Anti-Muslim bias growing in Europe, conference told

[imaad_udeen]

To what extent should abuse be tolerated?

As long as he is not physically abusing anyone, then he should not be physically abused. We cannot take the law into our own hands.


Let's discuss his actual arguments against Islam and we'll see if his claims about women in Islam are true or false. You bring forward the claim with whatever evidence you have, and we'll refute it.

I always find it so ridiculous when rabid Islam-haters whine about having to live in fear after they heaped years of profanities and abuse about a minorty. What do you expect Muslims to do for you, honestly? Throw a party? The blasphemous and hateful comments these indviduals have made reek of intolerance, insensitivity, crueltly, and malice. Is it a crime to do this to another group? Absolutely. We should not tolerate this kind of abuse.

Certainly we should not tolerate it. We should fight back and show his propaganda to be lies. But brutally murdering him makes him a martyr, a modern day Horst Wessel, for the people who buy into his hate. It certainly does little to show people that might believe him that he was actually wrong.

God needs no defender, for he is the Most Mighty.

Your comments are as ridiculous as if a thief was to say that ever since he stole, he's been living his life in fear of the police.

Not really, the police are rightful authorities and enforcers of the law. The people who murdered this man were most certainly not the rightful authorities of the law.

If you commit a crime, and there is such a thing as hate crimes, then you should not complain when you see the victims of your crime enraged.

Of course. But the enraged commit a worse crime and lose the "moral high ground" when they commit or support acts like this.

No, I call their words/teachings lies insults and misunderstandings. All the abuse that these two individuals have heaped on Islam is easily refuted. You are welcome to debate it with me. Bring some of their claims about Islam, and I will refute them.

Ameen.

Is it a right to be able to insult, slander, abuse, revile and vilify the beliefs of others? Since when is it a right to treat fellow human beings lower than dirt?

It is not right.

 

[Muezzin]

As long as he is not physically abusing anyone, then he should not be physically abused. We cannot take the law into our own hands.

Very true. I agree with this principle, yet at the same time I can understand the actions of the Dutch filmmaker's murderers. I don't condone them, but I understand them. It was wrong for him to make such a blatantly offensive film in the first place, but that does not vindicate his murderers.

 

[imaad_udeen]

Very true. I agree with this principle, yet at the same time I can understand the actions of the Dutch filmmaker's murderers. I don't condone them, but I understand them. It was wrong for him to make such a blatantly offensive film in the first place, but that does not vindicate his murderers.

I understand the anger as well. But I don't understand how you cross that line to where you are willing to stab someone to death over a film.

Anyone with a rational mind will see right through the guys crap film, anyways. The only ones who would swallow it hook, line and sinker, are the ones who think that way anyways and nothing is likely to change their minds on Islam anyways. Murdering the guy makes him a martyr in their eyes and actually justifies their hatred towards Muslims in their own minds.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I understand what you're saying Br. Imadudeen, but there are some points that I'd like to mention.

First of all, the murder has benn labeled "cold-blooded" by some. Cold-blooded is:

without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous​

I think the killing is much better described as 'hot-blooded' or passionate since it resulted from the built up emotional rage at the abuse inflicted upon a people and their beliefs.

Secondly,

As long as he is not physically abusing anyone, then he should not be physically abused.....

But in the US, hate speech is not a defense for murder.

Since many people don't realize how much value a religion has for its adherents, then let's consider another example.

There is a neighbour of yours who continually harasses you whenever he sees you in public. He calls out profanities and fabricates lies about your family, your mother and father, when you walk through the streets, attracting a crowd of listeners. You try to protest but he drowns you out with his outrageous claims of what he has supposedly seen your family doing. You become an outcast in your neighbourhood, despised by all and labeled an abominable monster. Next, he hires actors for a film about your family in which he has your family members perform heinous sins, and he upholds his movie about you as the 'revealing truth'. Evidently, no civilised country should tolerate this slander. This person should have been stopped ages before, but it is clear that the law of this country is unjust and watches quietly while you suffer far worse than any physical abuse could do to you. Obviously, this does not justify murder, but it certainly reveals where the blame lies.

I cannot fathom how any modern country could allow the prolonged abuse that the Muslims of Holland were subjected to.

Not really, the police are rightful authorities and enforcers of the law. The people who murdered this man were most certainly not the rightful authorities of the law.

okay, that was an inaccuracy in my analogy. Let me re-phrase that:

Your comments are as ridiculous as if a thief was to say that ever since he stole, he's been living his life in fear of the shopkeeper.

In my first analogy I assumed it was a civilised country in which the police would act on behalf of the victims, but clearly no one acts on behalf of the Muslims when they are abused.

 

[root]

Why have you decided to belittle his abuse as "offending Islam"? Do you feel that your statement accurately describes his continual profane abuse hurled at a minorty coupled with his complete blasphemy and malicious slander of God's revelation to Humanity?

Blashpemy is not a crime under the Dutch Law or it's constitution. Yet he paid for his "Blasphemy and malicious slander" so he must have been subject to laws that both you and I are well aware of it's origins and flavour. Perhaps Islam dealt it's biggest blow. The break-up of Europe...............

Food for thought, Nice thread............

Bye.

 

[Muezzin]

Blashpemy is not a crime under the Dutch Law or it's constitution. Yet he paid for his "Blasphemy and malicious slander" so he must have been subject to laws that both you and I are well aware of it's origins and flavour. Perhaps Islam dealt it's biggest blow. The break-up of Europe.............

While blasphemy may not be a crime under Dutch law, making such a blatantly offensive film was not a wise decision given the current geo-political climate.

 

[solid_snake]

Mashallaah may Allaah reward you.

agreed :thumbs_up

 

[kadafi]

Blashpemy is not a crime under the Dutch Law or it's constitution. Yet he paid for his "Blasphemy and malicious slander" so he must have been subject to laws that both you and I are well aware of it's origins and flavour. Perhaps Islam dealt it's biggest blow. The break-up of Europe...............

Food for thought, Nice thread............

Bye.

Greetings,

That is incorrect. Blasemphy, or more specifically, scornful blasemphy (smalende godslastering) is regarded as an act of crime under the Dutch Law.

You can read it (if you understand dutch) at the follow site:
http://www.parlement.com/9291000/modulesf/gvgcw1pd

It is punishable with a term of imprisonment (up to three months). Van Gogh clearly violated the first rule under act 147 in which he provoked the Muslim community by utteringblasphemous remarks.

Peace

 

[imaad_udeen]

Greetings,

That is incorrect. Blasemphy, or more specifically, scornful blasemphy (smalende godslastering) is regarded as an act of crime under the Dutch Law.

You can read it (if you understand dutch) at the follow site:
http://www.parlement.com/9291000/modulesf/gvgcw1pd

It is punishable with a term of imprisonment (up to three months). Van Gogh clearly violated the first rule under act 147 in which he provoked the Muslim community by utteringblasphemous remarks.

Peace

How come he wasn't charged or convicted under this law?

 

[imaad_udeen]

I understand what you're saying Br. Imadudeen, but there are some points that I'd like to mention.

First of all, the murder has benn labeled "cold-blooded" by some. Cold-blooded is:

without emotion or pity; deliberately cruel or callous​

I think the killing is much better described as 'hot-blooded' or passionate since it resulted from the built up emotional rage at the abuse inflicted upon a people and their beliefs.

I think the murderer thought about his crime, planned it and executed it with malice aforthought which makes it "cold blooded."

For it to be "hot blooded" it would have had to happen in the heat of the moment. I sincerely doubt eh murderer just happened across van Gough on the street and killed him in a rage.

He most certainly planned his attack before hand.

Secondly,

*snip*

Obviously, this does not justify murder, but it certainly reveals where the blame lies.

I understand, but the blame lies with the man who plunged the knife into the victims chest because he made a movie which offended him.

Maybe I'm wrong, but where I am from, we do not murder people (or condone their murder) for their beliefs, no matter how much we dislike those beliefs.

 

[kadafi]

How come he wasn't charged or convicted under this law?

Apparantly, they were debatin' whether his actions constituded of scornful blasemphy. He has been accused of scornful blasemphy in '95 but with no avail. Furthermore, the scornful blasemphy was used rarely used in the past 50 years, and if it was used, it was used loosley. As a result there, Donner suggested that the law should be revitalizing in order to prevent such acts of blasemphy in the future. I cannot give you the present condition of whether this law, has been revitalized but I will look in to it for you.

 

[root]

I cannot give you the present condition of whether this law, has been revitalized but I will look in to it for you.

It's being dropped. Blasphemy is not a criminal offence under current laws, interestingly in York (UK) you can shoot a Scotsmen but only with a bow & arrow. And if your wife is drunk you can take her to the main square and whip her.

I am not sure of the legal term for old laws that have not been repelled but are not valid anymore. The same applies to this. I am an atheist who beleives their is no god. I need protecting under law from those who would consider my words "Blasphamest"

That is why he was not charged under blasphemy, because to all tense and purpose the blasphemy laws do not exist anymore. In other words, we have moved on..........

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

...to disrespect and intolerance?

 

[imaad_udeen]

Apparantly, they were debatin' whether his actions constituded of scornful blasemphy. He has been accused of scornful blasemphy in '95 but with no avail. Furthermore, the scornful blasemphy was used rarely used in the past 50 years, and if it was used, it was used loosley. As a result there, Donner suggested that the law should be revitalizing in order to prevent such acts of blasemphy in the future. I cannot give you the present condition of whether this law, has been revitalized but I will look in to it for you.

Interesting. Blasphemy laws sound really strange.

I don't understand a lot of laws I hear come from Europe. Many of them sound like "thought based" laws which punish those for their opinions and for speaking their opinions.

Glad I don't live there, though this place isn't perfect.

 

[kadafi]

It's being dropped. Blasphemy is not a criminal offence under current laws, interestingly in York (UK) you can shoot a Scotsmen but only with a bow & arrow. And if your wife is drunk you can take her to the main square and whip her.

Greetings

I could not find any indications that the law has been dropped. There has attempts made by the Christian parties to drop it but I don't think they succeeded. Perhaps you could provide a link or some evidence.

Regards

 

[Muezzin]

I am not sure of the legal term for old laws that have not been repelled but are not valid anymore. The same applies to this. I am an atheist who beleives their is no god. I need protecting under law from those who would consider my words "Blasphamest"

The word you're looking for is 'blasphemous'. Sorry. I'm a walking dictionary.

That is why he was not charged under blasphemy, because to all tense and purpose the blasphemy laws do not exist anymore. In other words, we have moved on..........

Indeed. Now we have cameras in public places and Government monitoring of library loans, phone calls and Internet usage. THAT's progress!