As a Muslim, I'm Fed Up With the Hypocrisy of the Free Speech Fundamentalists

[InToTheRain]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehd...b_6462584.html

[InToTheRain]

Please sign the E-Petition below FOR UK ONLY. We need a clear definition of the boundaries of free speech so we can stop the double standards we are growing accustomed to:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/73584

We demand a legal, binding definition of "Freedom of Speech and Expression"

Responsible department: Ministry of Justice

We want a legal, binding definition of the term: "Freedom of Speech and Expression".
What are the boundaries? What is right, what is wrong? What will get me arrested, what is my right?

Citing an example: If drawing defaming cartoons of the Prophet of Islam is considered Freedom of expression, not Islamophobia, then what are the boundaries for "Freedom of Speech", which are especially needed for publishers and journalists.
How much defamation can be accepted?

Another example: the Hash-tag #KillAllMuslims was trending on twitter, but was again considered to be "Freedom of Speech". I would have considered that 'inciting genocide'.

Why is there so much debate about what constitutes "Freedom of Speech"?

The Government must work to remove these doubts!
What are the definitions? That's all we want to know

[Muslim Woman]

You must be a British citizen or normally live in the UK to create or sign e-petitions.

AddressAddress must be completed.

[MuslimInshallah]

Assalaamu alaikum,

I thought you might be interested in a view from Canada.



More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result
A renewed war on terror seems to be what's on most Western governments'minds
By NeilMacdonald, CBCNewsPosted: Jan 13, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 13, 2015 12:30 PMET


Well, everyone must at least feel better now, having chanted and declared for days that we're all Charlie.


It was, or it seemed, a cry for freedom of speech, ringing outward from one of the world's first secular democracies.


In reality, though, with all due respect to the sentiment behind it, Sunday's great march through the centre of Paris, and others like it around the world, must qualify as one of the greatest collective acts of slacktivism so far this century.


And the consequences of all this outrage may be far from what the protesters intended.


Think about it: just whom were these marchers addressing? The executioners who showed up at Charlie Hebdo last week?


If those characters were still alive, they would probably answer no, you're not Charlie, because we killed Charlie.


Perhaps the slogan was directed at the bearded ISIS fighters who've been slaughtering and raping and oppressing their way through modern-day Mesopotamia and the Levant.


If so, the message was probably received with some bemusement. Perhaps even a bit of triumphalism. Score another one for their version of Islam.


Or were the I-Am-Charlie crowds addressing their own governments?


The leaders of several governments were in fact marching right up front with them in Paris over the weekend, which was a wonderful photo op, but really a bit rich given some of the alliances and the practices that some of those nations are involved in.


Certain close strategic partners of the U.S. and Canada are actively and violently anti-free-speech.


Egypt, a big recipient of U.S. aid, imprisons and tortures people just for belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was democratically elected to govern and then overthrown.


On Friday, two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, Saudi Arabia administered the first 50 of a thousand lashes to Raif Badawi, a blogger convicted of insulting Islam.


He is also serving a 10-year prison sentence. Which means, effectively, that the Saudis intend to lash Badawi grievously, perhaps even to death, for speech far less corrosive than Charlie Hebdo's deliberately insulting cartoons.


How does that make Saudi Arabia substantively different from the Charlie Hebdo attackers? Is it merely a matter of scale and method?


Life of Brian


WhereSaudi is concerned, though, the West has chosen its criticism carefully. The State Department (not the president) called the Badawi sentence "inhumane."


Canada's "ambassador for religious freedom" (not the prime minister) echoed that, calling it "unbecoming of a society that seeks to advance itself within the family of nations."


The Saudis, unsurprisingly, seem undeterred.


The fact is, even Western governments are never terribly enthusiastic about free speech, or at least speech they find inconvenient.


Two years ago, President Barack Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing the cartoons that eventually drew the killers to its offices.


"We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory," Carney declared in late 2012.


Note this is the same administration that publicly castigated Sony Pictures for caving to pressure recently and NOT releasing a film that was deeply offensive to North Korea.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his official statement of outrage at the Charlie Hebdo attack, made no reference to free speech at all, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Canada, unlike the U.S., offers no guarantee of absolute free speech in its constitution.


And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn't last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada's hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression.


Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980.


War on terror redux


Western governments are, however, quite interested in enforcement and security, and that, not more speech, is the order of the day once again.


With unintended irony, and a very short memory, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared over the weekend that France is now locked in a "war on terror."


That's exactly the term George W. Bush used after 9/11. It presaged an unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state and the powers of America's security apparatus.


Civil liberties were tossed aside. Other countries' laws, even those of U.S. allies, became irrelevant.


And the frightened American population cheered.


The French, among others, mocked the slogan relentlessly, especially once it became apparent that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, carried out as part of this war on terror, was based on a false pretext.


Eventually, Bush's own Pentagon quietly dropped the slogan. And when the Democrats took the White House, they repudiated it.


But it's clearly back on. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with the French prime minister. America, he said, is at war, too.


Next month, Washington is convening an international summit to discuss new measures.


Canada is preparing new legislation to expand the powers of its security agencies.


The French, and the Americans, and no doubt the Canadians, are considering how better to monitor and obliterate incitement on the internet.


Or, more precisely, what security officials consider incitement. It's a term that can be interpreted rather broadly, and no doubt will be.


Clearly, the ultimate answer to the Charlie Hebdo massacre will not be freer speech. It will be a mostly secret intensification of police power, with attendant shrinkage of individual freedoms.


And we will all be told not to worry: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


At least one French demonstrator seemed to recognize some of this over the weekend. The sign he hoisted read: "Je marche, mais je suis conscient de la confusion et de l'hypocrisie de la situation."


I march, but I am aware of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/more-state-power-not-free-speech-the-likeliest-we-are-charlie-result-1.2898354

[Pygoscelis]

This is always an interesting topic when it comes to religions demanding we not speak against them, because often their own dogma can be seen as just as, if not more, offensive and hateful than the "blasphemy" then want to forbid.

What is more offensive? Drawing a cartoon of a prophet or declaring homosexuality an abomination? What is more hateful? Drawing a cartoon of a prophet, or declaring that all who don't follow your religion deserve eternal suffering in hellfire?

Religions should be careful when calling for restrictions on free speech, or they may be acting against themselves.

[Abz2000]

What is more offensive? Drawing a cartoon of a prophet or declaring homosexuality an abomination?

Drawing a cartoon of a Messenger of God out of insolence and enmity is a deadly crime.
Homosexuality is an abomination.
God even goes as far as stoning them Himself if they don't repent and even dare to try and rape the guests of His Messengers whom He sends as olive branches.

What is more hateful? Drawing a cartoon of a prophet, or declaring that all who don't follow your religion deserve eternal suffering in hellfire?

Drawing a cartoon of a Messenger of God out of insolence and enmity.

We don't declare it of our own accord, The One who created you and the universe says that you are required to acknowledge Him and His Messengers, Repent of all uncleanliness and crime, and Submit to His guidance for your own safety and well being.
I am to you a sincere adviser.
Flying off to Mars or commiting suicide won't help you escape Him so think deeply and choose wisely.

Declaring that - all who don't follow a false, man made way of life which is in contradiction to the commands and guidance of God - deserve suffering in prison is a crime and an offence to the intellect.

He causes the night to enter the day,
and He causes the day to enter the night
and has subjected the sun and the moon - each running [its course] for a specified term.
That is Allah , your Lord;
to Him belongs sovereignty.
And those whom you invoke other than Him do not possess [as much as] the membrane of a date seed.

Quran, The Originator, 35:13

[Pygoscelis]

^

You say it better than I ever could. Your religion speaks very offensively to homosexuals and to non-believers and apostates, and yet you balk when others speak offensively to your religion. You may be comfortable with demanding that double standard, but I see no reason to afford it to you, and nor does France. Be careful when you demand censorship of free speech, or you may justify the censorship of your own words, and of your religion. The present cover of Charlie Hebdo, with the image of the prophet and the "All is Forgiven" tagline is far less aggressive and far less hateful than your call for the death of homosexuals and apostates.

[Abz2000]

Mate (not in that sense - *blush*),
It's not mine, i didn't create it or legislate it,
It's the King of the Universe and creator of all that exists that has commanded it and i have been fortunate enough to see the good sense to accept it and He has been kind enough to make me offer you the opportunity of safety and reward too.
Get it?

Why is it always "me" "me" "me" with infidels? gosh!
Anything you make up and present as a rival to Almighty God is not equal, because it's fake. OK?

When our revelations are recited to them, those who do not expect to meet us say, "Bring a Quran other than this, or change it!"
Say, "I cannot possibly change it on my own. I simply follow what is revealed to me.
I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."

Quran, Jonah, Chapter 10 Verse 15

1.*Sad: By the Qur'an, Full of Admonition.
2.*But the UNbelievers (are steeped) in self-glory and Separatism.
3.*How many generations before them did We destroy? In the end they cried (for mercy)- when there was no longer time for being saved!
4.*So they wonder that a Warner has come to them from among themselves! and the Unbelievers say, "This is a sorcerer telling lies!
5.*"Has he made the gods (all) into one god. Truly this is a wonderful thing!"
6.*And the leaders among them go away (impatiently), (saying), "Walk ye away, and remain constant to your gods! For this is truly a thing designed (against you)!
7.*"We never heard (the like) of this among the people of these latter days: this is nothing but a made-up tale!"
8.*"What! has the Message been sent to him - (Of all persons) among us?"...but they are in doubt concerning My (Own) Message! Nay, they have not yet tasted My Punishment!
9.*Or have they the treasures of the mercy of thy Lord,- the Exalted in Power, the Grantor of Bounties without measure?
10.*Or have they the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all between?
If so, let them mount up with the ropes and means (to reach that end)!
11.*But there - will be put to flight even a host of confederates.

[MuslimInshallah]

Hello Pygoscelis,


(smile) It's been a while.


Mmm, from what I can see, InToTheRain's petition is asking his government for some guidelines. It is asking what speech might get him into trouble. This is a legitimate question.


Did you know, the French comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala recently was arrested because he posted on Facebook: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.”? Dieudonné likes to say provocative stuff. I've watched some of his videos. Frankly, his humour is not my cup of tea, and I suspect a fair bit of it would be illegal in Canada (we don't like insulting and provoking people, as a rule). But he has quite a following in France. So I can't help but note the irony of his being arrested in France just after a massive demonstration apparently to uphold free speech in that country.


So asking what one can say seems like a fair question.


The petition also asks about whether it is ok to apparently call for people to kill Muslims. I think this is another fair question. As a Muslim, I find it rather awful to think that there are people out there who would like to kill me on principal (just as awful as people who wrap themselves in Islam to try to justify killing those they disagree with). Given your previous postings, I had rather expected that you'd sympathize on this one.

It seems to me that you were commenting on another thread, maybe. Or perhaps you misunderstood, based on the title?


Blessings to you Pygoscelis.

[Pygoscelis]

Mmm, from what I can see, InToTheRain's petition is asking his government for some guidelines. It is asking what speech might get him into trouble. This is a legitimate question.

I would agree.

The petition also asks about whether it is ok to apparently call for people to kill Muslims. I think this is another fair question.

That is a perfectly fair question. Should it be ok to call for the death of any group of people, be that call on a website, a shout at a street corner, or a doctrine in a holy book. Perfectly fair question.

It seems to me that you were commenting on another thread, maybe. Or perhaps you misunderstood, based on the title?

A little of both really.

[Abz2000]

What would you say if someone said: anyone who questions the genuinely questionable assertion that the law of gravity doesn't exist in manhattan should be shot, no need to ask- just shoot them - i'll pay for the bullet.

What would you say if the person to make the threat wasn't even questioned in regards to it?
Would you say that's sensible free speech?
Or would you have them arrested, or get them shot as punishment?


I personally would consider it important for those who have the means, to investigate the assertion in order to confirm the truth or lie of the matter since there is such an outcry over it and such danger in ignoring it.

If found to be false, i would have the person who issued the threat tried in court, and in the case they are guilty - offered the chance of repentance and rectification. Or punishment depending on the harm done if there is any need or just benefit to be gained by it.

i would also assume that wtc7 was brought down by reasons other than office fire and would need to look into that issue properly.
People need to know what actually happened on that day and who was behind it as it began a sequence of events leading up to this very day.

We all need to accept that we were wrong to reject God and that we were messing up due to that rejection, then Repent and Submit to God, establishing His rules and guidance with sincerity and truth.
- that way, the past can be forgotten/forgiven.

This is sort of old - from 2008.

His death threats were aired Tuesday, June 10th during the second hour.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

"Excuse me folks, I'm going to say this.
We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them.
Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets."*
Reagan adds, "How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."*

Dice's organization, The Resistance, has launched a campaign to send documentary films and declassified documents to U.S. troops who are stationed in Iraq to inform them that the 9/11 attacks were aided by elements within the U.S. government.*

Michael Reagan*(born*John Flaugher; March 18, 1945[3]) Is the adopted son of Ronald Reagan*and his first wife*Jane Wyman. He is a former*radio host.

[InToTheRain]

Pygo,

Are you saying free speech as it's currently practiced has no restrictions?

We all need a clear definition of what is and isn't permitted to be "broadcast" by people with influence. I am sure this comedian would agree:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...book-comments/

[greenhill]

and yet you balk when others speak offensively to your religion.

If people want to be offensive to our religion, it is not for us to force it upon them. Basically, they have rejected the message. Perhaps we had not approached the matter in the best way... Each to their own. We are advised to never get into a situation where we provoke the other party to the point of them blaspheming against Allah. So, in this respect, it is not a surprise to find muslims on uncertain grounds here.

Unfortunately, some people just love to scratch a mosquito bite until it becomes septic. Inciting reactions and keep on doing it. In this case, blaspheme without reason. Openly so. Showing absolutely no respect. We are a religion of peace, not war. We are encouraged to help the poor and the weak AND gave women their rights. Made cleanliness a must. But these kinds of 'outside' interferences, done within the safety of national boundaries, should be dealt with by the national body. The authorities should not allow a 'lunatic' the freedom to create an international scene. Just like the way when a shoe was chucked at President Bush during a press conference, the shoe thrower (although I laughed it happened! Still I felt the country had a right to charge him). It was an embarrassment to both nations. Luckily it was not an incident that could have created war. If not, then who benefits? Definitely in the war torn zone there will be sufferings. No winners, only losers. The real winners are safe in their homes richer for the weapons they sold. (a bit off the point here).

To conclude, we are advised to "da'wah", meaning to spread the message. Hence, amongst the message there are matters which Allah stresses, of which you picked how "offensively to homosexuals and to non-believers and apostates" it is. The message is to call to the right path. Giving signs and conversing the 'truth' in history and stuff against the 'learned' of the times (the Jews and their historic recordings). It is also a 'warning' for people to tell them of unacceptable behaviour in the Eyes of Allah. Allah also speaks of hypocrites, mischief makers, extravagance, arrogance and ungratefulness.

Hope it makes sense... (I think I understand what I am trying to say)....

[InToTheRain]

I find hard to believe the shameless hypocrisy of these people:

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, who visited Paris's Jewish quarter in the Marais last Monday, described Dieudonne's remarks as 'contemptible'.
He said Dieudonne faced court action for 'a lack of respect and a willingness to stir up hatred and division.'

Confirming the opening of a criminal enquiry, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said: 'Racism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and apology for terrorism are not opinions, these are offences.'

Dieudonne faces up to seven years in prison and a fine of around £80,000 under France's strict anti-terror laws.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3P6R7Ss5A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The part in bold also applies to charlie hebdoe! Proving this never was about free speech; it's all just politics.

[Pygoscelis]

To conclude, we are advised to "da'wah", meaning to spread the message. Hence, amongst the message there are matters which Allah stresses, of which you picked how "offensively to homosexuals and to non-believers and apostates" it is. The message is to call to the right path. Giving signs and conversing the 'truth' in history and stuff against the 'learned' of the times (the Jews and their historic recordings). It is also a 'warning' for people to tell them of unacceptable behaviour in the Eyes of Allah. Allah also speaks of hypocrites, mischief makers, extravagance, arrogance and ungratefulness.

That is fine when talking to fellow believers, but when you venture to another nation, filled with people who do not believe in Allah, it isn't the same. If your religion tells you to speak offensively to homosexuals and to non believers and apostates (or some of you would even say to take harmful action against them), even if you see such messages as good, as a "warning of unacceptable behaviour in the Eyes of Allah".... we simply don't see it that way. We see it as hate (and in some cases endorsement of violence) being directed at these people. We see that as no different and no better than the Islamophobes who direct hate at you and your brothers and sisters of your faith (and in some cases endorsements of violence against you). And that's the reasonable ones amongst us.

It doesn't matter if you say that it isn't you who gives this message, but your God, because you stand by the message as good and just, and we don't believe your God exists anyway. Would you feel it was ok if the people who hate on Muslims told you that they do it because their God (who you don't believe in) tells them to and that they are "warning" you? What if they called it "da'wah"?

At the end of the day, Christians and Muslims, who preach such messages that are offensive to homosexuals, non-believers, and apostates, are protected by free speech those pushing such "da'wah" should be defending free speech, not attacking it. If we strike down free speech protection, your holy books and sermons and "da'wah" may be the first things to be banned. There is immense hypocrisy in calls to ban "blasphemy".

[Abz2000]

It doesn't matter if you say that it isn't you who gives this message, but your God, because you stand by the message as good and just, and we don't believe your God exists anyway. Would you feel it was ok if the people who hate on Muslims told you that they do it because their God (who you don't believe in) tells them to and that they are "warning" you? What if they called it "da'wah"?*

There is no God other than the creator of the heavens and the earth, if anyone did try to project the illusion that they have a "god" other than Him, they are lying.
So please let's not attempt to confound the truth with falsehood lest the forger be destroyed utterly by chastisement.

It is illegal even by the false standards which are described in the post above.

You have a prime minister and queen and president and king falsely and arrogantly claiming to have more authority than God and thereby exalting themselves as "gods" to be obeyed while in contradiction to Quran and sunnah, and the bible which they use as pacification and falsely claim to uphold. (na'udhubillahi min dhaalik).

What do you think would happen if another human being claimed that there is no prime minister or queen*and then began to legislate?
Or if they decided to call themselves queen or get elected by a few hundred people as "local prime minister" and begin to legislate contrary to the laws of the land?
Would they not have a right to practice this freedom?
Could they call it "democracy"?
Would it be illegal?
Wouldn't one send a swat team against the false pretender?
Would anyone have a right to prevent them from driving on the "opposite" (wrong) side of the road in the area the lay false claim to?
And what would be the case if they ventured out into another area (country)? Wouldn't there be a vehicle collision if both insisted they were correct in contrary to the other? Who's would you follow?
If it was allowed, i would want a piece for myself too, (largest piece possible actually) - but fortunately it is not allowed by God.
The Dominion and Authority are His.
And we be subjects of His Majesty.


Know that God is not the author of confusion.
He has revealed the Law and Guidance in justice and in truth.
Let us all Submit and follow it and we will be successful.

If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.
Quran 23:71

Say: If there had been (other) gods with Him, as they say,- behold, they would certainly have sought out a way to the Lord of the Throne!
Quran 17:42

If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder;
therefore glory be to Allah, the Lord of the dominion, above what they attribute (to Him).
Quran 21:22

A parable:
Hansel and gretel were brother and sister, they left a trail of breadcrumbs on their way into the woods in order to be able to find their way back home, the rich witch unjustly tried to throw them in the oven but fate said otherwise.

And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.
But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him.
And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.
Quran 5:45.

I have posted it unedited despite my reservations:

And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,*
42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

....as black as a turned over cup, which will not enjoin any good deed nor deny any vice except what it likes.

7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.*8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.*
9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
*10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have*it*more abundantly.

...the door stands for a man who will be killed or he may die....

So who is this man of two Qarns (horns/generations/epochs) that stands as a door between afflictions like sea waves?
The solutions to current and coming problems are encrypted in chapter 18. Al Kahf, along with remnants from previous scripture.
Dhul Qarnayn*(ذو القرنين) is righteous ruler mentioned in the*Quran*who constructed a wall to hold*Gog and Magog. His story is recounted in the chapter of the*Quran*named "The Cave".

So Gog and Magog were unable to pass over it, nor were they able [to effect] in it any penetration.

[Dhul-Qarnayn] said, "This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes, He will make it level, and ever is the promise of my Lord true."

And We will leave them that day surging over each other, and [then] the Horn will be blown, and We will assemble them in [one] assembly.

Be gone from me satan, Do not tempt the Lord God, remove the obstacle or the bannister's going to rot. Time is of the essense.
Interpret wisely - repent from the mark of the beast.

May we submit our will according to the will of Almighty God and within His limits and guidance, using, the Quran and the guidance contained within the teachings of the messengers of God, with sincerity, truth, and the intellect that He has favoured us with.
Peace to those who follow the guidance of Allah.

A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said:

"Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah.?-

when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord?
And if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
29.*"O my People! Yours is the dominion this day: Ye have the upper hand in the land: but who will help us from the Punishment of Allah, should it befall us?"
Pharaoh said: "I but point out to you that which I see (myself); Nor do I guide you but to the Path of Right!"

Then said the man who believed:
"O my people! Truly I do fear for you something like the Day (of disaster) of the Confederates (in sin)!

-31.*"Something like the fate of the People of Noah, the 'Ad, and the Thamud, and those who came after them: but Allah never wishes injustice to his Servants.

2.*"And O my people! I fear for you a Day when there will be Mutual calling (and wailing),-33.

*"A Day when ye shall turn your backs and flee:
No defender shall ye have from Allah.

Any whom Allah leaves to stray, there is none to guide...
34.*"And to you there came Joseph in times gone by, with Clear Signs, but ye ceased not to doubt of the (Mission) for which he had come: At length, when he died, ye said: 'No apostle will Allah send after him.' thus doth Allah leave to stray such as transgress and live in doubt,-

Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means-

37.*"The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!"

(huuuuhhh???)

Thus was made alluring, in Pharaoh's eyes, the evil of his deeds, and he was hindered from the Path; and the plot of Pharaoh led to nothing but perdition (for him).
38.*The man who believed said further: "O my people! Follow me: I will lead you to the Path of Right.
39.*"O my people! This life of the present is nothing but (temporary) convenience: It is the Hereafter that is the Home that will last.40.*"He that works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof: and he that works a righteous deed - whether man or woman - and is a Believer- such will enter the Garden (of Bliss): Therein will they have abundance without measure.

41.*"And O my people! How (strange) it is for me to call you to Salvation while ye call me to the Fire!

42.*"Ye do call upon me to blaspheme against Allah, and to join with Him partners of whom I have no knowledge; and I call you to the Exalted in Power, Who forgives again and again!"

43.*"Without doubt ye do call me to one who is not fit to be called to, whether in this world, or in the Hereafter; our return will be to Allah. and the Transgressors will be Companions of the Fire!

44.*"Soon will ye remember what I say to you (now), My (own) affair I commit to Allah. for Allah (ever) watches over His Servants."

45.*Then Allah saved him from (every) ill that they plotted (against him), but the burnt of the Penalty encompassed on all sides the People of Pharaoh.

46.*In front of the Fire will they be brought, morning and evening: And (the sentence will be) on the Day that Judgment will be established: "Cast ye the People of Pharaoh into the severest Penalty!"
47.*Behold, they will dispute with each other in the Fire! The weak ones (who followed) will say to those who had been arrogant, "We but followed you: Can ye then take (on yourselves) from us some share of the Fire?

48.*Those who had been arrogant will say: "We are all in this (Fire)! Truly, Allah has judged between (his) Servants!"
49.*Those in the Fire will say to the Keepers of Hell: "Pray to your Lord to lighten us the Penalty for a day (at least)!"
50.*They will say: "Did there not come to you your apostles with Clear Signs?" They will say, "Yes". They will reply, "Then pray (as ye like)! But the prayer of those without Faith is nothing but (futile wandering) in (mazes of) error!"
51.*We will, without doubt, help our apostles and those who believe, (both) in this world's life and on the Day when the Witnesses will stand forth,-
52.*The Day when no profit will it be to Wrong-doers to present their excuses, but they will (only) have the Curse and the Home of Misery.

Those who sow thorns, do not reap roses.
And a thorn in the flesh is out of the question.
Allah is my shepherd, and He is not one eyed.

End of transmission.

[greenhill]

At the end of the day, Christians and Muslims, who preach such messages that are offensive to homosexuals, non-believers, and apostates, are protected by free speech those pushing such "da'wah" should be defending free speech, not attacking it. If we strike down free speech protection, your holy books and sermons and "da'wah" may be the first things to be banned. There is immense hypocrisy in calls to ban "blasphemy".

These holy Books and sermons have been round long time. The idea of free speech is to introduce something new/different. The holy Books are not talking of anything new. Just reminding people of the 'call' already established thousand over years ago...

People tend to get ahead of themselves. When people are given tasks to do. Say everyone sits in a room and hears a 45 minute lecture on what to do. After which they are all released to do the task(s). Will they all do the same thing the same way? Not very likely at all. There will be confusion, frustration, errors, perhaps even despair. Of course there will be different degrees of successful performances too. Likewise in real life when faced with religious duties.

Bottomline is, if someone is in error, best for us to advise him. If he pays heed, good for him, if he does not, . . . . what ever it is, it must be done in the nicest possible way and not to incite hatred or anger, regardless of whether you are in a muslim rule country or a minority in a foreign land. Unfortunately, not all remember this.

What happens is when outside interferences that take pot shots or criticize islam, it can still be retorted. What ever false claim, interpretation of the Quran etc, it can be dealt with, intellectually. But disrespect and provocation is not about freedom of speech. Never will be. There is a saying, 'loose lips, sink ships'. Words once spoken cannot be unspoken.

On the da'wah, we just call. That is our duty. Only some feel as though it is up to him to convert the other person. That is not so.

[InToTheRain]

That is fine when talking to fellow believers, but when you venture to another nation, filled with people who do not believe in Allah, it isn't the same. If your religion tells you to speak offensively to homosexuals and to non believers and apostates (or some of you would even say to take harmful action against them), even if you see such messages as good, as a "warning of unacceptable behaviour in the Eyes of Allah".... we simply don't see it that way. We see it as hate (and in some cases endorsement of violence) being directed at these people. We see that as no different and no better than the Islamophobes who direct hate at you and your brothers and sisters of your faith (and in some cases endorsements of violence against you). And that's the reasonable ones amongst us.

It doesn't matter if you say that it isn't you who gives this message, but your God, because you stand by the message as good and just, and we don't believe your God exists anyway. Would you feel it was ok if the people who hate on Muslims told you that they do it because their God (who you don't believe in) tells them to and that they are "warning" you? What if they called it "da'wah"?

At the end of the day, Christians and Muslims, who preach such messages that are offensive to homosexuals, non-believers, and apostates, are protected by free speech those pushing such "da'wah" should be defending free speech, not attacking it. If we strike down free speech protection, your holy books and sermons and "da'wah" may be the first things to be banned. There is immense hypocrisy in calls to ban "blasphemy".

The views Christians and Muslims have on homosexuality are no different then the Jews. So why is their impunity for speeches against one religious minority only and not the other? What can and cannot be said with impunity is determined by the "powers that be" in the country which is no different to any other nation so your understanding that free speech in the west means "freedom to offend" is false.

I am asking what can be said with impunity in the public domain within society and we should all be concerned if we truly want a cohesive society. Homosexuals do not have public outcries because of what a Muslim has said. Muslims do not have public outcries because Christians believe we are going to hell unless we accept Jesus(AS) as our lord and saviour. We need to understand when a line has been crossed which only has destructive consequences. And those who defend the offenders do so under the false understanding that any one is free to say what they want in the west which is clearly a lie.

[InToTheRain]

Some one I can relate with

Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

[Abz2000]

76.*Behold! when they meet those who have believed, they say: "We believe":
But when they meet each other in private, they say:
"Shall you tell them what Allah hath revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord?"
- Do ye not understand?
77.*Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?
78.*And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

79.*Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!

- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Quran Ch 2 Al Baqarah

CNN Journalist
‘Governments Pay Us To Fake Stories’,
Shocking Exposé

Posted by**Sean Adl-Tabatabai** in**News,*US*****
4 days ago****

According to Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist, CNN is*routinely*paid by the US government and foreign governments to selectively report on certain events. Furthermore, the Obama administration pay CNN for editorial control over some of their content.

Redflagnews.com*report:

Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster article from September 4th 2012:

In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances.
She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters.

In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime.

Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary.

Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.

Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting”

Here is a segment of the Bahrain report that Amber Lyon and her team put together.

CNNi refused to allow it to air because the Bahrain Government had paid them not to show it.

When Amber Lyon recognized the extent of the reasoning, she challenged CNN. CNN told her to be quiet, and began to view her as a risk. She knew, and found out, too much.

Amber is now trying to tell the story, the real story, of what is going on behind the closed doors of US Media entities. Amber has created her own website, and additionally as noted in the Guardian Article she is trying to share the truth of the deceptions.
What Amber Lyon describes is exactly the reason why CNN never aired the Nick Robertson interview with Muhammed Al Zawahiri in Egypt.

Amber recently did a web interview with Alex Jones on InfoWars.
Generally the TreeHouse does not appreciate Alex Jones. He is wound up tighter than piano wire, and unfortunately much of his truth is diminished because of the hype he places upon it.
Alex Jones is easy to disregard as a “conspiracy theorist”, not because of w he says, but because of how he says it.
Everything is desperate and dangerous with him.
That said, the words and explanations of Ms. Lyon in the discussion/interview are poignant and vastly informative. So I share the video with you so you can hear from Amber herself exactly what is being described and articulated.

It is critical to listen to what she says, not just about Bahrain but also about what the Obama administration is specifically doing.

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journali....Tmlh7vfT.dpuf

And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know.

Quran Ch 2 Al Baqarah V 42