknowledging even listening to it. Mad people cannot get reasoned with so there is no point trying.
Now I read somewhere that islamist blogs promoted this movie as if it was some kind of big thing in the US. In that case I could understand the people better but I would question why cares to set that straight. We got populists too but we don't respect them.
To sum it up it looks more like the people only sought to find some reason to go nuts and release all their anger, in which case sympathy is not exactly running high. If they only dug up some movie from the depths of the trash web to have some reason for inciting unrest it is difficult to feel sympathy.
The media has its sensationalism we all know but there was really only one article about Lybians demonstrating that they condone the murder of the US ambassador who was very popular in Lybia as he very early supported the uprising. It looked as if nobody cared what kind of a picture this sends to the rest of the world or that those that did are a weak minority or passive. Which I assume is the case. Not that they have to care but if they want to be heard they also need to be perceived as rational and respectful.
The noise makers we have are now calling for more insulting material for the sole purpose of toughening up this angry population. A sort of education tool so Muslims get to be as toughened as the Christians are. One such example is this
A populist group in Germany wants to publicly show the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims," which is stoking a violent backlash across the Muslim world. Officials are reviewing whether they could ban the action, sparking a delicate debate over free speech and public order.
I can understand that the foreign policy of the US and EU is not being viewed positively, but I am really not sure if this whole issue is by the people that actually live there more about general resentments as in a political statement that has been sparked or primarily about the religious feelings. It it is really near impossible to extract that out of the news media.
To put it differently is it more about respect for Islam or respect for Muslims as people that don't want to be treated as they have been in the recent past. Like the Greek that demonstrate against Germany because they think austerity is bleeding them dry.
The demonstrations to display accusation against the West but seemingly not just as a proxy. No European and 99% of Americans feel responsible for the movie so people read the news paper and ask what do these people want.
That is simply wrong there are many ideologies competing and constantly fighting over this and that. In a cosmopolitan society there are some rules to ensure a peaceful free life for everyone. That doesn't mean everybody can do whatever they want. You cannot beat your children no matter what you claim your religion says. There are commonly agreed values that are imposed. Like in many situations womens rights collide with old patriarchic traditional religious interpretations and it then has to be decided what is more important. In the US there is a huge debate about those.
I just don't view things as pessimistic as you.
It doesn't matter what ideologies are competing and the question isn't one of peace nor war it is about what is just and good. Sometimes kids can use a smack, as for your other example, I have no idea what it means, what your definition is of a 'patriarchal religious tradition' at any rate you shouldn't give yourself the right to speak on behalf of another gender or another people!
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
I certainly don't want a theocracy
Islamic Sharia system isn't a theocracy- I urge you to look at the meaning before you write since I presume your gripe with theocracy would be Islam, of which you know very little as is with your previous version on women or homos or corporal punishment!
I am not interested in discussing china or Japan or Madagascar, those are red herrings and have no business being here. but if we must discuss them, then we've had many successful societies of old who were neither western nor democratic nor practicing of your brand of freedom by whatever terms you define.
Also let's collectively refrain from speaking of our feelings, or out neighbors or out communities and that fellow I met. for every person you meet there are 6 billion you've not met. I find myself constantly having a tit for tat example and it is a waste of time and not conducive to the discussion. Neither are the silly stats that aren't subject to our scrutiny per power, confuonders, type of study, population sampled, etc.
I presume your gripe with theocracy would be Islam
No my gripe with theocracy is Catholicism just the same. What we had in medieval Europe was theocracy and it was a dark age.
Islam, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox in Russia neither is supposed to impose their rules that they have from their holy books. If people of one religion want to gather at some place and build a theocracy fine but I wouldn't want to live there. In Europe we had our enlightenment period and I am rather fond of the accomplishments of philosophers in that period. I would not want to go back to 14th century. There is still enough church influence as it is.
I am just glad that the fundamentalist core is a very small percentage with no real influence anywhere but in the church itself.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
'patriarchal religious tradition' at any rate you shouldn't give yourself the right to speak on behalf of another gender or another people!
Patriarchic are those that think the man stands above the woman and has somehow the right to do so. If equality is the goal, equal chances, protection of the weak that cannot fend for themselves like children and sometimes dependent woman than there should to be laws to ensure it. Those I can give my vote to.
It is difficult when interests collide but there should be good logical reasons for laws IMO. Unquestioned rules from old books and the interpretation of some people is not good enough reason in a multicultural society. People can get their ideas from Sharia law. I would have no problem with that but the justification should not be 'because my book says so'. Regardless which holy book it is. Upanishads or whatever.
No my gripe with theocracy is Catholicism just the same. What we had in medieval Europe was theocracy and it was a dark age.
Islam, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox in Russia neither is supposed to impose their rules that they have from their holy books. If people of one religion want to gather at some place and build a theocracy fine but I wouldn't want to live there. In Europe we had our enlightenment period and I am rather fond of the accomplishments of philosophers in that period. I would not want to go back to 14th century. There is still enough church influence as it is.
I am just glad that the fundamentalist core is a very small percentage with no real influence anywhere but in the church itself.
Your gripe should indeed be with Christian history and its dark ages. Islamic history isn't included in that, if any country in Europe was considered the Jewel it was Spain under Muslim rule. Theocracy means that the pope or whomever is getting direct divine inspiration to do this or that and that's contrary to Islamic system!
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
Patriarchic are those that think the man stands above the woman and has somehow the right to do so. If equality is the goal, equal chances, protection of the weak that cannot fend for themselves like children and sometimes dependent woman than there should to be laws to ensure it. Those I can give my vote to.
This has to do with Muslims how?
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
It is difficult when interests collide but there should be good logical reasons for laws IMO. Unquestioned rules from old books and the interpretation of some people is not good enough reason in a multicultural society. People can get their ideas from Sharia law. I would have no problem with that but the justification should not be 'because my book says so'. Regardless which holy book it is. Upanishads or whatever.
Logic indeed plays a factor but so does justice and that's the main goal of the law. Not many people will see logic when the death penalty is implemented - It isn't a scientific formula - fairness, justice and a society that functions healthily is the purpose!
Your gripe should indeed be with Christian history and its dark ages. Islamic history isn't included in that, if any country in Europe was considered the Jewel it was Spain under Muslim rule. Theocracy means that the pope or whomever is getting direct divine inspiration to do this or that and that's contrary to Islamic system!
When it comes to Muslim rule in Spain many Muslims tend to whitewash the history. Yes, compared to medieval Europe it was better, but it also had it shares of massacres of religious minorities and forced immigrations.
Theocracy is the incorrect term when it comes to Sharia, but you are arguing semantics. Rule based on religious law is what I believe he is concerned with. If you want to argue the benefits of the rules of an Islamic state then let us look at modern day examples of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Look at how the laws are enforced there, places where any religion has to be approved by the government and the blasphemy laws are unfairly enforced way more often on non-Muslims than on Muslims. That is the reality of rule based on religion.
This has to do with Muslims how?
Based on history. Can you name any female Caliphs? What percentage of scholars throughout history have been female?
I find that VERY hard to believe. What was the sample size? 20 people? The target audience for that poll? What was the margin of error?
The sample size was 2000 people and I could not find the margin of error, but I may not have looked hard enough. Here is a link to the poll which was taken shortly after the London bombings. It was done by the Pew Research Center, which you can research easily enough, is a non-partisan fact finding group that monitors many things including religious attitudes around the world.
I'll believe that when Muslim women who wear the hijab can walk out of their houses in America without fear of being verbally attacked and harassed. And when mothers on public trains don't move their children away from a Muslim woman because she thinks her very presence on the train is going to somehow harm her child. Or when a Muslim woman can walk on a university campus without wondering if everyone is staring and laughing at her. Or when a Muslim woman can walk into a place of employment with her hijab on and get the job without being dismissed for simply being a Muslim.
The community where I live has a fairly large Muslim population and women often come into my business wearing the hijab. Never have I seen anyone harass them anywhere, and I know that if anyone did that others around them would defend her. I have no doubt of this.
Just a couple of months ago I went to my friend's daughter's graduation in the middle of East Texas, the epicenter of rednecks. If there were going to be small minded idiots who hate Muslims it would be there, you think. The valedictorian was a hijab wearing Muslim and there were a few others in the class. After the graduation I saw my friend's daughter and most of the rest of the class taking pictures with those girls, talking to them about the fun they had in school, what they were going to do, etc. I saw no hatred from anyone and I certainly saw no fear from those girls. in fact I didn't see anyone treating them any differently in the slightest. If people are afraid to go out in their hijab then they are in fear of an extreme minority and by no means the majority of the population of this country.
When it comes to Muslim rule in Spain many Muslims tend to whitewash the history. Yes, compared to medieval Europe it was better, but it also had it shares of massacres of religious minorities and forced immigrations.
It is easier to re-write history after most trace evidence of it had been wiped out by the Inquisition isn't it? Entire libraries, infrastructures not to mention people burnt and tortured can indeed be summed up in your 'whitewash'!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Theocracy is the incorrect term when it comes to Sharia, but you are arguing semantics. Rule based on religious law is what I believe he is concerned with. If you want to argue the benefits of the rules of an Islamic state then let us look at modern day examples of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Look at how the laws are enforced there, places where any religion has to be approved by the government and the blasphemy laws are unfairly enforced way more often on non-Muslims than on Muslims. That is the reality of rule based on religion.
If you scroll back you'll find that it was your atheist pal who introduced the term not my person. If you want to argue rules of an 'Islamic state' then won't you pretty please find one that's actually in existence and then come back to have this discussion.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Based on history. Can you name any female Caliphs? What percentage of scholars throughout history have been female?
can you name me any female presidents in U.S history? and I actually insist on your answering that one :D
also it might benefit you to do minor research before writing for instance on أروى بنت أحمد بن محمد بن جعفر بن موسى الصليحي الإسماعيلية ʾArwà bint ʾAḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Jaʿafar bin Mūsà and here's a bunch more:
and then come survey Muslim women on how many of them actually want to govern a state. There were plenty of scholars we don't take a head count, don't get caught up in your statistics it doesn't and hasn't made a viable argument for you thus far!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The sample size was 2000 people and I could not find the margin of error, but I may not have looked hard enough. Here is a link to the poll which was taken shortly after the London bombings. It was done by the Pew Research Center, which you can research easily enough, is a non-partisan fact finding group that monitors many things including religious attitudes around the world.
I can already find three or four confounders including the date of the poll so as stated try to do some minor research before you write!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The community where I live has a fairly large Muslim population and women often come into my business wearing the hijab. Never have I seen anyone harass them anywhere, and I know that if anyone did that others around them would defend her. I have no doubt of this.
And I have stated I am not interested in your personal experience or your experience as a host to a hijabi!
It is easier to re-write history after most trace evidence of it had been wiped out by the Inquisition isn't it? Entire libraries, infrastructures not to mention people burnt and tortured can indeed be summed up in your 'whitewash'!
Who is rewriting history? Or are you claiming that such things did not happen? I find it ironic that you say Freedom of Speech should be about facts, then you ignore them.
If you scroll back you'll find that it was your atheist pal who introduced the term not my person. If you want to argue rules of an 'Islamic state' then won't you pretty please find one that's actually in existence and then come back to have this discussion.
I am well aware of who introduced the term, and I was agreeing with you that it is not the correct one. Read more carefully.
can you name me any female presidents in U.S history? and I actually insist on your answering that one
also it might benefit you to do minor research before writing for instance on أروى بنت أحمد بن محمد بن جعفر بن موسى الصليحي الإسماعيلية ʾArwà bint ʾAḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Jaʿafar bin Mūsà and here's a bunch more:
No women have been president, but that is not a legal requirement. It is a requirement for the Caliph to be a male, though, according to the Sunni scholars I have seen who wrote on the subject.
And I have stated I am not interested in your personal experience or your experience as a host to a hijabi!
It is good that the response was not directed to you then. It was directed towards Aprender who juxtaposed the poll results with his personal experiences. Again, please read more carefully.
Who is rewriting history? Or are you claiming that such things did not happen? I find it ironic that you say Freedom of Speech should be about facts, then you ignore them.
If you desire a thread on Andalusia, then by all means start one and let's have a review!
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
I am well aware of who introduced the term, and I was agreeing with you that it is not the correct one. Read more carefully.
I have read and including the rant that followed on the alleged Islamic states.. your point being? If you wanted to bring this to your colleague's attention why not by PM or directly quote him instead of using it in a reply to me?
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No women have been president, but that is not a legal requirement. It is a requirement for the Caliph to be a male, though, according to the Sunni scholars I have seen who wrote on the subject.
Indeed none have been and even if no documentation for or against- I doubt very much your folks would want to see the 'free world' led by a woman president.
I have already listed many women in government even leading in battles and running states against the requirement. You did ask for one, banking on the fact that there would be none no? So please be forth coming and admit that you mouth off on things that you clearly have no knowledge of or haven't researched accurately!
Now my last request was if you surveyed Muslim women on whether or not they have a desire to be caliphs? Even the most just of caliphs were assassinated so what kind of job is that exactly for a woman? I always enjoyed leadership positions, my own company and council and I am not a pacifist by any means and like to consider myself fearless by the grace of God- I'd still much rather be on a battlefield than running a caliphate with what that entails.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
It is good that the response was not directed to you then. It was directed towards Aprender who juxtaposed the poll results with his personal experiences. Again, please read more carefully.
I'd advise you of the same for starters aprender is a female!
I have read and including the rant that followed on the alleged Islamic states.. your point being? If you wanted to bring this to your colleague's attention why not by PM or directly quote him instead of using it in a reply to me?
I assumed you could understand who it was directed towards based on context. My mistake.
Indeed none have been and even if no documentation for or against- I doubt very much your folks would want to see the 'free world' led by a woman president.
I am sure you would have said the same thing about a black men a few years ago, and in that instance you would have been wrong also. Remember, Obama barely got the party nod in '08 because of Hillary Clinton.
You did ask for one, banking on the fact that there would be none no? So please be forth coming and admit that you mouth off on things that you clearly have no knowledge of or haven't researched accurately!
Please read my posts before replying to them.
I asked you to name 1) a female Caliph and 2) the percentage of female Islamic scholars in history. You answered neither.
The fact is that the Caliph answer is and and always will be zero, and the percentage is extremely small. In fact they are almost non existent over the last couple of hundred years.
I'd advise you of the same for starters aprender is a female!
Then I apologize if Aprender was offended, I did not look up her sex before replying.
Freedom of Speech has it's limits in every society.
Yes that is true.
Something that offends in one society may not offend in another. This is the point Muslims have missed. We can't make a law in New Zealand to satisfy Muslims in Yemen!
.
I assumed you could understand who it was directed towards based on context. My mistake.
Your context changes and your texts decrease when at a loss for a seasoned reply!
Do you notice how we drift further and further away from topic every time to your feelings, your understandings, your insight, your historical sources (which btw) fail you every time!
I am sure you would have said the same thing about a black men a few years ago, and in that instance you would have been wrong also. Remember, Obama barely got the party nod in '08 because of Hillary Clinton.
woulda or did - show me I have no recollection? at any rate it doesn't really matter who takes the seat so long as it is the AIPAC running the show behind the scene.
You wanted a one and I have given you more than one female Muslim ruler, the rest if really you struggling to get out of a hole you dug for yourself- Don't also rant about Islamic states per your previous post and then get so upset to find out that no such thing exists to support your argument.
Please read my posts before replying to them.
I asked you to name 1) a female Caliph and 2) the percentage of female Islamic scholars in history. You answered neither.
I have given you a number of female rulers the name caliph is irrelevant to the matter, some caliphs weren't called caliphs it didn't detract from their governance or significance historically! per your other query, percentages would be too numerous no one takes a head count except idiots who want to know how many scientists are atheists or religious how many women are blah so they can pound on their chest when writing like it loans the empty rhetoric credence. Statistics are meaningless if you want books on women scholars in Islam I'll be glad to provide you with a few references!
The fact is that the Caliph answer is and and always will be zero, and the percentage is extremely small. In fact they are almost non existent over the last couple of hundred years.
see previous response and if you want to make a point at least make sure you're in a position to make such a point. I have already listed several female rulers under Islam. We can't help it if you are having difficulty interchanging context!
The community where I live has a fairly large Muslim population and women often come into my business wearing the hijab. Never have I seen anyone harass them anywhere, and I know that if anyone did that others around them would defend her. I have no doubt of this.
Yes, because you as a MUSLIM WOMAN are in their lives 24/7 and know everything that happens to them everywhere they go when they travel the around the country. I would feel more comfortable as a Muslim woman in a place like Minnesota where there is a larger Muslim community than I would in a place like Alaska. But that doesn't mean that when I go to other places or other counties where Muslims are few that I wouldn't have those fears. You seem to also know just because you're around some Muslims from time to time and because of that brief moment in time that you're with them or observe a few moments of their lives, you now have magically found a way to understand their every thought and their every fear.
Get off your high horse. It's disgusting. Consider for a moment that the poll doesn't paint the whole picture and I would really appreciate it if you would stop acting like you know what it's like to be one of us because you don't get it and you never will.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
It was done by the Pew Research Center, which you can research easily enough, is a non-partisan fact finding group that monitors many things including religious attitudes around the world.
Thanks. Most people here remember next to nothing about the London bombings by the way. It's not something that sticks in their brains. The only thing that rings in their ears is 9/11. Consider proximity, the time frame and the size of the sample and once again, it sounds very unlikely and skewed to me that 55% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Muslims. If anything a more accurate statement would be that they are uncertain of Muslims and not really sure what to think right now. I'll have to look at that report in more depth but to compare something from 7 years ago to the political climate and experiences that we have now given the major political events that have occurred since then isn't connecting with reality.
I know what the Pew Research Center is by the way. I've conducted plenty of polls and research for organizations in the past. I have a couple of degrees from universities in the United States, which is where I was born and raised by the way, but thanks for trying to "educate me" about myself and the experiences of other Muslim women in America from your small lens.
Understand that I am in no way trying to attack you. I just don't appreciate it when people like you who don't know what it's like make sweeping generalizations based from a very narrow scope. It's not fair to do so and I don't think you're in any position to know what it's like for the average Muslim woman or man living in America.
It is good that the response was not directed to you then. It was directed towards Aprender who juxtaposed the poll results with his personal experiences.
I'm not a man. And did you not do the same with the poll by giving a few positive experiences that you've witnessed in your hometown? I have seen some positive experiences too. Even a woman come up to a friend of mine and said to her "Thank you for having the courage to practice your religion." Which there is something in that statement alone that is very telling...
But I still know that the favorable view that you speak of is not the reality. We still have a lot of work to do.
Understand that I am in no way trying to attack you in any way. I just don't appreciate it when people like you who don't know what it's like make sweeping generalizations based from a very narrow scope. It's not fair to do so and I don't think you're in any position to know what it's like for the average Muslim woman or man living in America.
Yet you make sweeping generalizations about the non-Muslim Americans. You cannot have it both ways.
Yes, I think that if women go out in a hijab in the US and feel there is a high degree of danger then they are mistaken. The facts do not bear it out, and from what I know of non-Muslim Americans they have little reason to. Tell me, who do you think most non-Muslim Americans would be most honest with when speaking about Muslims, you or myself? When it comes to how non-Muslims feel about Muslims I have a bigger lens in many respects than you do. Yet I have not seen this high degree of hatred that you and others seem to feel exists among the majority of Americans although they have no reason to hide it from me.
If this hatred existed in the levels that you claim then there would be no way it could hide from me, yet I see and hear none of it. Other than isolated incidents can you show me any reason why hijab women should be afraid? Can you show me any statistics on this?
And I will not try to educate you on how Muslim women feel when you can reciprocate by telling me how non-Muslim Americans feel.
How does a topic about freedom of speech end up being about sweeping generalizations over hijabis.. Honestly does every thread have to be meandered to your agenda?
How does a topic about freedom of speech end up being about sweeping generalizations over hijabis.. Honestly does every thread have to be meandered to your agenda?
No, only the ones I post on. Please go on more about Andalusia.
No, only the ones I post on. Please go on more about Andalusia.
Take out some books from the library then and do some homework so you won't end up like up there with a 'name me a one' type thing and then impressing on us how we don't understand what you meant.
I have no doubt you don't understand what I mean. Please, grab a book, read about Maimonides and the great fun he had growing up as a Jew in the enlightened period of Muslim Spain. Read about Granada. Please. Then tell us how that system is an improvement over things such as Freedom of Speech in the United States today.
When it comes to how non-Muslims feel about Muslims I have a bigger lens in many respects than you do.
Tell me how? Because I haven't been a Muslim for very long but as soon as I entered into this faith the way people treated me changed drastically and not always in a good way. I've been a non-Muslim for a lot longer than I have been a Muslim so I don't see how your lens is any "larger" than mine in many respects.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Yet you make sweeping generalizations about the non-Muslim Americans. You cannot have it both ways.
I did not make a sweeping generalization about non-Muslim Americans. So because I'm telling you that many Muslim American women that I know and have talked to, even before I entered into Islam, do worry about the negative attitudes that non-Muslims might have toward them in this country, that automatically means that I think that every person who is not a Muslim in America has a negative attitude toward non-Muslims and a "high level of hatred"? I'm talking about reality here, not old poll results.
I think you're getting me confused with some other posts that you read on this forum. Would it kill you to consider that everything in this world isn't as black and white as you want it to be?
Where did I say it was a "high degree of hatred"? I've said that on the 9/11 anniversary walking out of your house and being met with hateful stares isn't exactly fun and most of those experiences I mentioned above didn't happen to me by the way but to other Muslim women that I know. I said if anything many Americans might be uncertain about how to feel about Muslim Americans and that when many Muslim women walk outside of their homes we don't always expect to be greeted with smiles and courtesy but that doesn't mean I think that all non-Muslims hate us. I just don't think a majority of people in American have a "favorable" view of Muslims. I have had experiences of where non-Muslim Americans have treated me with respect and dignity outside of my family but I've also had many experiences where people have not, including law enforcement, and so have other sisters that I know. Just because they don't make it into the news or no one asks those questions for polls doesn't mean it doesn't happen. This is life.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
If this hatred existed in the levels that you claim then there would be no way it could hide from me, yet I see and hear none of it.
Yes, because you seem to think that you know and see everything and if it doesn't happen around you, it's not a valid concern. Please, get off the high horse and try and understand another perspective for just one moment. I don't think many Muslim women or Muslims in general confide in you about their deepest concerns in this life and things that worry them about the future on a regular basis.
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Tell me, who do you think most non-Muslim Americans would be most honest with when speaking about Muslims, you or myself?
Me. Because when I am out in public or in classes at the university and they have questions about Muslims, they ask me. Why? Because I am a Muslim. And a lot of times they begin with "Sorry, I don't meant to offend you but I've always wondered why..." And if I can answer the questions they have, I do. And I thank them for asking me, instead of someone like you who is far from a scholar of Islam and I am not either but I think I know what it's like to be a Muslim much more than you do and I know what it's like to be a Muslim woman in America which is something that you will never know.
I'm glad that you think the community that you live in is very caring and kind to Muslims and that's wonderful. But I'm just letting you know that these feelings of acceptance are not as widespread as you think. If everything was so "favorable", organizations like CAIR wouldn't have to exist in this country and constantly try to decry the mistakes that Muslims make in the Middle East by holding press conferences that only get 2 seconds of coverage on local news stations...or none at all.
As I said in the last post, we have a long way to go.
I think that we need limits on offending people, yes, but I don't know where they should go to be honest.
So, this begs the question:
Whose standard of "offending/offensive" do we use? Yours or mine?
format_quote Originally Posted by observer
I don't, however, like the idea that we may get to a situation where, prior to publishing something, people are trying to work out if their material will offend if they publish. That doesn't seem healthy to me. I personally believe that no subject should be "taboo" generally.
I find that VERY hard to believe. What was the sample size? 20 people? The target audience for that poll? What was the margin of error? What exactly is "favorable"? I would like to see the questions asked in that poll. I'll believe that when Muslim women who wear the hijab can walk out of their houses in America without fear of being verbally attacked and harassed. And when mothers on public trains don't move their children away from a Muslim woman because she thinks her very presence on the train is going to somehow harm her child. Or when a Muslim woman can walk on a university campus without wondering if everyone is staring and laughing at her. Or when a Muslim woman can walk into a place of employment with her hijab on and get the job without being dismissed for simply being a Muslim.
I agree with you.
Just a casual glance at all vile comments made in youtube/yahoo/etc about any uploaded videos/articles/etc about Islam/muslim is enough to contradict that 55% of americans have favorable views of muslims.
Other than isolated incidents can you show me any reason why hijab women should be afraid?
If an event is isolated, then there would not be more than one of it. Muslims don't live in just one place. So if a woman wearing a hijab is attacked in Colorado or Germany it makes no difference the attack still happened. There is generally a negative attitude against Muslims that exists throughout the world. Since you wrote "other than isolated incidents", because this indicates that you recognize that there are some, you must know that the anti-Islamic sentiment exists out there. Which is why I'm confused as to why you're confused that Muslims, hijabis more so, are concerned about being next?
The question should be why does the media have to make documentaries like this one to examine the relationship between what the media puts out there about a group of people and how that shapes the way the general public thinks about a group they are not a part of? Especially if we're viewed so "favorably"?
Could it be because my country is at war in the Middle East against Muslims? Could it be because the media tends to brush all of Islam under one scope of extremism? Pseudo intellects taking things out of context and television presenting Muslims as irrational barbarians that want to chop this and kill the infidel that? Or that networks like TLC recognize the negative presentation of Muslims in the media and had to make a reality TV show about Muslims going against Islamic teachings drinking, dancing, opening bars and dressing provocatively just to show that we're "normal humans"? Which ended up getting cancelled because people felt it was "brainwashing Americans into thinking Muslims are good" and it lost its advertising? Just take a look at some of the recent people who have joined this forum after the protests in Egypt that sparked this freedom of speech debate. They came here with the same concerns that we want to "take over" and "impose Shariah law on them" and that we'll beat their women and oppress them and they won't have their "freedom of speech" and thought anymore with the Muslims around.
I think the answer is clear. I don't think it's necessarily "fear" in each case but I do think that most Muslims don't expect to be treated fairly in this life because of the miseducation about Islam and Muslims in general.
Something that offends in one society may not offend in another. This is the point Muslims have missed. We can't make a law in New Zealand to satisfy Muslims in Yemen!
.
So you don't think there's no muslim in New Zealand, California, etc?
Theocracy is the incorrect term when it comes to Sharia
I used the wrong term, though from my remaining arguments one could have concluded that I did argue against in any clerical system and promote secularism.
My gripe is with any rule that ends up discriminating and limiting the freedom of people that harm no one only because they disagree on some issues.
We spend about 3 years reading the wave and everything up and down the WW2. All the preceding events how it could come this far. What Hitler, Göbbels did want, write, say.
When I was in the US some people thought that we would think Nazi jokes offensive. We know more Nazi jokes than anybody else. There are the holocaust denial laws for the sole purpose of making it obligatory to face history and not ignore but learn from it.
I do live in a city with many buildings that have been designed by Nazis and built by exploiting prisoners of war. From an architectural perspective they did a great job but that doesn't justify anything. Less than 20km for my home is one of the biggest major concentration camps and every school child visits a KZ at least once and takes a look at a gas chamber.
I don't really know what it adds to the discussion and sure Germans are still ashamed of the history because we face it and not ignore it. It was one of the best educated societies of the time and it still ended up the way it did. There is a lot to learn from that history.
That doesn't mean all are model citizens but Germans in majority do talk more about nationalsocialism and past crimes than any other country like Japan, the US or Britain. In our own politics it is still something that comes up often.
I don't think we should be proud of it and talk about it. Some shame humbles and taking responsibility and understanding the factors involved to recognize similar developments in time is the right course of action. I wish propaganda and populism was a mandatory school subject. The way it is it depends on how good a history, philosophy, german teacher one has.
it obligatory to face history and not ignore but learn from it.
Indeed all those Zionists have learned something from it and exercising Nazism Aka Zionism quite well on Palestinians.
The laws are made to be milked. So they can have a carte blanche to do as they please to another nation and then hand over their trump card whenever someone says what the hell do you think you're doing!
Absolutely no contradiction - I think that no issue should be taboo, we need some limits on where we go with those issues, I don't know where those limits are. Where is the contradiction there?
Freedom of speech, on the face of it is a lie and an oxymoron as it doesn't mean what is says on the tin. Its an expression open to abuse thus it should be banished and trashed in the bins of history.
Yeah I am trying to explain in as simplistic terms as possible to the other fellow but they want to put their fingers in their ears and blinders on their eyes.. They can do no wrong..
Sob7an Allah!
Yeah I am trying to explain in as simplistic terms as possible to the other fellow but they want to put their fingers in their ears and blinders on their eyes.. They can do no wrong..
Sob7an Allah!
Lol, u guys spend too much time here.
I honestly cant keep up with these threads : )
One needs to consider the audience every now and then.....pictures may have more of an impact than 1000s of words ever can.
Yes there is freedom of speech. Most of the time people can say whatever they want. Using freedom of speech to incite violence is not allowed. Client confidentiality is another limit. People working within national security or intelligence services are not allowed to disclose any sensitive material.
You get cases where it is difficult to draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. These cases are treated on an individual basis.
Absolutely no contradiction - I think that no issue should be taboo, we need some limits on where we go with those issues, I don't know where those limits are. Where is the contradiction there?
You are still being abstract.
Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?
Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?
And who draws these limits?
Atheists? muslims? christians?
:sl:
It is not easy to draw these limits.
First, which country are you referring to? This determine who decides what constitutes as freedom of speech.
If your referring from an international perspective, then it is impracticable to govern freedom of speech and to enforce it...unless countries are part of an organisation like the European Union.
Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?
And who draws these limits?
Atheists? muslims? christians?
I don't know about discussions but in the public space in general.
Nobody can draw these limits.
In no democracy is there any protection against being offended. Nobody has to respect you or your believes.
Because there is simply no way to make a fair law. Would you open committees that decide what is offensive and what not? These would just be the extending arm of the government used and misused by some dominating religion or ideology. The democratic system would break down.
Some of the examples of non existent free speech given by Zaria are ignorant. The military is a different topic. As it is with some private companies when you sign a NDA or any similar contract. It is a voluntary thing to enter the private companies and even in countries with mandatory military service only some positions require to sign certain secrecy level contracts, which if not signed would bar one from the position. Once signed you entered a contract which you have to abide by. It is as simple as that.
Assange was never convicted or accused of any violation of freedom of speech. The rape allegations in sweden may be true or not. If some law is sometimes misused or if there are corrupt politicians does not mean the philosophy or law is bad. Just because some police men don't behave well doesn't mean we should forget about having a police force and let anarchy rule or bring in the military.
The pussy riot example is a violation of freedom of speech but Russia is also only a democracy in name. That is about the most ridiculous example of the few.
The law protects religious communities it does not protect god or any religious feelings. Freedom of speech protects opinions even many which seem stupid, dumb and offensive. This protects all religions and beliefs equally. Any other system would deteriorate into deterring some opinions and strengthening others to achieve certain goals. Just look to Russia.
In Germany the magazine Titanic did win in courts concerning their picture which looked like an incontinent pope saying on the headline "The leak is found". Not very respectful but legal.
Therefore in a democracy it is as the Australian Stephen Hughes says.
You want to live in a democracy but you never want to be offended? You are an i****.
This things can not be enforced by law and thus have to be handles by the people amongst themselves outside of courts. Which may include protesting (peacefully if possible), ignoring, not attending certain events or watching some comedians if one doesn't like their jokes.
The scientology guy cannot demand respect for believing in his alien story and neither can a Muslim or Catholic. They can ask for it and usually in 99% of cases they get it. One doesn't have to buy a Magazin that doesn't respect your church. They aren't telling anybody to do anything mean to Catholics they only don't take the position of the Pope very seriously which even among Catholics a lot fewer people do than some might think. The Pope is more popular in latin america than in middle/north Europe.
ad islamophobic tendencies
If people would not perceive the majority of Muslims as being like some minority our Christian nutjobs, there would be less hostility. The main arguments of the right populists are all about Muslims not accepting or due to their religion being able to accept the basic tenants of our democratic system. If true there is no hope and this will eventually turn out bad, if not that argument just has to be taken away and things will turn out just fine; people just have to get to know each other.
The anti-Muslim sentiment comes mainly from three groups.
The extreme right Christians who think they still have their illusion of a Christian country and they need to defend it.
The secularist that think it is so nice that we finally live in a tolerant country where even the Christians don't have any special privileges anymore and now there is a new reactionary force, which cannot be allowed to turn back time again. Those are primarily against fundamentalist of all sorts and religions.
Third there are the people that are generally against everything foreign, that just need the current easiest scapegoat on whom they can blame all their own misery and what not. Nobody can argue with people that have no reason. One can only work to make this group as small and insignificant as possible.
The only way to go up against those resentments is to fight the extremists on both sides and do not pay attention to them once they are small enough. They will never completely disappear. That is why some part any member of a democratic society needs to suck up. Even Jews in Germany. Anti-semitism is not illegal only certain acts of vandalism, inciting violence and denial of what happend in the KZs.
format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال
There's not much to comment on. If you're eating dung out of the toilet it would be offensive in any culture!
Why would that be offensive? If you like it go ahead. Make a movie like the jackass guys doing such stuff, I am sure many people find it funny.
Why would that be offensive? If you like it go ahead. Make a movie like the jackass guys doing such stuff, I am sure many people find it funny.
Apparently you're the one who likes it. We're not the ones advocating for a no baseline on offense under some delusion that it is 'democratic'. If anyone likes the taste, odor and gets off it, it would be the ones fighting for it, not those disgusted by it --i.e (normal people).
They tighten or broaden the confidence interval based on how the dialogue evolves & always to their advantage it is just a matter of wording not principal-Never!. In the end it doesn't really matter how you slice it, you'll end up with exactly what they want to dish you.
You said there are limits, but nobody can draw these limits.
Is that what you are saying?
I am saying you cannot make a law about what is offensive concerning religious stuff. Because it cannot be enforced in a fair manner that doesn't turn south. In true freedom of religion also religions that are offensive in nature towards other beliefs are protected. If the Christian says you will burn in hell because you don't embrace Christ that might be offensive and you are a fool for not seeing the truth. Any dominating religion can suppress other believes just by saying they find them offensive. Christians vs. Satanists for an example. One denomination against the other.
People have to work this out between themselves outside of courts. Offense in and of itself does not suffice for a state law. There would need to be some objectively measurable harm. There is the harm and offense principle in freedom of speech with especially the latter being really tricky ground. There is lots of judicial material concerning it on google scholar afaik my law classes lie a little while back. Offense is so tricky that many I listened to in the west think that way too much is already banned. If you can escape the offense like not clicking on a youtube link the consensus is nothing should be banned on those grounds.
A religious offense is too subjective to be objectively decided in court.
In many cases it is also not really that difficult to deal with it. If one doesn't like the australian comedian Jim Jeffries, nobody has to go to his shows or watch the youtube videos. Just because some people don't find it funny and only offensive doesn't mean it should be banned. The audience decides and if nobody finds it funny and pays than he will give up. The audience loves him. He bashes all religions equally. Christians more than the rest.
It is also not nice if an elementary pupil in school calls the other names but there won't be legal laws about it. There is a limit to what you can put into laws because laws can be misused. In a democracy the separation of powers, protection of minorities and the expression of opinions even dumb ones are essential. Which is why no sane person would consider Russia a democracy because democracy is not only voting every couple years, at least not the kind that is taught in any half decent law school around the world.
The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film “innocence of Muslims” have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.
They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.
The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media’s role hasn’t exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.
In the final analysis, the media didn’t make the news, it just reported it.
The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.
But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.
I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.
But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.
I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.
I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.
This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.
Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.
However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.
There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.
And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins.
In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.
Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.
In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel’s right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.
The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.
But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.
I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.
We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism. By Khalid Amayreh
In this version of civilization, it is civilized behaviour to insult a religion. But it is uncivilized behaviour to protest against that insult. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't to me. By Mirza Yawar Baig, The Milli Gazette
Published Online: Sep 18, 2012
Freedom of expression must not be confused with freedom from the consequences of expression. Exercising freedom and abusing it are not the same. The latter forfeits the former. Just because we are free to express ourselves, it doesn't free us from the responsibility for what we express. We are responsible for what we say and do and for the consequences thereof and so must consider carefully what we want to express. This is the basis of what we call civilized socially responsible behaviour. Once again we have an attack on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on whom it seems to be open season all the year round for people to take pot-shots. And then cry foul when those who love him get upset. The rule seems to be, “I will say or do whatever I want but you must not get offended.” Another rule, “Prove your maturity and culture by not being offended by insults.” Seems strange indeed to us, who are brought up in a culture where honour is not just important, it is everything. Respect for our signs and symbols is what our sense of honour is based on. And there is no symbol of our honour other than Allah Himself, that is more important than the Prophet (peace be upon him). So if someone insults him, it is very natural for a Muslim to feel sad and very upset. The claim of those who make these attacks is, “But we are not offended when someone blasphemes against Jesus or Moses. So how can you be offended when we insult Mohammed?” That is like saying, “I am not offended if you curse my parents and so you should also not be offended if I curse your parents.” Our response is of course, “We have never cursed your parents in the first place. And secondly if you are not offended if someone curses your parents it is a sign that you are lacking in a sense of honour, that you are shameless. How can you demand that we too should become shameless?” For the record, find me a film made by a Muslim which abuses Jesus or Moses? You won't find it because we revere them as prophets of Allah. So when Muslims have not done anything to abuse Christianity or Judaism, why should they be subjected to abuse from Christians and Jews (the people who allegedly made this ridiculous film) and be compelled to accept it? I am not for a moment justifying or countenancing the violent protests and the unfortunate killing of innocent people. However, I am writing this to request all responsible people to seriously wake up and start asking some pointed questions. One of which should be, “What was the need for this film in the first place? What is wrong with letting people believe whatever they want? What is wrong with leaving people alone with their religions — which is a basic human right?” I was interested to read one of the comments of the learned viewers of the film who said, “In all their history, Muslims have contributed to the development of mankind less than a bunch of donkeys.” What do you do with such ignorance? Another one demands that he will screen this film along with clips from other films which are insulting to Hindus, Christians and Jews and he demands that people must sit and watch all of them with equanimity. Isn't that the strangest statement? For someone to make this insane demand is not considered insane. But when someone protests at this unprovoked attack on his honour, he is guilty of intolerance. Why must people be forced to tolerate insults? Why must people be forced to sacrifice their honour just because those who have no honour want to exercise their fancy? Is this fair? Is anyone interested in justice anymore? If we go by this logic then the right to safety and security must be balanced by the right to terrorize a population. The right to education must be balanced by the right to remain ignorant. The right to health must be balanced by the right to sickness. The right to marriage must be balanced by the right to rape and so on. Crazy, isn't it? Just as crazy as the call that the right to freedom of religion must be balanced by the right to blaspheme any religion. These people want to impose the rule on us that if the followers of any religion want to practice their religion then they must be prepared to accept the fact that all that they hold holy and sacred will be blasphemed, insulted, degraded and desecrated by other people who don't care about their feelings and they must accept this treatment without complaint. Doesn't that sound like a gross violation of human rights? It does, to me. Violence to human rights is not only physical violence. It is also violence that is psychological and mental. Ask any divorce lawyer who is suing on the basis of mental torture. This is an accepted principal in law. Freedom is defined as something that you are permitted to do as long as it does not violate someone else's freedom; does not hurt someone else; does not harm anyone else. That is why the famous saying, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.” If we define freedom as the unbridled right of someone to do whatever he or she wants irrespective of what harm this action or speech may do to someone else's dignity, reputation, relationships or position, then we would have complete chaos and anarchy. Defined in the way the makers of this ridiculous film and their supporters are demanding, freedom of speech must be rechristened “freedom to abuse”, “freedom to hurt”, “freedom to damage”, “freedom to destroy”. This is a completely senseless argument and this behaviour is not civilized at all. It is barbarism and oppression at its worst. So what is so different when it is done by film-makers with the target being not one man or woman but an entire population? If anything, it must make the crime humungous in magnitude. Like murder, which when it is perpetrated against an entire population, becomes a holocaust and genocide. Ask the Jews who were the victims of this at the hands of Hitler. Of course that was before the West invented the term “collateral damage”. Otherwise they too, like the Iraqis and Palestinians, would have been mere statistics rather than innocent people who suffered one of the worst man-made disasters in the history of mankind. Unfortunately it seems to be by no means the last. Yet we are asked to accept this ridiculous argument that if we are practicing Christians then we must accept films that show Jesus as a fornicating rock star or his pictures holding a beer can in one hand and a cigarette in the other. If we are practicing Hindus then we must accept the pictures of the gods we worship, on toilet seats. And if we are practicing Muslims then we must accept the most obviously hatred-filled images of the one person who we hold the most respect-worthy, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). And all of us, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and others who have not been targeted yet are told that we have to accept someone's “right” to indulge his perversion at our expense. And if we dare to protest, then we will be labeled uncivilized, terrorists and anti-human. In this version of civilization, it is civilized behaviour to insult a religion. But it is uncivilized behaviour to protest against that insult. Does this make sense to you? It doesn't to me. But it seems to make sense to a small minority of people who are seeking to impose their warped sense of values on the rest of the world. The question is: what should be our reaction? Ideally I would love to ignore this thing entirely. But I'm afraid that it may only make such people bolder and eventually we will get to a point where we can't ignore it anymore and then the reactions are more destructive. In my view it is important for people of all religions to come together and stand together to ensure that freedom of worship and freedom of expression is ensured for everyone. And that this is done with an understanding of responsibility for expression. There can be no freedom of worship or expression when some people insult and abuse what someone else worships or reveres. Insulting someone personally is not accepted as a freedom in any civilized society. If someone did that they would become liable for legal action and punishment. So how can it be accepted to insult someone or something that an individual worships or considers holy?
Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
The newspaper editor Flemming Rose, made the objective of printing the cartoons very clear. He said, "Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter."[1]
Geert Wilders, a Dutch Politician who has made a career out of his opposition to Islam has publicly called for a ban on the Holy Qu'ran, and produced a film last year called ‘Fitna' in which he equates Islam with violence, communism and Nazism.
This month, the UN is hosting a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The conflict over freedom of speech raised itself again in this conference because some Muslim countries campaigned for a declaration that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.[2] This is seen as a way of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Islamic ‘aqeeda. Western countries, however, objected to such a declaration because they say it would limit freedom of speech.[3] After a number of western countries including the US and EU threatened to boycott the conference this clause was eventually dropped, along with clauses criticising Israeli's inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.[4]
Freedom of Speech is an emotive topic in the west since it is one of their fundamental values. As Muslims we need to understand the reality of freedom of speech and the Islamic viewpoint towards it.
Origins of Freedom of Speech
Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, for example, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun.
After the reformation and the adoption of secularism in Western Europe and newly independent America, the shackles of the church were thrown off in public life. Fundamental to these new secular states was the adoption of freedom of the individual, ownership, expression and religion for all their citizens.
In the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,' a fundamental document of the French revolution it states in article 11:
"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789The famous First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." December 15, 1791.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Therefore freedom of speech forms one of the cornerstones of the western way of life, and for them is considered a fundamental human right.
Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth
Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[5]
However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don't like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.
It's contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.
No freedom of speech for Muslims
The controversy over this month's UN World Conference Against Racism is a stark example of this clash. The build up to the conference and agreement on a final draft resolution has highlighted this rift over the limits on freedom of speech.
Differences initially arose over wording in the draft declaration that criticised Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Israel, Canada, Italy and America announced that they would not participate in the conference unless this wording was removed.
A spokesman for Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said the declaration, which relates to the situation in the Palestinian territories, contains "unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases".
The EU was also unhappy with resolutions criticising Israel and sought to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft such as the phrase that, "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, [Palestinians] have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture."[6]
The other contentious resolution that some western nations wanted dropped was, "to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols." This was added by some Muslim countries as a means of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Holy Qur'an which we have witnessed recently in Europe. Western countries were unhappy with this resolution because it limited their freedom of speech i.e. the freedom to attack Islam. This was dropped from the final draft and now the resolution simply states, "recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions..."[7]
Therefore for the west it's perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it's not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.
There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder's campaign to ban the Holy Qur'an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder's was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.
Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?
A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.
Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?
A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.[8]
In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an "incitement to violence".
Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.
Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn't like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate', militants and extremists.
Freedom of speech is a colonial tool
"You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas" not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.
Many Muslims are attracted to the concept of freedom of speech since they see it as a means of accounting the oppressive dictatorships they currently live under. Yet when Islamic groups speak out against their rulers and are subsequently tortured and imprisoned by their regimes western governments remain silent. In fact Britain and America openly support these ‘western friendly' regimes.
Egypt as an example has been under a state of emergency since 1967. Thousands of members of the Islamic opposition have been tortured and imprisoned by the Egyptian regime. Current estimates are that there are 30,000 political prisoners in Egypt. However, since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. The west turns a blind eye to this clampdown on political expression because it suits their colonial interests.
On the 50th anniversary of the uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet there was widespread media coverage and support for the Tibetan cause in the west. Compare this to the almost non-existent coverage on China's daily oppression of Muslims in Xinxiang. At the same time as the 50th anniversary in Tibet was taking place the Chinese were clamping down heavily on Muslims involved in what they call "illegal religious activity". A secretary with Hotan's Communist Party Propaganda Department confirmed that some illegal religious activity has been halted and illegal books, writings, computer discs and audio tapes had been confiscated.[9] The only difference between Tibet and Xinxiang is that the opposition in Xinxiang is Islamic calling for Islamic ideas rather than western ideas.
Islamic view towards Freedom of Speech
The concept of ‘freedom of speech' is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life's affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.
This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent."[10]
Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.[11]
Every word a human being speaks is recorded by the two angels Kiraman Katibeen. Even the speaking of one ‘bad' word may lead someone to the hellfire.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The person who utters a word which meets with Allah's favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years."[12]
This is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasised the importance of controlling the tongue.
Mu'az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: "O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire...shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?" I said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah," and he took hold of his tongue and said: "Restrain this." I said: "O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?" He said: "May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu'az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces - or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?"[13]
There are some situations where Islam has obliged Muslims to speak out against oppression and evil (munkar).
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever saw a Munkar, let him change it by his hand and if he cannot then by his tongue and if he cannot then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan."[14]
Many Muslims nowadays are attracted towards the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech due to the medieval oppression waged against them by the corrupt governments in the Muslim world.
In the majority of Muslim countries today speaking out against the munkar and oppression of the governments is made illegal by the rulers and their agents. They brutally suppress all political opposition and try to silence Muslims through torture and imprisonment. Even in the west they are also moving towards silencing Muslims who criticise foreign policy or hold what they deem ‘extreme' political views under the guise of anti-terror policy.
Despite all these limits they are trying to impose on Muslims speaking out, the fact remains that it is Allah سبحانه وتعالى who defined what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Therefore if He سبحانه وتعالى obliges Muslims to speak out against munkar and oppression then no government in the Muslim world or western world can take away this right.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him."[15]
Muslims who account their governments or speak out against oppression are not doing it because of freedom of speech or because the west allows them to speak. Rather they are doing it as an obligation from Islam even if it leads to death.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is a western concept that completely contradicts Islam. In reality there is no such thing as absolute free speech. What exists is speech within predefined limits that differ between nations.
Nowadays freedom of speech is used as a colonial tool in the Muslim world to support the propagation of western ideas and to suppress Islamic ideas. Increasingly this is happening within western societies also as anti-terror policies are used to clampdown on what are deemed as ‘extreme' opinions.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Creator and NOT human beings decides the limits on speech. We will be accountable for every word spoken on the Day of Judgement. If Allah سبحانه وتعالى has ordered us to speak in certain circumstances such as accounting the rulers and speaking out against oppression then no government in the world can take away that right no matter how hard they try.
As Muslims we are in no need of any other system of life except the Islamic system, and no other source of legislation except the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore when we call for accountability in the Muslim world this should not be a call for introducing freedom of speech but a call for introducing the Islamic Shariah which enshrines the right to speech among many other rights.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which is not of it, then it is rejected." Al-Bukhari and Muslim related it, and in a narration of Muslim's there is, "Whoever does an act for which there is no command of ours then it is rejected."
By Faisal Kutty
“I don’t know of anything more important than freedom of expression,” said former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory commenting on the Court’s decision to uphold Jim Keegstra’s conviction for willfully promoting hatred in 1991.
The offensive Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have now ignited global interest in the subject. To date four Canadian media outlets have entered the fray.
Despite death and destruction, some free speech advocates have characterized this as a defining battle. It has now become a clash of extremes with both sides reeking of double standards. Muslim extremists, some of whom regularly insult others, and dictatorships are trying to claim the moral high ground by defending the sacred in clearly non-sacred ways. An equally hypocritical extreme in the West is pretending as if there are no limits and as if subjective restraint is not exercised daily.
Many of the nations where these cartoons have been published have laws against anti-Semitism and rightly so (for an excellent summary of the situation in Europe see Professor Ruti Teitel’s article writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060215_teitel.html). In fact, about two weeks ago Italian prosecutors even announced charges against eleven individuals who displayed Nazi symbols during a football game. Meanwhile, media in Italy have reproduced the cartoons with impunity.
Indeed, even in Denmark there are limits. The offending newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend.” Moreover, section 140 of the Danish Penal Code prohibits blasphemy while section 266b prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade others on various grounds. Of course even limits and laws are viewed through political, social and philosophical lens and so the public prosecutor determined that these cartoons did not violate any laws.
Freedom of expression is alive and well in Canada, but cannot be used as a carte blanche. We have restrictions. We have libel laws and censorship of various forms in keeping with “community standards.” Moreover, criminal and human rights legislation also restrict free speech in the interest of protecting minorities and maintaining harmony.
Section 319 of the Criminal Code proscribes statements that incite or promote hate. Convictions have been few and far between because of the specific intent required, but it has withstood constitutional challenges.
Subsection 319(1) makes it an offence to incite “hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” To be convicted an accused must have communicated statements in a public place and ought to have known that the incitement was likely to have brought about a breach of the peace.
The SCC has held that the mens rea required is less than the intentional promotion of hatred, but the immediacy of the breach of the peace would make it extremely difficult to convict unless the cartoons were being provocatively displayed in a mosque or Muslim gathering.
The second and more relevant offence is set out in subsection 319(2) which makes it an offence to “communicate statements, other than in private conversation, that willfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group…” The mens rea will flow from the establishment of the elements of the criminal act. The trier of fact must not only consider the statement (broadly defined) objectively, but also with regard to the circumstances, the manner and tone used and the persons to whom the message was addressed. The SCC held in R. v. Keegstra that willful blindness (“knew or strongly suspected”) as to the consequences is sufficient to satisfy the mens rea requirement.
Though it can be argued that the cartoons in and of themselves may not be caught under subsection 319(2), I believe that there are strong grounds to lay a charge against those who republish them now. I base this viewpoint on at least five reasons, the first being that the news value has diminished given that anyone wishing to understand the controversy and see the cartoons can do so without having them republished. Secondly, at least two of the cartoons, especially the one showing the prophet with the bomb and the one calling for an end to suicide bombings because of a shortage of virgins, suggest that Muslims are necessarily and inherently evil (this is a reasonable interpretation), because a Muslim by definition tries to emulate the prophet. The issue for most is not whether the prophet should be pictured. It is his portrayal, essentially, as a poster boy for al-Qaeda and by extension, Muslims in general as violent and therefore worthy of hate. Thirdly, given the fact that Muslims — both observant and non-observant — have made it very clear that these are offensive and violate their dignity as a community (granted this is an alien notion in our individualistic society), republishing them is therefore intentionally provocative and can promote hatred. Fourthly, it can be reasonably argued that the intent behind their publication in the current climate will serve no real free speech purpose and may in fact expose Muslims to hate.
Lastly, I believe that the full context of its initial publication can shed some light on the intent behind its continued publication. They were published against a backdrop of ever increasing levels of Islamophobia and racism, where even the Queen of the land had called for the demonization of Muslims.
The following quote from the South African newspaper the Mail & Guardian is illustrative:
“Further, they were published in Denmark, which has been named by the European Union Commission on Human Rights as the most racist country in Europe. It has witnessed a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants. And, they were published by a newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism and which called for a fascist dictatorship in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten is also anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Within such a context, these cartoons are clearly hate speech. Their publication is an ontological attack against the foundations of Islam.”
Indeed, some commentators have argued that given the foregoing, the aim of the cartoons was nothing short of inciting hatred against “the terrorist within”.
However, conviction under ss. 319(2) would be extremely difficult given the evidentiary burden and indeed even initiating the prosecution requires the consent of the attorney general – a Herculean task for communities that often lack political clout. Moreover, the accused has a number of defenses available under ss. 319(3) which dilute the provisions effectiveness, but minimizes abuse.
Though not specifically designed to regulate speech it may be easier to pursue a hate-monger using the lower civil standard of proof required under human rights legislation. Such legislation is concerned with the broader effect of hate and not just the intended effect. Legislation in both British Columbia and Alberta have been successfully used to curb hateful speech. The SCC has not yet ruled on whether this would be ultra vires by infringing on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.
Muslims in Canada have acted responsibly. Editors must reciprocate and exercise their rights tempered by civic responsibility. The community will be looking to the various Attorneys General to enforce the laws against those who cross the line and join the bandwagon of hate in the name of freedom of expression.
As Mr. Justice Cory pointed out more than 15 years ago, laws against hate were justified because inciting hatred can be “as damaging as actual physical violence.”
“Limits on free speech,” said the justice, “must be considered as much as the right itself.”
Amen.
Faisal Kutty is a lawyer with the firm of Baksh & Kutty. He is a board member with the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations and general counsel for the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association.
An abridged version of this article appeared in Lawyers Weekly (February 24, 2006).
After the Danish cartoons, “Fitna” movie en and other vile attempts to take down the lofty values and personalities within Islam and make it a subject to mock, there has appeared a cheap B movie by the title of “Innocence of Muslims” which has been produced solely for the following aim; spreading as much lies and slander about the most beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him), his wife ‘Aisha (Blessings be upon her) and his companions (May Blessings be upon them). As a reaction to this, Muslims from all corners of the Islamic world went out on the streets in large numbers and protested against this slandering of their most beloved. But these demonstrations were quickly labeled as barbaric and Al-Qaeda along with extremist groups would be behind this, due to the black flags.
First of all, it should be emphasized that Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) is being praised daily in their prayers on numerous occasions by 2 billion people. He is the Messenger of Allah and he is the best and only example for the Muslims; his actions, words and even his silence are taken as a source and reference to arrange the daily lives of Muslims. He is more loved by Muslims then their own selves. This is the bond which Muslims feel with him. So these demonstrations can therefore not be ascribed to “a couple of extremist Muslims”, because this is far from reality. This issue is an extremely sensitive case which strikes the heart of all Muslims.
The media and certain politicians responded quickly to label these demonstrations as barbaric and intolerant. In reality, it is this terrible movie which is ultimately barbaric and it is not the Muslims who are intolerant, but it’s the liberal democratic thought which allows under the excuse of “freedom of speech” that people with a different thought can be deeply hurt and insulted. The west calls itself civilized, but what kind of civilization is this if people can not meet with each other in a civilized way without getting into insulting and slander?
Furthermore, where was this so-called magnificent “freedom of speech” when a man recently called the queen to be a “fraud” and a “sinner”? This man, who was mentally weak, got treated as a criminal and the judge sentenced him to prison for several months. Instead of immediately condemning the attacks of Muslims on western embassies, they should investigate why Muslims directed their anger towards these exact places. The west has been guilty for decades for their direct involvement in their internal affairs and exploitation. Was it not the west that has put dictators and tyrants in power of the Muslim countries and supported them entirely throughout the years? Weren’t the Arabic uprisings not a direct result of criminal policy of the west within the Muslim countries? And even after making thousands of sacrifices during these Arabic uprisings to remove these dictators and tyrants who were supported by the west, the Muslims still see the tentacles of the west being deeply rooted in their countries. There is no real change in their situation. Their longings, ideals and demands are still not being granted by these new leaders. The severe approach of the army and police against the demonstrators is one of the examples. Many demonstrators have lost their lives because their own police was not there to protect them, but to help the west to exploit them. The insult of their Prophet by the west was just a drop too much for the Muslims!
The Muslims expected that their new leaders would take a firm stance against the insult of their Prophet. But since these new leaders are still serving in the interest of the west and not the interest of the Muslims, the Muslims have now been forced to take their own initiative. These new leaders should have at least ended all diplomatic ties with America and sent their ambassadors directly to their home along with the American military basis and postpone all oil contracts and economic ties.
Okay Pala
2006
Millions and millions of Muslims were shocked and outraged by the 12 cartoons that were first published in a Danish chronicle. Their justification behind publishing such cartoons that offended Prophet Muhammad was Freedom of Speech.
When was Freedom of Speech a means to insult or offend? How can we call it 'Freedom of Speech' when it hurts the feelings of human beings all over the world?
The cartoonist who drew these cartoons has a personal problem that he should deal with by himself, or even with the help of others.
That is the problem of ignorance. Ignorance of the true message of Islam, ignorance of whom the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) really was.
If he (the cartoonist or others) would spend few time reading the noble Quran and the authentic teachings of Prophet Muhammad, I think he would not even have the intention to draw such cartoons.
He obviously judged Islam by the actions of some Muslims. Like every other community, there are few 'bad apples' and it is unfortunate that the media sometimes focuses on them.
The British philosopher, Thomas Carlyle, wrote: "It is a great shame for anyone to listen to the accusation that Islam is a lie and that Muhammad was a fabricator and a deceiver. We saw that he remained steadfast upon his principles, with firm determination; kind and generous, compassionate, pious, virtuous, with real manhood, hardworking and sincere. Besides all these qualities, he was lenient with others, tolerant, kind, cheerful and praiseworthy ..."
Prophet Muhammad was the final messenger to the universe, he was sent as a mercy "And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for the "Alamin" (mankind, jinns and all that exists) [Quran 21:107].
He came with the same message and principles that his predecessors (prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, peace be upon them) came with. That is the message of devotion, submission, and obedience to the Lord of the universe (Islam).
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) came with several proofs and miracles to show that he is truthful. One of his miracles, actually the miracle of the miracles and the immortal proof, is the Quran. It is the only revealed book whose text stands pure and uncorrupted after more than 1,400 years.
This proof carries its own evidence proving its divine authorship. I personally advise you to read and study the book from any angle you wish, scrutinise it, and most important of all, see if it calls its followers to 'terrorism' or not.
If you are still in doubt, why not accept the challenge : "Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." [Quran 4:82]
"Freedom of speech is vital part of out liberties" (Robin, London). That's absolutely true, but as with other rights, with certain limitations.
What is the meaning of diverse communities living together in peace and harmony when we don't respect each other and consider other's faith? "And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance." [Quran 6:108]
Freedom to Speak
The freedom to speak is an enshrined value of the Western world. Something they pride themselves on and wish to promote in the Muslim world. So when the Danish cartoons happened, it was the freedom of speech debate which took centre stage. When the film Fitnah was created it was all protected by this freedom of speech value. One should be able to criticise and debate ideas, with openness as this is what creates a society which thinks about what it believes in, and questions it. So questioning the Islamic traditions in fitnah was the freedom to question and probe. Depicting the Prophet SAW as a terrorist was all about questioning the place of Islam and the Prophet SAW.
Therefore one would hope that the ability to question and debate the values embedded in the society all around us would be encouraged, urged. However the recent war on terror in Britain has set quite a different standard for Muslims, when it comes to their ability to speak and debate freely. If Muslims voice their different views about politics, society and question the norms which people swallow as universal around them, freedom of speech suddenly has no place for them. If Muslims believe that the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is fully legitimate, as these lands have been bombed and destroyed, masses killed without any type of consent of the people, then are we supporters of terrorism? Because we believe in the self-determination of a people who are in the hands of foreign occupation? Did not Britain fight back during the Blitz? Did they welcome the bombing of their cities and embrace the Germans with open hands? Would we call those who assisted in the war effort to counter the blitz, insurgents and terrorists, simply because they wanted sovereignty in their own land?
What about those who believe the values of the people of the Muslim world should shape the way they live. The Muslim world should be allowed to let their way of life manifest itself in society and wiithin the state. Is this barbaric, backward if they want to live by the just Economic system of Islam, which distributes the wealth of the state to the poor, instead of letting the rich and elite accumulate it? A system which provides stability putting the interests of the people first, above the speculative markets? What about if they want their social values to manifest in society so that men and women maintain a respect towards each other instead of being encouraged to sexualise one another? So that family units are sanctified over individual's freedom to run after desires and temptations. Is this extremism? As if you call for a Caliphate, the Khilafah system, for the Muslim world, believing that democracy only perpetuates tyranny of man, allowing corruption of power and wealth; you have rejected the values of the West and have gone to far for this society.
But is this not the West who prides itself on the debate of ideas and values? Is this not the West who encourages people who criticise and discuss what leads to better societies? More harmonious societies?
Questions. Questions. No one seems to really answer. The problem is, the Government today, the prospective Conservative Government today is banding around alot of what will never be allowed. Extremism will never be allowed in British society, terrorism will never be allowed in British society and as Cameron has promised, he will ban Islamic groups who call for such terrorism once he comes to power. But Cameron has been quick to shove the debate about productive values in a very broken society which he wishes to mend, under the carpet. As these Islamic groups are those who are not and have never been engaged in any type of violent extremism, but have always been at the forefront of speaking out against colonisliam, occupation and the ability for Islam to solve the broken problems of society in the Muslim world. They want to discuss what values could potentially mend a society broken socially, economically and politically. So clearly Cameron's promise to ban such groups essentially means the promise to ban discussion and debate about values in society and silence those who actually think and don't just adopt the status quo blindly - That democracy is supreme. Rather maybe Cameron could stop to think - The reasons why some Muslims believe and call so wholeheartedly for Islamic law in the Muslim world, is because they wish more than anything for justice to return to our world today, the ceasing of the rich usurping the poor, and the powerful oppressing the weak. Something he could actually learn from maybe? Tuesday, December 15, 2009
We can say all we want about the theoretical limits of free speech. The trouble is, in the case of this video, they wouldn't make any difference anyway. New technology has changed the debate. Everyone now carries a camera (ie a mobile phone. Cheap video production makes it possible for anyone to make a film. And above all the internet make it impossible to control information in the old ways.
Even the Chinese are struggling to control the internet (and the Chinese have no interest at all in defending free speech). The internet makes a fool of the old rules of libel and slander. If a picture is available on a dozen websites anyway, what difference does it make to stop a newspaper from printing it or a tv channel showing it? Very often it's impossible to track the source of the picture, or it may come from another jurisdiction that can't be controlled.
So, if you really want to curb free speech, you're also going to have to kill the internet. The same internet that contributed so much to the fall of dictators across the Arab world. At that price, is it worth it?
The Institute of Race Relations has reprinted an interesting interview with A. Sivanandan conducted by the Norwegian Maoist daily Klassekampen.
In connection with the cartoons crisis, Sivanandan points out that "in our time – after Hitler and the Holocaust, in an era of ethnic cleansing and genocide and Islamophobia – the freedom to life comes before the freedom of speech. You cannot use freedom of speech to endanger other people's lives by incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred".
He also explains Islamophobia as the ideology of western imperialism: "Racial superiority is back on the agenda – in the guise this time not of a super-race but a super-civilisation on a mission to take the ideals of freedom and democracy, by force if necessary, to the benighted people of the Third World, especially to those who have got oil in their backyards. ( 'Post-modern imperialism' Robert Cooper, one-time adviser to Blair and the EU, calls it.) Conversely, western civilisation and its values should be jealously guarded against the pagan hordes now circulating in Europe's midst."
Freedom and falsehoods
Despite recent injustices, Islam has always been a champion of free speech. So much injustice has been done to Islam over the issue of freedom of speech. Certain quarters choose to champion the cause of freedom of speech by indulging in acts whose primary objective is to tarnish the image of Islam through unfounded claims and to demonise it or demean the Prophet Muhammad.
Despite recent injustices, Islam has always been a champion of free speech.
So much injustice has been done to Islam over the issue of freedom of speech. Certain quarters choose to champion the cause of freedom of speech by indulging in acts whose primary objective is to tarnish the image of Islam through unfounded claims and to demonise it or demean the Prophet Muhammad through what they describe as literary or artistic works. Muslims have been put on the defensive time and again: from Salman Rushdie’s despicable novel through the ugly Danish cartoons all the way down to the irresponsible remarks by Pope Benedict XVI.
Muslims had every right to be offended because, as they saw it, these were not innocent exercises of freedom of speech but deliberate abuses that said nothing but untruths about Islam and its Prophet. The resort by some Muslims to violence, however, has damaged their cause even further. Islam has been the victim both of deliberate abuse and of irrational and ignorant responses to such abuse.
In fact, Islam - as shown clearly by its history - has always been involved in the struggle for freedom of choice and of speech.
For thirteen years since receiving the first Qur’anic revelation, in Mecca in 610 CE, the Prophet Muhammad responded to the "elders" who rejected his call to worship the One and Only God, Allah the Creator, by challenging them not to "obstruct the way" between him and the people.
"Let the people choose" was his slogan. Instead, the elders of the tribe of Quraysh, who feared the loss of their power and prestige, used every resource at their disposal in order to prevent any public discussion of what the Prophet had to say about the paganism the Arabs inherited from their forefathers. And it was not just paganism but a way of life littered with some of the most heinous atrocities committed against the weak and the vulnerable. Prophet Muhammad’s message was perceived as a revolution, a rebellion aimed at liberating minds and souls from human-imposed shackles and restrictions.
There is no better proof to the fact that Islam stands for freedom of thought and of _expression than the esteemed status "the seeking of knowledge" is assigned in both the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions. The first word of revelation was "iqra", meaning read or learn or recite. "Learn in the Name of your Lord who Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood; learn in the Name of your Lord, the Most Bountiful, Who taught (the use of) the pen and taught man that which he knew not."
Before Islam came to them, the Arabs prided themselves on being an illiterate community; very few of them learned anything apart from poetry and enough elementary astronomy to be able to cross the desert at night. Still, very few of them ever left Arabia or interacted with the bastions of civilisations to the north and the south. While the Arabs despised Jews and Christians, the Qur’an called them the People of the Book, and linked itself to their religious traditions.
Despite having been revealed first to the Arabs, the language of the Qur’an spoke in universal terms to the global human community. From day one, this was not meant to be a religious tradition for a particular racial or ethnic group, but rather one for the whole of mankind, claiming a direct link to all preceding divine missions from Noah through Abraham and Moses all the way down to Jesus.
As an eternal guarantee of the human freedom to choose, the Qur’an declared that "there is no compulsion in religion" and that no person’s conversion to Islam would be acceptable if not out of an absolute free will. Yet Islam spread out of Arabia in all four directions in record time, and the Ummah rapidly grew into a huge community.
There is no evidence whatsoever that conversion was coerced, although incentives might have been introduced by political regimes at times either in favour of conversion or in an attempt to discourage it. Rather, what attracted millions of people was the liberating message of the new religion, which declared that "an Arab is no better than a non-Arab, a white is no better than a black, and a yellow is no better than a red."
The two great empires of the day, that of Byzantium and that of Sassania, had been oppressive powers that suppressed and persecuted the nations that came under their influence. Wars of attritions between the two empires augmented the suffering of millions of people who were being turned into fuel for a conflict that raged for several decades. Not only did the rising Islamic power provide a better alternative but it also emancipated many nations that had been enslaved by the two decaying powers.
It did not take long for Islam to provide humanity with great centres of civilization where scholarship flourished like never before. Philosophers and scientists - Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Sabian alike - turned cities such as Baghdad, Cordova and Seville into minarets of enlightenment for the benefit of all humanity not only innovating but also building on the legacies of the Hellenistic and Persian civilizations. Without the contributions of such centres of learning, Europe would today still be in total darkness.
Today, most Muslims live in countries that are governed by despots who, like the elders of Quraysh, fear for their prestige and influence. In majority Muslim countries the police and intelligence services have no job other than muzzle people and make sure that nothing but what pleases the autocratic ruler is said or even whispered. It is not unusual for a person to lose his or her life for speaking out in public in contradiction to the wish of the despot. The largest number of prisoners in any given Muslim country happens to be prisoners of conscience. Few criminals or thieves are in prison because the real thieves are those in power.
In fact, much of the struggle that has been going on in Muslim countries from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans is about freedom. People are fighting for the freedom not only to say what they wish but even the freedom to dress the way they like. It is here that the roots of ’terrorism’ happen to be. The reason why some people resort to violence in Muslim countries is the lack of space for discussion about issues that matter and the brutality with which people who dare speak out are met.
Those of us Muslims who live in the liberal West appreciate more than anybody else the great bounty of being able to say what we like and to be able to lead the way of life we choose. It is because of this that many of us are gravely concerned that one of the repercussions of the US-led war on terrorism is that the liberal West is undermining one of its most treasured achievement. The defence of freedom of speech in the USA and Europe is becoming increasingly selective. This was supposed to be a political right to be employed by those who are governed against those who govern. Now, authorities in the alliance for war in Afghanistan and Iraq are heading in the direction of stifling the public so as not to question policy or criticize the perpetration of blunders. What is of greater concern is that leading authorities in the liberal west are the backers of some of the most autocratic regimes across the Muslim world.
Freedom of speech is not about the right to publish offensive cartoons or to claim about Islam what is false and unfair; it is to stand up to tyrants and oppressors and prevent them from doing in our name what we abhor and detest. What is frequently claimed to be freedom of speech today is nothing but abuse intended, at most, to settle scores or find fame - or perhaps infamy.
Dr Azzam Tamimi
PRINCETON - Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. According to the text of the resolution, "Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity" that leads to "a restriction on the freedom of [religions'] adherents."
The resolution was originally proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and was put to the Human Rights Council by Pakistan. It supports that it was aimed at such things as the derogatory cartoons of the prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper three years ago.
Germany opposed the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, a German spokesperson rejected the concept of "defamation of religion" as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions.
Many non-government organizations, both secular and religious, also opposed the resolution. Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that that body saw the resolution as weakening "the rights of individuals to express their views."
This seems like a sound argument. While attempts to stir up hatred against adherents of a religion, or to incite violence against them, may legitimately be suppressed, criticism of religion as such should not be.
The resolution is non-binding, but if nations were to enact laws putting it into effect, there can be no doubt that it would interfere with freedom of expression. For a start, what counts as "defamation of religion" is contested.
For example, the OIC said in its statement that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." Are those associations wrong? If the OIC wishes to change many people's perception that Islam violates human rights, suppressing freedom of speech is hardly the best way to go about it. The way to change such a perception would be to marshal evidence against it, and to make the case that human rights - including the rights of women - are as well protected in Islamic countries as they are in non-Islamic countries.
To demonstrate that it is wrong to associate Islam with terrorism, the OIC might begin to compile statistics on the religious affiliations of those who engage in terrorism. By contrast, suppressing the freedom of speech of Islam's critics merely gives rise to the suspicion that evidence and sound argument cannot show their arguments to be mistaken.
Coincidentally, in the same week that Germany and the World Jewish Congress rejected the idea that defamation of religion is an affront to human dignity, and upheld the right to freedom of expression, Germany's highest court issued its ruling on a case brought by a Jewish organization, and two Jewish individuals. The court ruled against the right of the United States-based animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to exhibit posters that juxtapose photographs of victims of the Holocaust with photographs of animals in factory farms and at slaughterhouses.
The posters bear the heading: "To Animals, All People are Nazis" - a line from the Polish-born Jewish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer. According to the court, Germany's laws on freedom of speech did not protect PETA's campaign, because to make "the fate of the victims of the Holocaust appear banal and trivial" was an offense against human dignity.
PETA was, of course, not arguing that Holocaust victims' fate was banal or trivial. On the contrary, it was using the Holocaust - which we would all agree was utterly horrific - to suggest, as Isaac Bashevis Singer did, that there are parallels between the way the Nazis treated Jews and the way we treat animals. The conclusion PETA wants us to reach is that both the Holocaust and the mass confinement and slaughter of animals are horrific. A free society should be open to discussing such a claim.
Irrespective of the merits of PETA's campaign, however, those who stood up for free speech at the UN Human Rights Council should be able to see that the fact that some forms of speech cause offense is not sufficient reason to censor them. If PETA is not allowed to state its case against our abuse of animals in the way that they judge best, because doing so might offend some people, then criticism of religion could also be prohibited on the same grounds.
If, on the other hand, a religion's adherents have no right to protection against criticism of their religion, then, even in Germany, Holocaust victims and their descendants (I am one) should not be protected against advertising campaigns that, though not intended to incite hatred or violence, may cause them offense.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
All week Muslims were asked why are we so offended by the movies, cartoons and books which makes a mockery of our deen. "why don't you just rise above it?" well it seems freedom of speech/expression is very selective according to the British media and government. why is this advert deemed to be religiously sensitive? the British government along with the so called civilized societies like America and European countries are able to make such decisions from a political platform which is protected by their capitalistic ideology. Muslims can only resolve this and deter other nations from such provocative behavior, only on a state level as was the case in our history when we lived under the shade of the khilafah state. please share your thoughts with us!
Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'
An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope's visit.
Antonio Federici's advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line "immaculately conceived".
The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.
Antonio Federici says it will now put up new posters near Westminster Abbey.
Pope Benedict XVI will visit Westminster Abbey on Friday, before holding Mass at Westminster Cathedral on Saturday.
Antonio Federici, a UK-based company, has yet to reveal what image will be portrayed in the new advert, saying only that it would be "a continuation of the theme".
A spokeswoman for the company said the new image intended to "defy" the ban from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
She added: "We are in the process of securing a series of billboards close to and along the planned route of the Pope's cavalcade around Westminster Cathedral".
A spokesman for the ASA said its rulings "must be followed and we are taking steps to ensure Antonio Federici do so".
He added: "We do not comment on the likely compliance of ads that have not yet appeared.
"However, we are continuing to conduct work behind the scenes, including with the advertiser, to ensure they comply with the rules."
Continue reading the main story “Start Quote
To use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith”
Advertising Standards Authority
Defending the banned nun advert, Antonio Federici said the idea of "conception" represented the development of their ice cream.
It added that the use of religious imagery represented its strong feeling towards its product.
The firm said it also wished to "comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues".
The banned advert was featured in editions of The Lady and Grazia magazines.
The ASA said in its ruling: "We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.
"We concluded that to use such an image in a lighthearted way to advertise ice cream was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith."
The publishers of The Lady said it had received eight complaints and that it had been a "misjudgement" to have published .
Grazia said it considered that the advert was lighthearted and did not mock any religious groups.
The ASA banned another advert for Antonio Federici in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss.
it seems freedom of speech/expression is very selective according to the British media and government.
The banning of the this angel campaign is a little surprising - not least because they're hopelessly late. The campaign has been running for some time and must have been approaching the end of its natural life. The advertiser (Lynx male deoderant) is well known for risqué themes, usually of a sexual nature rather than a religious one. Sometimes advertisers do want to be controversial and even deliberately get banned - in this case, I think the team simply thought it was a good idea.
However, you would be quite wrong to say that Christianity gets unfairly protected. For instance, earlier this year a UK Christian ad was removed because it claimed healing powers simply for having Christian faith.
Also, there's barely a month that goes by without an ad that uses Christian imagery somewhere. Most popular subjects are monks and nuns, usually treated humorously.
On the other hand, I can't think of a single UK ad that used Muslim imagery for humorous purposes or indeed any other purpose. So if the question is, which religion is getting treated with least respect by UK advertising, then the answer is Christianity, by an enormous distance.
Also, there's barely a month that goes by without an ad that uses Christian imagery somewhere. Most popular subjects are monks and nuns, usually treated humorously.
On the other hand, I can't think of a single UK ad that used Muslim imagery for humorous purposes or indeed any other purpose. So if the question is, which religion is getting treated with least respect by UK advertising, then the answer is Christianity, by an enormous distance.
I totally agree with you.
This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
In fact, your religion/faith/belief will become the butts of the jokes again and again.
This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
In fact, your religion/faith/belief will become the butts of the jokes again and again
[quote=Ramadhan;1542649]
You have a fair point here. There has indeed been a slow erosion of respect for Christian sentiments in the UK over a period of many decades. Could that have been prevented by stricter censorship rules, or would it have happened anyway because society has become more secular? Hard to say. You can only see the history that actually happened, not the 'might have been'.
It has led to a strange situation in the UK where the mainstream religion (Christianity) gets the roughest treatment, while minority religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc) are treated more sensitively. Part of the reason for this is that Christianity is regarded as part of the 'establishment' and therefore something that needs to be rebelled against. It's also seen as an institution strong enough to take the knocks.
It's the reverse situation from many other countries, such as Egypt, where the mainstream religion is the one that gets the protection from this kind of social give-and-take.
It's the reverse situation from many other countries, such as Egypt, where the mainstream religion is the one that gets the protection from this kind of social give-and-take.
Do you live in egypt?
I cannot speak for egypt, but in Indonesia (where I live), the largest muslim country on earth, christians/catholics/buddhists/hindus also enjoy equal protection as muslims and we can't insult other religions in public spheres.
In fact, there was a restaurant in Jakarta opened 3-4 years ago called Buddha Bar (yes, a franchise from the famous one in Paris) whose owners were two muslims, daughters from previous Jakarta's governor and Indonesian president. The restaurant also had a huge budhha statue in its premise.
This caused upsets among buddhists community and they protested. Finally the restaurant had to remove the statue and change its name.
I cannot speak for egypt, but in Indonesia (where I live), the largest muslim country on earth, christians/catholics/buddhists/hindus also enjoy equal protection as muslims and we can't insult other religions in public spheres.
I meant social behaviours, rather than Government legislation. Your situation in Indonesia sounds good however. I have travelled extensively in Indonesia in the past but unfortunately it was during the the time of the Asian financial crisis which caused. In fact I narrowly missed getting caught in a supermarket fire in Jakarta, which killed a number of people. Despite that i enjoyed the visit immensely!
It's the reverse situation from many other countries, such as Egypt, where the mainstream religion is the one that gets the protection from this kind of social give-and-take.
You know this because?
Mainstream religion is attacked daily on the satellite channels and by paid trolls who constantly harangue Mursi's and on every word.
If there's protection/respect to mainstream religion or not. It stems from the religious values themselves not some sort of amendment or curb on their freedoms.
During the haganah/Irgun/ Stern gang mobs that torpedoed through Egypt/ Iraq etc. to kidnap or instil fear in the Jewish population there to create a rift and doubt in their identity, they were not largely successful in some areas and as such people refused to go colonize Palestine knowing full well who is behind the schism. One is a very famous Jewess Lila Murad, who eventually converted to Islam!
Don't give yourself the right to speak on behalf of other countries. You barely know what is going on in yours with regards to human rights and minority rights.
I once saw a documentary that visited the Aceh district in part. I would argue the way un-islamic attire is imposed on the young population in general by their Sharia police or what it is called, does not equally respect all faiths/believes. It is a huge bias towards one religion and to a lesser degree this seems to be similar in many Muslim nations.
The point Independent wanted to make (I think) is that the religion being part of establishment and having big influence in decision making in and of itself is regarded as bad in most Western countries. Whenever one religion or ideology is granted too much respect it has caused terrible political shifts. Mockery and satire is always the first and last line of defense and therefore is granted a special protection. When you already cannot express different opinions in certain settings like politics, public events or universities, the satirical stage is still one that can talk freely. And especially all that is established is being bombarded the most.
Historically in Europe there has been a centuries long battle between church and state. Somewhere down the road all heretics were driven out to America. The US first then created a new system which slowly affected Europe too.
The point is in the west, satire is seen as something holy itself for its educational purpose and it requires freedom. The stronger one is, the more self-confident, the more established the more it/he/she has to suffer mockery, because it can and it should.
This I think also touches on one misunderstanding between the Muslim world and its interpretation of some mainstream western reactions to the protest. Muslim's think their is a lack of respect for their religious feelings but I think it is more a lack of respect for Muslims themselves as in they behave too insecure. In the big globalized world Islam is not some little minority but very much established as the second biggest religion and there is the expectation that they ought to have enough confidence in themselves and their religion to handle some youtube video. It is seen as weakness to be too severely insulted. This is most obvious in the reactions of politicians who sometimes react differently to all the blows they get. If they pay it too much heed, it is seen as a lack of self-confidence. In Europe we grant protection to the weak, the minorities, those that cannot fend for themselves, but the strong, those that have numbers need to fend for themselves. (This is the sentiment of society in general not necessarily perfectly mirrored in every law)
This is why the cry for outlawing this video on a big scale is laughed at. Because of the strange confrontation between.
We demand more respect. Outlaw this stuff.
and
Laws will protect you but not get you respect.
It is not like everybody thinks religious feelings aren't important but that minority protections for believes and opinions are neither necessary nor possible and respect cannot be earned by declaring oneself as a minority worthy of protection. The more stupid or slanderous an insult is like this movie the more it encourages this line of thinking. If the faith is so weak that it cannot handle this ridiculous nonsense, how should we respect it if they don't themselves. Hurt honor doesn't get much consideration at all.
Honor and respect one gets for different things in different cultures. I.e. to me the idea of demanding respect is completely alien. Respect in anti authoritarian society is earned not ever given. It cannot even be given.
I maybe mistaken but from listening to many Muslims it seems to me they want to be respected not simply tolerated. IMO there is a huge difference and only the latter can be insured by law.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
Sure the insults won't disappear if one ignores them especially not in the web where there is at least one fool for anything. But they appear less often. The idea that globally movies like innocence of Muslims can be made to disappear is illusory, impossible unless we start a police state.
I think it comes down to a few choices. Should religion be some kind of minority that must be protected from harm? Or is it a worldview capable to take a challenge on its own merits?
The existence of insulting material on the web is if already too insulting just something that is very hard to contain. In a democracy it exists to a certain point and from there one must find a way to deal with it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
In fact, there was a restaurant in Jakarta opened 3-4 years ago called Buddha Bar (yes, a franchise from the famous one in Paris) whose owners were two muslims, daughters from previous Jakarta's governor and Indonesian president. The restaurant also had a huge buddha statue in its premise.
This caused upsets among buddhists community and they protested. Finally the restaurant had to remove the statue and change its name.
How does one define the public sphere. A youtube movie is something that one has to actively pull down from the web. A building in the public that is immovable in your neighborhood is something different. Do you watch a TV Channel that you can switch at the press of a button or are you complaining about a poster you have to pass every day on your way to work. The knowledge of existing insulting material is not the same IMO as inescapable insulting material.
Opening a strip club in some places won't work either.
The point Independent wanted to make (I think) is that the religion being part of establishment and having big influence in decision making in and of itself is regarded as bad in most Western countries.
That's true, although it wasn't the point I was (not very effectively) making. I meant simply that in the UK over the last 50 years there is a strong tradition of attacking the establishment in general. Not just the religious establishment, but also in politics, the legal profession, and many other areas. Christianity is seen as part of the establishment so it gets attacked, whereas other religions have been relatively ignored. It's only recently that comedians, for instance, have started to tackle Islamic subjects. The comedians that do so are almost always either Muslims themselves or from an Islamic background. If a WASP were to take on that subject, the audience might see them as prejudiced and therefore cease to find them funny.
In other words it's not just what gets said, it's who says it.
^^ those statements are loaded up to and including how you wrapped it up. You already presuppose that Muslims aren't WASPS
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
. I would argue the way un-islamic attire is imposed on the young population in general by their Sharia police or what it is called, does not equally respect all faiths/believes. It is a huge bias towards one religion and to a lesser degree this seems to be similar in many Muslim nations.
'un-islamic' attire is imposed?
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
The point Independent wanted to make (I think) is that the religion being part of establishment and having big influence in decision making in and of itself is regarded as bad in most Western countries. Whenever one religion or ideology is granted too much respect it has caused terrible political shifts. Mockery and satire is always the first and last line of defense and therefore is granted a special protection. When you already cannot express different opinions in certain settings like politics, public events or universities, the satirical stage is still one that can talk freely. And especially all that is established is being bombarded the most.
The question here isn't making fun of religion for some political reason to do with the religion itself or even how its adherents behave or to highlight what needs to be changed. Rather, it is created for the sole purpose to provoke, cause ire and establish a base political agenda by which the aggressors convince the masses that one group of people are akin to animals and it is OK to dehumanize them and call them savages!
I meant simply that in the UK over the last 50 years there is a strong tradition of attacking the establishment in general.
I have read/heard several theories recently, which attributed the beginning of this trend to the two World Wars (especially the first one), which saw so many young men die in the trenches - after having been told (by the Government and condoned/reinforced but the Church) to fight (and die) for King and Country.
There was barely a community left in this country, which was not affected in some way ... and that left people cynical and suspicious of those in power and authority.
'WASP' is an American term that stands for 'White Anglo Saxon Protestant'. That's what it means.
People don't use the term to solely refer to protestants:
The term WASP has many meanings. In sociology it reflects that segment of the U.S. population that founded the nation and traced their heritages to...Northwestern Europe. The term...has become more inclusive. To many people, WASP now includes most 'white' people who are not ... members of any minority group.[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_A...xon_Protestant
and as stated such folks enter Islam every day. We've quite a few on board in fact. Basically amongst other things that can be construed from the above is to marginalize Muslims to a group of well non-whites, arabs or whatever is in your mind per regard to Islam.
The rest of your statements are neither historically accurate or have a semblance of truth. Since the inception of Islam it has been the church's job if not the west to ban, make fun, plain lie as a form of combating its appeal. The method simply evolves with the time but same principal exists.
However many meanings it has, 'Muslim' isn't one of them.
To make it easier for you, what I said was that if a member of the UK dominant social group were to stand up and make jokes about a minority (in this case Muslims) then it might be seen by the audience as prejudiced, not funny. Whereas if a Muslim is the one making the jokes, it's ok (always assuming they're funny). Same if it was a Jew. Same as if it were a handicapped person and so on.
How you manage to take offense out of this statement is something known only to yourself.
However many meanings it has, 'Muslim' isn't one of them.
Does ancestry change simply because you embraced a new religion?
To make it easier for you, what I said was that if a member of the UK dominant social group were to stand up and make jokes about a minority (in this case Muslims) then it might be seen by the audience as prejudiced, not funny. Whereas if a Muslim is the one making the jokes, it's ok (always assuming they're funny). Same if it was a Jew. Same as if it were a handicapped person and so on.
Maybe you should think of how you word things perhaps cross reference them historically as to not always work on your intentions with subsequent posts. Also with regards to liberties you take to speak about countries to which you've never been and your knowledge of seems to reflect your nightly news.
How you manage to take offense out of this statement is something known only to yourself.
I don't invest emotions or offense with any random forummers..
Does ancestry change simply because you embraced a new religion?
I would suggest that a white Anglo-saxon Protestant who reverts to Islam continues to be white and Anglo-saxon, but ceases to the a Protestant.
He kind of changes from a WASP to a WASM.
I guess.. but I have problems with such terms. For instance using the term anti-Semitic to refer to Jews, when less than 5% of Jews are Semitic of origin. In fact the term should be used to describe your average Palestinian, rather than your average Israeli Jew..
I would suggest that a white Anglo-saxon Protestant who reverts to Islam continues to be white and Anglo-saxon, but ceases to the a Protestant.
He kind of changes from a WASP to a WASM.
Yes, yes, yes! All of which is irrelevant to my original post because I'm not talking about converts anyway. This is like walking through treacle.
Yes, yes, yes! All of which is irrelevant to my original post because I'm not talking about converts anyway. This is like walking through treacle.
The rest wasn't relevant either and neither factual- you simply fixated on one aspect. It is just your feelings at the end of the day and everyone has those.
I meant social behaviours, rather than Government legislation. Your situation in Indonesia sounds good however. I have travelled extensively in Indonesia in the past but unfortunately it was during the the time of the Asian financial crisis which caused. In fact I narrowly missed getting caught in a supermarket fire in Jakarta, which killed a number of people. Despite that i enjoyed the visit immensely!
I don't know what you mean by "social behaviours", but in public spheres, people here do not insults/mock other religions.
In fact, the governments of USA and EU countries (through their aid programs) continuously provide fundings to organizations who attack/mock/insult Islamic values and teachings.
I once saw a documentary that visited the Aceh district in part. I would argue the way un-islamic attire is imposed on the young population in general by their Sharia police or what it is called, does not equally respect all faiths/believes. It is a huge bias towards one religion and to a lesser degree this seems to be similar in many Muslim nations.
There are plenty of unsubstantiated claims in your sentence above based on one documentary.
I have visited Aceh many times for my work, both before and after the Tsunami. I have friends who live in Aceh and many of them are not muslims. And they have lived there for years and years, and they (the female ones) do not have to wear "islamic attire".
What would you say if I make a sweeping judgement about Austria based on one documentary?
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
Sure the insults won't disappear if one ignores them especially not in the web where there is at least one fool for anything. But they appear less often. The idea that globally movies like innocence of Muslims can be made to disappear is illusory, impossible unless we start a police state.
Whoever said here that argued that filth like innocence of muslims can be made to disappear globally?
format_quote Originally Posted by dusk
How does one define the public sphere. A youtube movie is something that one has to actively pull down from the web. A building in the public that is immovable in your neighborhood is something different. Do you watch a TV Channel that you can switch at the press of a button or are you complaining about a poster you have to pass every day on your way to work. The knowledge of existing insulting material is not the same IMO as inescapable insulting material.
That was just one example.
I challenge you to come to Indonesia and find me an Indonesian TV program or street poster/billboard that mocks/insults christianity/catholics/buddhism/hindu.
Just have a read of this hypocrisy. The maker of the recent insulting film was arrested today but not for making the film which sparked off so much violence and deaths around the world.
He was arrested for violating probation terms after he was released from prison in 2011 for bank fraud.
Ironic eh? A man who insults our Prophet himself is charged with fraud. What a shame!
Here's what the BBC article said,
"Earlier, the Obama administration had requested Google, the company that owns YouTube, to remove the clip. The technology firm refused, saying the film did not violate its rules.
A clip from the US-made film was dubbed into Arabic, provoking widespread anger for its disrespectful portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad. The film was made on a very low budget, with insults and offensive inferences to the Prophet Mohammad and Islam crudely dubbed on afterwards. But it has not broken any laws in the US, where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution's first amendment."
Let me repeat that last part,
"But it has not broken any laws in the US, where freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution's first amendment."
The constitution's first amendment seems to be a privelege reserved exclusively for non muslims.
Non muslims can say just about anything they want to insult our religion under the cover of "Freedom of Speech".
Why is Holocaust denial not allowed under Freedom of Speech?
The moment a muslim speaks their mind, it becomes a crime.
Freedom of speech is a sick joke, that's what it is.
Normally when college students interrupt speeches and things they either get escorted out of the building after being asked to stop. The law suit was uncalled for. This kind of thing happens all the time on college campuses around the U.S. and no one usually gets taken to court for it.
There are other examples of things like this happening to Muslims too.
Normally when college students interrupt speeches and things they either get escorted out of the building after being asked to stop. The law suit was uncalled for. This kind of thing happens all the time on college campuses around the U.S. and no one usually gets taken to court for it.
There are other examples of things like this happening to Muslims too.
Distrubing a meeting during a speech would be disorderly conduct. And this just doesn't happen to Muslims either.
I thought it might be useful for you guys to read this article in BBC News today.
"A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan."
QUOTE]
You wouldn't get arrested for that in America.
I am fully aware of which country it happened in. But it remains to be seen.
In theory he wouldn't have, but going by the way the public react to anything said by Muslims nowadays, there's a good chance he would have been arrested even in America.
there was an admin of a facebook fan page, he said he live in australia, he is a non-muslim, he made some status that 9/11 was an inside job, and he said police came to his house and took all of his computer gear, and told him to not post status about 9/11 again...
You were given two research articles on the other thread when you requested them, I am wondering whether you bothered read those? Or are you in the habit of asking for things then ignoring them? You replies on the other thread don't echo that of someone who's read or is informed of all the variables of any equation.
before I post the reply 5 days ago, I already check that page and it still there, I'm not like an anti-Islam that said Islam is a wrong religion, yet they argue with fake hadith
Freedom of Speech: Insults Incitement & Islam
By Graham Peebles
"Allowing this film to be shown or not has little to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to such notions is a convenient, distraction, fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers intention and the underlying causes of Islamists hurt and anger, which arise largely out of American foreign policy."
Across the Muslim World there is rightly outrage and hurt at the latest calculated attack on Islam, in the form of the film trailer Innocence of Muslims. All who hold human rights and moral decency close to their heart share their indignation.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [1] which states 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. And 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Rights enshrined in law that are nevertheless denied to many, rights supposedly honoured in democratic countries.
Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression. Article 20, paragraph 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Innocence of Muslims
The deliberately amateurish film with no real narrative portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a violent and lascivious fool. It is cheaply made, poorly acted and directed, and as a piece of filmmaking it is to be dismissed out of hand, but as The Guardian 17/09/2012 put it "the really sinister thing is that all this ham-fistedness and crassness is [in] an important sense deliberate. It has to look like propaganda for the provocation to be effective." [2] The actors claim they did not know what the film was about, or it's purpose and some speak of suing the producers. The BBC reports, "One actress featured in the film said she had no idea it would be used for anti-Islamic propaganda and condemned it." [3] Offensive dialogue that insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has been crudely added after filming.
The trailer was written and produced in the USA by Nakoula Basseley, a Coptic (Egyptian) Christian living in California, who drafted much of the script whilst serving a prison sentence for fraud. And directed, according to Gawker "by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts ... He's the creative vision behind soft-core porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood." [4] Whether a full film version exists is speculation, the trailer however has done its toxic, destructive work.
Basseley says his wife's family paid for the film, but it is still unclear how it was funded or what the cost was. Whatever the amount, it is hard to justify any expense at all on a film rooted in such prejudice and hatred, which serves no purpose other than to hurt and insult Muslims throughout the World, reinforce negative stereotypes, incite violence and fuel division. The film is, as The Guardian states, "a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world ... it might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes and whose effects are now being seen around the world."
Intended Fury
The film has unsurprisingly prompted widespread protests throughout the World. On the 11th September In Cairo protesters scaled the walls of the embassy, pulled down the US flag and called for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Cairo. In Libya the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American staff members were killed in the American embassy, although this appears to have been an unrelated pre-planned military style attack. As The Observer 16/09/2012 comments "The murder of US diplomats was not carried out spontaneously, but by a jihadist militia that wanted to kill Americans on the 9/11 anniversary."
Protests directly triggered by the offensive, degrading film, have since taken place in countries with large Muslim populations, sadly causing, as the BBC 14/09/2012 reports, more loss of life. "Three people were killed when the US embassy in Khartoum was attacked, Sudanese state radio said. In Tunisia, two people were killed after crowds breached the US embassy compound in Tunis. There was one death in Egypt and one in Lebanon." [7] In Yemen hundreds of students demonstrated in the capital Sanaa and demanded the US ambassador be expelled, thousands waved flags on the streets of Beirut and chanted "America hear us - don't insult our Prophet." The Guardian 17/09/2012 reports that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah has "called for new demonstrations to express outrage at a film that denigrates Islam and the prophet Muhammad. "Prophet of God, we offer ourselves, our blood and our kin for the sake of your dignity and honour," Nasrallah told supporters who chanted "death to Israel" and "death to America" at a rally in the southern Shia suburbs of Beirut." [8]
The Philippines, Indonesia, usually calm Qatar, Afghanistan, London, Kashmir, all have witnessed demonstrations, and in Pakistan access to YouTube has been blocked by the government, the Prime Minister, rightly describing the film as "blasphemous." Such is the deep-seated feeling amongst the people of the Muslim community. An open wound has been deliberately inflamed and the people cry out in anger and frustration.
Free Speech or Incitement
The film, and the reaction to it, has prompted much to be written and spoken about unrestricted free speech and the dangers of censorship. Writing in The Observer Nick Cohen argues that, "Nothing, however vile, justifies censorship. Even in the hardest of cases such as this anti-Islamic film, the old arguments against censorship remain the best." [9] The observation of basic human rights is the foundation for any democratic society and free speech is a fundamental requirement. Where it is absent totalitarian control of one kind of another becomes possible, perhaps inevitable.
There are though many methods of control and restriction of freedoms, both crude and subtle. Is for example the manufacturing of consent, a form of sociological coercion commonplace in America (and elsewhere) compatible with freedom and/or democratic principles of independent thinking and participation. Noam Chomsky: "the anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious, and for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow." [10] The 'Great Beast' is of course us - the 99%.
The making and distribution of this film is not an expression of freedom of any kind, it contributes nothing of value to the political environment or social discourse and has no artistic merit. The Anna Lindh Foundation reinforces this view in their statement made on 16/09/12, asserting "Innocence of Muslims is an inflammatory pamphlet, the distribution of which - on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th - cannot be abridged to a manifestation of freedom of expression." [11]
International law, acting as a guide and aid to clarity of thinking, states there are limits to free speech. Where such expression is clearly based on racial or religious hatred and incites violence, then it is illegal and the perpetrators subject to prosecution. For where the law is infringed consequences follow - something Israel should be made aware of. What is crucial is the motive. If something is spoken, written, painted, drawn, filmed etc. with the premeditated intention of causing offense, because it is rooted in hatred of one kind or another it is outside the law.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are indivisible.
Unless the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims are completely naïve or plain stupid, they would have known that producing a film in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed as a violent, promiscuous simpleton would inevitably cause offense and would probably result in violent demonstrations. Therefore the film breaches international guidelines on free speech, and should be banned, its makers charged and prosecuted. Al Jazeera 14/09/2012 quoted the filmmaker Danny Schechter, whose view on the film is clear: "It is very political from beginning to end. It's not about free expression; it's about propaganda. The film is incitement - it's not information, it's not filmmaking and it's really intended as a technique of war-making." [12]
What good can possibly come from continuing to allow such a distasteful film to be circulated? It serves no purpose other than to provoke further potential violence. Enabling Muslims to be marginalized and demonized once more, constructing some perverse justification for continued American and Israeli intimidation, aggression and the spreading of paranoia. Allowing this film to be shown or not has little to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to such notions is a convenient, distraction, fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers intention and the underlying causes of Islamists hurt and anger, which arise largely out of American foreign policy.
Simmering Resentment "the safeguard of justice" [13]
Opinion amongst large numbers of Islamists throughout the Muslim World towards America is overwhelmingly negative. The Pew Research Center found in a recent survey that "There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular." [14] In fact according to the Pew report only 15% of Muslims have confidence in President Obama, approve of his foreign policies and hold favourable views of America in general. Pew state, "In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America's image has not improved during the Obama presidency." In fact it has deteriorated, as US policies throughout the region continue to cause consternation amongst large numbers of Muslims (and of course more widely).
American support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, which violates a host of international and indeed national laws and contravenes numerous UN resolutions, is perhaps top of the list. Followed by the Iraq War, US involvement in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen, long running proxy wars in Somalia, and US support for what the BBC call 'friendly dictators'. Add confinement without trial, abuse and torture in Guantanamo and Bagram prisons, the burning of the Qur'an by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Florida Pastor Terry Jones, and disrespecting the dead bodies of Afghans. The list is indeed long and ****ing, and so it goes on.
The recent demonstrations were simply sparked by the film Innocence of Muslims; it was of course not the root cause of the protests. As the BBC 15/09/2012 state "we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism - with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger." [15] Of course extremists were involved - they never miss an opportunity, their violent actions distorting the events feeding prejudice and creating a convenient diversion from the issues.
US Ideals of Peace Justifying Conflict
All violence is to be condemned and the attacks that caused deaths and injuries resulting from these protests are no exception, they should not be allowed to take centre stage though, and it must be stated that the vast majority of actions undertaken have been peaceful and without incident. The Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF) says in relation to the protests that "the vast majority of Muslim public opinion has expressed its anger to the release of the film peacefully and individually, and the Arab governments of the region have reiterated their commitment with cultural inclusiveness while condemning the attacks to diplomatic delegations." [16]
To speak with solemnity and shock, calling for justice against the perpetrators of violence as US officials have, is expected and indeed right, albeit hypocritical and reactionary. In order to create peace however it is necessary to remove the causes of conflict, in this case those causes are complex and not confined to one poorly made deeply offensive film. Offensive let us add, not just to Muslims, who are understandably enraged, but to all right minded men and women respectful and tolerant of others beliefs and cultures.
American foreign policy is seen by many to be that which seeks to extend the influence and maximize the power of America, safeguard their interests at the expense of others and the natural environment and support criminality - Israel comes to mind. Such distasteful American foreign policies go back decades, as Noam Chomsky states in The Guardian, "Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil." [17] A perception that proved to be correct.
Ideologically driven, rooted in a desire to export worldwide an American version, or vision, of democracy, which they claim to be the highest ideal for all, the attitude is that when all follow America's lead on matters relating to economics, politics, religion and social affairs, peace will inevitably follow, and not until. With this doctrine in mind America has sought to dominate the world, repeatedly making war in the name of peace.
Peace though is beyond ideology. For peace to envelop our world as men ad women everywhere hope, there must be tolerance, cooperation and understanding of others, not ideological imposition - of any kind. The equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and experience will create justice. Dissipating mistrust and resentment leading to peace and a natural movement towards unity that encourages the greatest possible diversity enriching the lives of us all.
A Saskatchewan man who refused to stop posting racist messages on websites is going to jail.
On Wednesday, a Federal Court judge sentenced Terry Tremaine of Regina to at least 30 days in jail for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Tremaine, a former University of Saskatchewan math instructor, was found in 2007 to have posted messages online that attacked people of various races.
"The theme of Mr. Tremaine's messages was that Jews, blacks and other non-whites are destroying Canada and they should either be deported or segregated," Justice Sean Harrington said.
"They were described as vermin, a disease, parasites, criminals, scoundrels, embezzlers and liars. They were portrayed as dangerous and in some cases intellectually inferior."
Tremaine was ordered to stop posting such messages and when he failed to do so, he was slapped with a contempt order.
In a sentencing decision released Wednesday, Harrington ordered Tremaine to take steps to remove his posting from two websites — Stormfront.org and the National Socialist Party of Canada website.
If Tremaine complies with the order, his jail sentence is 30 days. If he refuses, he faces another six months behind bars, the judge said.
"Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court," Harrington wrote in his decision, adding that Tremaine apologized at one point, but later recanted.
"I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize," Harrington said. "He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue, but he must remember that freedom has its price."
Tremaine has been in and out of court in Saskatchewan, on matters relating to his online activity, for several years.
In September, a Queen's Bench judge stayed a criminal code charge of promoting hatred, because the case was taking too long to get to trial.
Justice Fred Kovach said the case had been dragging through the courts for more than four years and any trial date would still be several months ahead.
He ruled Tremaine's constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and as a result, the case couldn't go ahead.
At that court proceeding it was learned that Tremaine was living on welfare.
A cartoon published in a British newspaper attacking the prime minister of Israel.
The Sunday Times cartoon depicts Benjamin Netanyahu as a bricklayer using the blood and bodies of Palestinians as mortar.
The editor of the Times issued out a personal apology today, and even Rupert Murdoch, whose News International owns the Times, apologized for the publication of the “grotesque, offensive cartoon.”
cartoon published in a British newspaper attacking the prime minister of Israel.
The Sunday Times cartoon depicts Benjamin Netanyahu as a bricklayer using the blood and bodies of Palestinians as mortar.
The editor of the Times issued out a personal apology today, and even Rupert Murdoch, whose News International owns the Times, apologized for the publication of the “grotesque, offensive cartoon."
And yet no legal action was taken. The government did not say it was illegal to print it. That is freedom of speech.
You confuse "freedom of speech" with "having no repercussion for saying anything you want". There is a big difference.
I have the legal right in the USA to say what I want, but that does not mean that nobody is allowed to be offended, or that nobody is allowed to say negative things about me or what I said. That is what freedom of speech is about.
Take, for instance, the Dixie Chicks. They said some negative things about Bush when he was president and there was a huge backlash against them because most of their fan base were conservatives. Their album sales and concert attendance plummeted. They had every legal right to say what they did, but everyone else also had the legal right to boycott them and say what they wanted to say about them also.
So, yes the Sunday Times may apologize for something they printed because of public pressure, but that doesn't mean that there was a lack of Free Speech. In fact your example proves that they have the freedom to print such things if they want to.
Aselam aleykum
Actually the problem is not freedom of speech. There's nothing wrong with the laws on that freedom in the west. If you look up the laws you'll find that almost every western country has some laws which limit freedom of speech. Like insulting people, inciting hate and such. And I think that's actually a good thing! So I have no problem with people getting convicted for insults or inciting hate.
The only problem in the west is that they fail to see that such things as the cartoons against the prophets and such are against the law by that same principle!
The only problem in the west is that they fail to see that such things as the cartoons against the prophets and such are against the law by that same principle!
There are no laws I am aware of against inciting hate in the United States, so I don't see how the cartoons or film are hypocritical.
The film and cartoons, as far as I am aware, do not ask anyone to be violent either.
Nor are there any laws against insulting someones beliefs or religion in the United States. If anyone wanted to make a film or a cartoon that insults Hinduism, or Mormonism, or Buddhism or any other religion it would be protected in the same way. If you don't believe just look around on the internet, there are tons of places to find people insulting and offending people of all religions.
There are no laws I am aware of against inciting hate in the United States, so I don't see how the cartoons or film are hypocritical.
I said the west, USA is just one country, almost all european countries have laws against defamation and against inciting hate. And in most contries both are punishable by law. In fact it's not just the west, but almost every country who has freedom of speech, also has some limitations on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
The film and cartoons, as far as I am aware, do not ask anyone to be violent either.
No, indeed, perhaps my choice of words wasn't optimal. I was making several points at once. What I meant was that those cartoons and such are punishable by the laws against defamation.
Nor are there any laws against insulting someones beliefs or religion in the United States. If anyone wanted to make a film or a cartoon that insults Hinduism, or Mormonism, or Buddhism or any other religion it would be protected in the same way. If you don't believe just look around on the internet, there are tons of places to find people insulting and offending people of all religions.
It's not just Insulting religion, it was insulting Muhammed (peace be upon him). And wheter or not you believe that he actually was a prophet, he was in any way also a human being, and thus it's defenitly still defamation.
Fair enough. You have a point. Maybe he should have expressed his dis-contentment in other ways.
But according to the BBC news' wording of what he said, his words could be interpreted in different ways.
One way of interpreting it is that it was just his own personal opinion about how he felt because according to your own media sources and statistics as well as your own expert politicians, many admit that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more harm than achieve what they set out to achieve and many are opposed to the wars.
To me it doesn't sound like he made a call for people to be killed because I'm sure that person was aware of the consequences of making such a stupid statement like that in public.
The only reason he got convicted was because he made that statement whilst residing in a country that is opposed to his views and where they call the shots and decide what is or isn't freedom of speech when it suits their purposes.
And that was my point in the original post in this thread that freedom of speech is something that exists only when it serves the purpose of the host nation. Otherwise it's just an illusion like many other so called freedoms.
Personally, I feel really sorry for your troops because they are just being used for the purposes of capitalistic gain (admitted by some of your top brass) which is being disguised and promoted by the media as Patriotism. The sad reality is that they or their families will most likely never be recompensed enough for the great sacrifices they are making for their country. They won't ever see any of the gains being made from the huge oil and mineral contracts being arranged behind the scenes which is what they're really fighting for (although they think they're doing it for their country)
What's even sadder is that the average citizen never really has a say in foreign policy because the end decision is made without their approval just like it did with Iraq which makes me wonder how democratic a democracy really is.
One thing people have to realize about America is that we do NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. This is a representative republic. The people vote in people who then make the decisions. A democracy would in theory be a country where the people voted on every single issue. None such place exists and never will. I wish people would stop using the word because it spreads a great deal of confusion.
Free speech is always limited here. You cannot talk about overthrowing the government, that is a crime. Precisely why we will never get our country back from the money wh$res who stole it from us.
One thing people have to realize about America is that we do NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. This is a representative republic.
This is plain wrong. Not only does the definition of democracy include 'representative democracies', they are by far the majority of examples in history. You are talking about 'direct democracies'. The first Greek democracy was a direct democracy - all citizens were entitled to vote directly on individual issues (their definition of citizen however excluded women, slaves and poorer freemen).
As a matter of fact, as of very recently, technology has just made direct democracy feasible again for the first time in thousands of years - because we could all vote electronically.
You can choose to view that as a good or a bad thing. I think it's the wrong option.
Free speech is alwrays limited here. You cannot talk about overthowing the government, that is a crime.
Incorrect. You can talk about it all you want. You just cannot actually make specific plans to do it.
It's not just Insulting religion, it was insulting Muhammed (peace be upon him). And wheter or not you believe that he actually was a prophet, he was in any way also a human being, and thus it's defenitly still defamation.
There are many issues with this statement.
Insults are not illegal anywhere that I am aware of, and certainly not to people that are no longer alive. And if you are going to argue laws then we really need to be specific about which place we are speaking of since "The West" is way too general. The equivalent would be someone starting a thread about stupid "Muslim" laws and picking and choosing laws from the many Muslim majority nations (i.e. Saudi driving laws concerning women).
These laws, at least here in the US where I live and am familiar, do not discriminate against Muslims regardless of how many here feel. You can easily find films online that are offensive to any religion you want and to people who are considered prophets of those religions (look at John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard as great examples). One big difference, though, is that you won't see Mormons rioting and committing acts of violence whenever John Smith is insulted. Those that get so upset with these cartoons and films need to look for the internal issues in their society I believe, not the external ones.
There are many issues with this statement.
Insults are not illegal anywhere that I am aware of,
I already gave you a list on wiki with all the countries and there laws. Almost every country has laws against defamation and slander. If you're still unware of that despite my help, there's not much more I can do for you in that respect.
and certainly not to people that are no longer alive.
Yeah so I can slander a person in a newspaper but I can do so for his death mother? Don't be silly. Being death does not deprive a person of it's humanity and its right to respect! Which in most people's opinion is still far more important then the right to voice your opinion.
And if you are going to argue laws then we really need to be specific about which place we are speaking of since "The West" is way too general.
Every western country has one limitatio nor another on freedom of speech due to slander and defamtion. Every single one.
These laws, at least here in the US where I live and am familiar, do not discriminate against Muslims regardless of how many here feel. You can easily find films online that are offensive to any religion you want and to people who are considered prophets of those religions (look at John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard as great examples). One big difference, though, is that you won't see Mormons rioting and committing acts of violence whenever John Smith is insulted. Those that get so upset with these cartoons and films need to look for the internal issues in their society I believe, not the external ones.
Lol you're saying that like America is the model for the West. Here in Europe where I live people are looking down on the many flaws in US law and the hypocracy rising from it. But that's beside the issue, because like I said even in the states there is a limit to what you can or can't say. Your argument here is, many people do it, so you see it is allowed afterall? Yeah nice logic there...
Yeah so I can slander a person in a newspaper but I can do so for his death mother? Don't be silly. Being death does not deprive a person of it's humanity and its right to respect! Which in most people's opinion is still far more important then the right to voice your opinion.
I was speaking about the legal ramifications, specifically in the United States. There are no laws against defaming someone who is deceased.
Every western country has one limitatio nor another on freedom of speech due to slander and defamtion. Every single one.
Yes, but they are not all the same. Only if the law is the same in every Western nation can you honestly call it a "Western" law.
Lol you're saying that like America is the model for the West. Here in Europe where I live people are looking down on the many flaws in US law and the hypocracy rising from it. But that's beside the issue, because like I said even in the states there is a limit to what you can or can't say. Your argument here is, many people do it, so you see it is allowed afterall? Yeah nice logic there...
I am not sure you read my statement. If you did then you certainly read more into that what I said. I never said it was the model for the West. Please don't create straw men to argue about.
I do claim that I see no hypocrisy when it comes to the laws of the United States and religion, specifically concerning the film and cartoons that upset so many Muslims. If you believe that there is some hypocrisy when it comes to that then please enlighten me on those laws and how they are being enforced because I am not aware of them.
was speaking about the legal ramifications, specifically in the United States. There are no laws against defaming someone who is deceased.
Can I take from this, that you agree that it is unethical to libel and defame the death; even though there is no legal ground in US common law against it? And if so, doesn't that answer your question here:
I do claim that I see no hypocrisy when it comes to the laws of the United States and religion,
specifically concerning the film and cartoons that upset so many Muslims. If you believe that there is some hypocrisy when it comes to that then please enlighten me on those laws and how they are being enforced because I am not aware of them.
As for your other point:
Yes, but they are not all the same. Only if the law is the same in every Western nation can you honestly call it a "Western" law.
I don't think I said "western law", but rather I said Most western laws. I could be mistaken and might have slipped up by generalising somewhere, I'm actually to lazy to go back and check. But anayway I think the initial points I made when first contributing to this thread still stand despite you trying to go trough them with a fine-tooth comb. Namely:
1. Yes there is freedom of speech and that's a good thing.
2. But there are some limits, and that's a good thing too.
I think we are close to being on the same page. I think where we differ is on what those laws should be.
My beliefs are pretty close to what the US has in effect at the moment, and those laws allow gives them a lot of freedom, including the freedom to insult someone elses beliefs no matter how dear they claim them to be.
format_quote Originally Posted by FollowerOfChrist
I am fully aware of which country it happened in. But it remains to be seen.
In theory he wouldn't have, but going by the way the public react to anything said by Muslims nowadays, there's a good chance he would have been arrested even in America.
Yeah, right. If there's such a double standard towards Muslim in America, why hasn't Ahmadinejad been arrested? I mean, he's openly expressed that he feels on 9/11 was an inside job. He's threatened to attack USA military bases if Israel tried to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. He's been to the USA SERVERAL times for interviews. He hasn't been arrested. So what double
standards are you talking about?
There's been shows aired on tv and books that have been written that Christians consider offensive. For the most part, you don't see Christians killing people over it. There's nothing morally justified about killing people over offensive movies. Get the hell over it.
There's been shows aired on tv and books that have been written that Christians consider offensive. For the most part, you don't see Christians killing people over it. There's nothing morally justified about killing people over offensive movies. Get the hell over it.
Ummm wot if I made an offensive movie about ur mom? How abt I publicly talked about her sxual organs?
Did you find the mere suggestion offensive? Might you suddenly become furious and flip?
Well....God and His messenger mean more to us than our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children.
If you have no remnant of dignity or honour, please don't feel jealous because we do. The dignity and honour of a Muslim is more valuable than his blood. (fitnah is greater than killing).
But how would you understand that when you live in a land where a man is expected to remain calm and "civilized" while his wife or mother or sister is *****(choose ur own term). And would even get arrested for assault if he spat on the deserver of death.
Or hey how's abts the uk where they go on abt honour killings while everyone knows wot happened to Diana?
Do NOT try to tell us Muslims about anger or dignity, we think differently from you, you're taliking to people who's whole tribes make the pledge of death to defend the honour of one child if he's abused, and God and His Messenger are greater.
Unfortunately for them they're pre programmed to think and believe in what they do from a very early hour- we're left to correct their style of thinking when we really shouldn't have to- how do you inject common sense in utter non sense?
This is plain wrong. Not only does the definition of democracy include 'representative democracies', they are by far the majority of examples in history. You are talking about 'direct democracies'. The first Greek democracy was a direct democracy - all citizens were entitled to vote directly on individual issues (their definition of citizen however excluded women, slaves and poorer freemen).
As a matter of fact, as of very recently, technology has just made direct democracy feasible again for the first time in thousands of years - because we could all vote electronically.
You can choose to view that as a good or a bad thing. I think it's the wrong option.
The problem with democracy is that it is mob rule. And with the growing power of media, direct democracy becomes a very dangerous idea. You need protection for minorities. As the saying goes, direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
I think it is important to point out here that offending somebody doesn't always amount to slander or defamation. For one thing, the statement must be false. For another, it must cause harm, as a reasonable person would measure harm. Parody is rarely defamation, for example. Shows like Jon Stewart's insult people all the time, but are not defamatory. Political satirists lampoon politicians all the time, with political cartoons. But somehow when a cartoon gets done depicting a religious prophet, it sends people into fits of violence.... and then when others, both of, and shockingly not of that religion, complain about the cartoon more than the violence.... I see a major problem there.
Shows like Jon Stewart's insult people all the time, but are not defamatory. Political satirists lampoon politicians all the time, with political cartoons.
I understand that.
But I always struggle with why somebody should wish to say or do something which they know will cause offense to other people. No matter how valid the point they are trying to make is - can't they find a less offensive way of making it?
(Perhaps my genetic lack of humour or showing through, but I have never understood that kind of use of comedy ...)
Is an attack on a mosque causing 1.5 million dollar sufficient as harm? The perpetrator did say because of what he watched on Fox News!
There's no funny satire- there's just irresponsible calculating buffoons who look to make their money from what sells!
But I always struggle with why somebody should wish to say or do something which they know will cause offense to other people. No matter how valid the point they are trying to make is - can't they find a less offensive way of making it?
Sometimes there is. Sometimes there really isn't. Note how it isn't just the nasty cartoons of the prophet with a bomb on his head that get ire (those deserve ire) but also cartoons like Jesus & Mo, which make jokes about religion, rarely actually attacking either of the prophets, but merely depicting them.
Also, I would agree that as a matter of decency and politeness, we should make an effort to make our points and criticisms as least offensive as possible, but that shouldn't be made a legal requirement. We should not forced to walk on eggshells around unreasonably sensitive people. And we certainly should not be banned from criticizing what they hold dear, especially if we ourselves find it offensive or dangerous.
People simply need a thicker skin, especially if they themselves go around saying aggressive and offensive things, such as endorsing and worshiping deities they claim to hurt or punish or torture others simply for not following them, or calling them abominations for their sexual preferences, etc.
I find the proper reaction to offensive speech to be either to ignore it or to speak against it and expose it for the garbage that it is. But if people instead react to it with violence, then it will quickly become far better heard, and it becomes imperative that it DOES get heard, so that violence does not get rewarded.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it, unless it promotes violence, etc.
Pygo, I can pretty much agree with your post.
Living with an outspoken atheist, my skin is fairly thick. LOL
I quite like Jesus & Mo too - they can be quite thought-provoking, actually. I think sometimes we do well to listen to those outside our own faith, because they have the ability to see things with fresh eyes and point out a few home truths about our behaviours and attitudes. Sometimes those 'non-believing prophets' make very clear criticisms and good points ... if only we are open and honest enough to listen!
Still, I find it really hard when people take the p*** and resort to ridicule.
Sit me down for an honest discussion any time and I will listen, ridicule my faith which is so important and beautiful to me and I will just shut off ...
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up