Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence

[gurufabbes]

if that were the case, please explain why i am not allowed to speak up against the holohoax... er, i mean holocaust... you see, clear lines have already been established in an age when the Muslim mindset was not considered as worthy of being offended - thus, the world is free to coax Muslims all they want, but say a peep against the jews and the holocaust, suddenly it's not free speech anymore, it's incitement to hatred, violence and all sorts.

Many European countries have a law where speaking up against the holohoax is a crime.

Yet, we apply the same standard to islam's propehet and messenger, Muhammad pbuh - suddenly there are no lines.

This hypocrisy, this double edged sword is failing as people around the world are waking up to the reality of what free speech really is and how it can be abused to incite hatred, violence and worse... we live in an age where the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowing this, you still claim the tired old argument of:



Subjective. Of course it is. being offended on an individual basis is subjective - but when entire populations are of the same mind - then it's a different reality, and the subjective argument goes into the bin. With your educated mind, i'm sure you were already aware of this.

Thus, my argument stands.



You're trying to split a hair here. Problem is, you haven't made a comparable analysis.

Let me help.

1) if I say something to you, for example: "you're a buffoon", you may be offended... I say this to someone else, they may laugh along with me... my point is, on an individual basis, the argument is subjective.

2) However, If I say "All Jews are the synagogue of satan" - then every single Jew would be offended - it's no longer subjective anymore, so your "subjective" argument fails in this regard.

Bottom line bro guru, is this - we, the people, have awoken to the reality of free speech, and the underlying hypocrisy it entails in the modern vernacular. We will not accept this bastradisation of it, nor will we remain silent - but we will make our opinions known to the world in order to show solidarity; in the hope to secure better laws governing the current abuse of free speech in the western countries.

I hope that is ok with you it certainly shouldn't offend you at the very least

Scimi

I have to admit, be honest with you, that mentioning the Holocaust as being a hoax does offend me. It offends me because it's not, as perhaps some think, some massive conspiracy to falsify history, to pull money out of European states to fund nefarious activities, to justify political enterprises in other lands... (all that). But because it is an event that wiped out the Jewish populations in Eastern and Southern Europe. It's a factual event, one of the most widely studied events in human history, and something that remains a national trauma within the Jewish people. An event beyond modern politics. As with anyone, disbelieving something because one wants to, just as believing something because one wants to, does not make it true.

Indeed, I personally wish the Holocaust deniers were correct. They're not, one trip to Poland and Lithuania will make that clear. And this without even touching the mountains of testimonies, evidence, documents and survivor stories, the family members that one doesn't have, that can point to no other conclusion.

Having said that, I sense a bit of hostility or anger in your post.

So how is it different from the Mohammed cartoons? In my opinion, it isn't. I don't believe in laws against Holocaust denial either.

Do I agree that Jews sometimes go too far on this subject? Yes (Though within France, Poland and Germany it affects the sensibilities of the general population, which is possibly why they went so far as to actually ban such discourse). That the media goes so far to insinuate anti-semitism when there is no anti-semitism, yes.

But even beyond this, I do logically see a difference between denying a tragic historical event (usually with wider political motives) and making pictures mocking a religious leader. But I see it that way because I don't see things from your perspective. I'm not a Muslim, I do not understand the attachment you have to the prophet and to the prohibition of not depicting him. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be the one to go out of my way to offend them this way either.

This hypocrisy, this double edged sword is failing as people around the world are waking up to the reality of what free speech really is and how it can be abused to incite hatred, violence and worse... we live in an age where the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowing this, you still claim the tired old argument of:

But this is where you're arguing against yourself. You're in favour of such curbs based on at least one group of people being offended. And.. how about when atheists are offended by religious symbols or discourse in public? When feminists are offended by hints at gender and gender roles in society? How about when the whole host of other opponents to certain things you may believe in can veto what you can say and do? How about circumcision, non-stunned slaughter of animals when certain rights groups don't like it?

Subjective. Of course it is. being offended on an individual basis is subjective - but when entire populations are of the same mind - then it's a different reality, and the subjective argument goes into the bin. With your educated mind, i'm sure you were already aware of this.

And when do you have entire populations that are of the same mind?

You're trying to split a hair here. Problem is, you haven't made a comparable analysis.

Let me help.

1) if I say something to you, for example: "you're a buffoon", you may be offended... I say this to someone else, they may laugh along with me... my point is, on an individual basis, the argument is subjective.

2) However, If I say "All Jews are the synagogue of satan" - then every single Jew would be offended - it's no longer subjective anymore, so your "subjective" argument fails in this regard.

Bottom line bro guru, is this - we, the people, have awoken to the reality of free speech, and the underlying hypocrisy it entails in the modern vernacular. We will not accept this bastradisation of it, nor will we remain silent - but we will make our opinions known to the world in order to show solidarity; in the hope to secure better laws governing the current abuse of free speech in the western countries.

I sincerely just don't understand your position at worst, or else I think what you're saying from what I have understood is unworkable.

We're in the theoretical realm here. As I mentioned above, how do you divide what is a group and what is individual? The problem is we have societies of groups nowadays.
These groups are women (feminists), atheists and agnostics, religious groups, they are gays... etc

Say something such as 'marriage is between a man and woman' and you'll get the latter groups offended. Say our society is based originally on 'Judeo-Christian' values, and the other religious groups and agnostics will be offended. Say that woman has a crucial role to play as a mother and in the home that men do not naturally fulfil and you'll offend the former...

By your reasoning we would no longer be allowed to say such things, which may or not be correct, because they offend certain groups.
If there is hypocrisy, deal with the hypocrisy rather than creating more.

 

[InToTheRain]

We're getting a bit into politics here, but then again this topic is political.
Well this is where I wonder. I take that you're not a fan of Assad?

If they had not become involved the West would accused of complicity, and when it does get involved it's accused of meddling. It's a no win situation.

To the best of my knowledge it is how I see it at the moment. There is no other way to make sense of the surge or power ISIS has gotten recently. Unfortunately for them ISIS have turned against their makers.

I suppose that your description of the types that run off to ISIS corresponds with the reports. I would add the fact that a number of converts to Islam often embrace these extreme ideas (Coualy and the murderer of Lee Rigby being examples).

What Muslim like Anjam CHowdhury thrive on are ignorance and emotion so new Muslims unfortunately succumb to them because they do not know any better. However I believe the number of reverts that do this are signifacantly less then those that do not; much like the number porportion between Extreme and non-extreme Muslims.

Well by vocal, I was referring to those in Europe, in the West, not just those in the Middle East. That there is an open contestation, rebirth of Islam and political religious streams amongst those who were born to the first generation of immigrants that had no such views. A countercurrent to the expectations of integration by the general indigenous population.

You can say Muslims are more politically active now which is not a bad thing as the previous generation were too busy fighting racism and settling in lol. As for their views being counter current to the indegiouness poppulation and if we are using "free speech" as an example then there is good reason to be against the way it's currently seen as there are double standards. This is felt more by the hot-headed youth who may unfortunately take extreme measures to vent their frustration.

I'm not well versed in the history of politics and law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

What I remember from my studies on Ancient Greece is that each city state had its own constitution and form of law. I'd have to look up what archaeological remains have been found, but the wide library of Ancient Greek writings talks about them.

But even more remarkable is the Hammurabi Stele (in the Louvre now) is from the year 1754 BC... Amazing. Anyway, in short constitutions, laws, treaties go back a long time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Also Cyrus the Great's Cylinder talks about the restoration of religious rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder

Thanks for the link. I haven't went into in detail and just skimmed through it for now. The Hamurabi speaks about law and order but does not mention rights of religious minorities. The authenticity and credibility of Cyrus Cylinder appears to be under dispute by historians and may have been part of a propaganda devised by Pahlavi regime.

As such I view Mohammad(SAW) as someone who sparked a revolution which reverberated throughout the world.

Well, you're inviting some harsh answers here.

hmmmm it does feel like I am opening up a can of worms ... wanna go fishing

It's not a matter of whether the West, Europe are blameless and don't have violent and bloody histories. But Islamic history for sure is not either.

Yes blood have been spilt by all sides. I guess the point I was trying to make was Muslims have co-existed for years amongst Jews and Christians and other minorities. The contitution Mohammad(SAW) made respected their rights. Had Muslims or Islam was unable live amongst non-Muslims or had hatred for them then the coptic christians of Egypt would have not existed nor would Jews be allowed back into Jeruselam etc. The main instigators of recent wars have not been Muslims and so, in my humble opinion, our tolerance shouldn't come into question. We know their is extremists who do not help the situation however the media as it currently works makes it a strain to clear the confusion. Infact at times we feel the bias it has against us:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/14/pressandpublishing.raceintheuk


I am going off topic just to give my opinion on this issue. Regarding having slaves, and I know how horrible this may sound in our current mindset , but it wasn't so abhorrent before. It was also means by which POW's could intergrate within society and gain status as the slave represented the master so in that sense it was more of the role of the servant or butler. Mohammad(SAW) would advocate they be treated with respect and dignity. So much so that a Slave in a rich household would be better off then a Free man in a poor household as they would adorn the clothes similiar to their masters. Slaves before could be from any race and way of life so it wasn't as abhorrent or unjust as it didn't mean superiority of a race over the other.

I am not saying slavery should return; just saying it wasn't as abhorrent as it is seen now. Mohammad(SAW) advocated freeing them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_views_on_slavery

The affect of this message was clear when the Umar Al-Khattab(RA) walked into Jerusalem, after having conquered it!, whilsts having his slave ride his camel because it was his turn to walk. And he walked in using tattered clothes with patches on them. Detailed here:
http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUM/18/69

Yusuf(AS) was also a slave for a long duration of his life. Just shows It was a practice which was ingrained within social practices for many centuries.
http://www.bibleandkoran.net/verhaal.php?lIntEntityId=17

Back on topic!

But none of this relevant. It's irrelevant to the present day and it's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it's a matter of mass immigration and the problems of coexistence between populations that have completely different visions of the world and society. The agnostic, atheistic, liberal populations of the West and a more authoritarian (or need harsher guidance rather), religious, traditional population (which on top is ethnically and culturally different) from various parts of the world.

From this perspective, I'm answering my own question as Islam only one part of the issue. But these two competing ideas manifest themselves in this topic:

The average European doesn't care about drawings mocking religious figures or religions. It's all fair game. They've left religiosity behind
The average Muslim that holds strong to his religious traditions and upbringing finds it unthinkable (feels personally attacked) and something deep inside him reasons that such actions should not be allowed, should be banned by law.

This is the difference that events like these have brought out.

Yes I agree with that analysis. There is certain things beyond our tolerance and unless we can respect that then we will not have cohesion.


Regarding the Holocause here is a good article by Hamza Yusuf:
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Yusuf-WhyHolocaustdenialunderminesIslam/print

 

[gurufabbes]

Sorry for the late reply:

To the best of my knowledge it is how I see it at the moment. There is no other way to make sense of the surge or power ISIS has gotten recently. Unfortunately for them ISIS have turned against their makers.

I see it possible due to weapons that have fallen into their hands, to the point that they overwhelmed the other Syrian resistance groups. Also, Turkish support.
Kohn Kerry complained last year about ill-advised support to the Syrian resistance by several of its allies.

What's makes the Madina contitution unique is that it is the first to speak of a pluralistic society:
http://islamforwest.org/2011/12/28/t...f-the-world-2/

As such I view Mohammad(SAW) as someone who sparked a revolution which reverberated throughout the world.

Possibly. I don't know the history of minority rights well enough.

I am convinced however that there were tolerant areas (at least before the arrival of Christianity). But I will give Islam its due on this one.

The main instigators of recent wars have not been Muslims and so, in my humble opinion, our tolerance shouldn't come into question.

Up for debate. A debate that I will not go into.

I think the tolerance of... let's say, normal mainstream Muslim societies, and individual societies may be accepted, as long as some large political upheaval or event doesn't occur (War in Algeria, Reconquista with the Almohad dynasty, Pakistan...).

The question I would have is whether a society under modern day forms of Sharia law is compatible with this. And there are numerous reasons to question that:
Saudi Arabia, Iran (not the Jews), the ISIS controlled areas...

And this not even mentioning the shrinking minorities in many of these countries.
The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?
Also, when Muslims become growing minorities in the West, does friction increase?

I say this though, with the honest opinion that none of Monotheistic Abrahamic religions are truly tolerant in the sense we want it to mean today.

I am going off topic just to give my opinion on this issue. Regarding having slaves, and I know how horrible this may sound in our current mindset , but it wasn't so abhorrent before. It was also means by which POW's could intergrate within society and gain status as the slave represented the master so in that sense it was more of the role of the servant or butler. Mohammad(SAW) would advocate they be treated with respect and dignity. So much so that a Slave in a rich household would be better off then a Free man in a poor household as they would adorn the clothes similiar to their masters. Slaves before could be from any race and way of life so it wasn't as abhorrent or unjust as it didn't mean superiority of a race over the other.

Not to disregard this point, but slavery (particularly if its not for a rich household and a cushy position) is still a means by which someone is the property of someone else and needs to do what they say. For most slaves, I'm sure this position wasn't enviable and their jobs were not ideal for the most part.

I'm also sure that slave owners in the Southern US probably had similar examples to give and back in the days could justify it as being more normal and less harsh than it is depicted as today.

I don't take the position, of say the PC atheists, on their critique of Islam, and am open to hearing the justifications of certain Islamic practices that seem alien to our modern day world, but with critical analysis as well.

 

[ardianto]

The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?

In one conversation my Christian neighbor told me that she is worry about radical Muslims. But she also grateful because she lives among tolerant Muslims. I understand if she feel like that because I feel like her too. I am worry about radical Muslims, but I am grateful because mostly Muslims in my place are tolerant and peaceful.

I live in Indonesia, a country where around 85% of citizens are Muslims. And Islam is one of six official religions, The five other are Christianity (Protestant), Catholic, Balinese Hindu, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Every official religions has religious holidays that become national holiday.

Of course, inter religious conflict sometime happen. But you can also find many examples of religious tolerance. In Muslim majority regions in Indonesia you will not find "Christian area" or "Buddhist area" like Muslim area in London. It's because those non-Muslims choose to live among Muslims, and they are safe.

So, if Muslims are majority, would non-Muslims persecuted?. It's not depend on how much the Muslims are. But depend on how tolerant those Muslims.

 

[InToTheRain]

Sorry for the late reply

Me too. No need to apologise seeing as I usually take just as long if not longer to respond at times

The question I would have is whether a society under modern day forms of Sharia law is compatible with this. And there are numerous reasons to question that:
Saudi Arabia, Iran (not the Jews), the ISIS controlled areas...

ISIS have been condemned by Muslim scholars from around the world. They have no more in common with Islam then LRA has with Christianity.

And this not even mentioning the shrinking minorities in many of these countries.
The question is, when Muslims are the majority, how do they treat their other subjects in practice?
Also, when Muslims become growing minorities in the West, does friction increase?

I am not sure about the shrinking of minorities you are referring to and which countries they are. I think Brother Ardi above made some good points. There are lot of dynamics at play but Muslims aren't taught to disrespect others for their beliefs.

We have been slowly pushing the boundaries of what we regard as tolerant as time goes on. Maybe what's changing is the people and the environment and Muslims due to their belief cannot encourage changes that go against their beliefs as it's considered sinful however this does not mean we should disrespect or hate those individuals. Hate the Sin and not the sinner. However if that sinner then becomes a beacon in leading the way for those sins than I guess that's a different ball game.
I would say Muslims as a whole will never compromise or adapt to secularism as other religions have. But I don't think this is intolerance and more to do with Belief of the Muslims.

It's important to note that much of the friction that exists between Muslims and Non-Muslims is not due to religion but more due to political differences or injustices. For example the tragic death of Lee Rigby was mostly politically motivated. The killers chanted "you do this to our Brothers and Sisters over there we do this here".

Allah Most High didn't create us to enforce Shairah Law but to worship Him. If enforcing Shariah Law was so important then why did Mohammad(SAW) allow the Jews and Christians in Madinah to implement the laws of their scriptures instead of Shariah Law? Laws are made to help the people; if they do not accept it then the burden is theirs to bear for the corruption that ensues. However Even if the whole world implemented Shariah Law it would be pointless if Allah Most High is not worshiped as shown by Mohammad(SAW).