Religious hatred bill

[STOIC]

Free speech is a gateway to ensure neither the government nor any religion is immune from criticism, even when such exercise conveys factual errors. This free speech and freedom of assembly is the same freedom that helps us convene and worship at our religion places. As always, I personally think there should be a limit if an insult would shade in to a hatred that may multiply to harm people. If an individual stands up in front of a crowd and says that blacks are lazy people or the founder of scientology is a veracious wimp who is after the money, he can go ahead and blast off as much as he can rest assured as long as his speech would not incite a pervasive hostility and intimidation on the scientologist or black people. This latest spat by the Danish newspaper have angered me personally, but it is the same license that give me the right to harass homosexuals that gives them the right to write whatever they want. There must an equal opportunity offender somewhere,isn't it?

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Originally posted by STOIC:

There must an equal opportunity offender somewhere,isn't it?

Nope-there ain't ever been such a thing saxib.

It is was and is used to abate 'Totalitarian' thinking aka RELIGION and I think that it stems from rebellion towards the Catholic church and dogmatism.

 

The Popular Sentiment is-You, as Muslim do not have a Right to INSULT anyone and infact ideally, you should be a Pacifist, Insult taking (in the name of liberterian 'freedoms', Model Subservient citizen.

 

You can be spat on (past tense for spit on) but you are not to respond back to it, as a Muslim...but if you chose to spit back, you have to use a 'LEASED TOOL' meaning u can't SPIT BACK using your own Methodology, u have to SPIT BACK within THEIR acceptable FRAME WORK.

 

Northerner saxib,

 

A limit on freedom of speech comes into play wherein your are imposing your RIGHT on someone elses RIGHT. i.e. You can't make a FILM that discriminates and makes fun of women or disabled people etc.

 

What is being shown BLATANTLY this week is that

Freedom of Expression TRUMPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS and if their is a POPULAR SENTIMENT that supports this, then the LIBERAL Democratic LAWS can and should be changed to reflect these changes.

 

P.S. Br. Nur, why don't you participate in these discussions walaal. Don't be afraid of Public flogging-it only hurts for a few minutes.

 

Fi Amanillah

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us?

 

There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited.

Castro,

 

Lets not get ahead of ourselves with this discussion. First of all (and Khayer might want to pay attention here), we have to set up some sort of point of reference that we measure (or base) our discussion against. Are we talking from an Islamic viewpoint (meaning: Islamic rules, laws and customs)? Or, are we talking from the Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Speech?

 

Discussions become confused (not to mention obtuse) when we mix and match the two. In my opinion, Islam has already put clear barriers on the Freedom of Speech. We already know what we can and can not say. The instructions are clear and on the odd occasions where they’re not, our scholars do their utmost to clarify them for us using the holy book and traditions of the prophet. I‘m being very simplistic and brief for the sake of clarity (for this last bit can be a topic of its own). The Western way on the other hand is a bit more convoluted and muddled up.

 

In my comments and posts so far, I’ve been trying to address and deal with the Western rules. When talking about Muslims and Islam I concerned myself with those living in the West and not the habitually indignant teenagers of Rammallah (burning a different flag each week) or the old men of Pakistan. Our brothers in those parts of the world don’t care for or understand the meaning of Freedom of Speech. They’re not interested in philosophical discussions about the offence, they only demand retribution. They deal with these incidents one-at-a-time and make great use of their legendry amnesia. What gets matters more muddy though is when Muslims residing in the West join the debate. Here we find ourselves with one foot in each camp. Like our brethren in the East, we too want retribution but unlike our brethren in the East we also want rights! Is it conceivably possible to have both whilst staying out of the political system?

 

Someone above attempted to compare the quandary we have here to that of the Jews, Blacks or Homosexuals! They wondered why no newspaper would print cartoons ridiculing blacks or homosexuals! You yourself asked, when referring to the article I posted above, about Austrian laws regarding anti-Semitism. On all these questions, I’m sure that you and the other poster are aware of the situations that led to such laws or traditions to be put in place (Austria being the home of the Nazis, etc).

 

The way I see it, and I’m going to be very simplistic again here, is that Freedom of Speech/Expression means that EVERYTHING GOES, until, someone brings up a valid complaint in a court of law. For example, despite the American constitution and declaration of independence asserting the equality of man, Rosa Park had to make a stand, get arrested and go all the way to the Supreme Court to receive the equal treatment that the American constitution said she deserved! The case of Wade v Roe did the same for the privacy rights of American citizens (abortion). In short, the democratic ideal protects and ensures Freedoms( Speech, Expression, etc) but also allows and makes room for these Freedoms to be tackled and challenged. Indeed, nothing is sacred unless the law says it is. And, the law, as one of Mr Dickens’ characters once remarked, is an Ãss!

 

Now, let us get back to the Danish and their freedom of speech. Can we successfully prosecute that newspaper in a Danish court of law? Surely if there are limits to that paper’s freedom of speech we should be able to find them and use them to shut it (and all those that might dream of following its example) up! The argument that one would have to present will have to be waterproof and prove the transgressions of that newspaper. These transgressions should not include the Islamic command that no drawings should be made of the prophet or the creator. For, as you’re perfectly aware, Danish law does not recognise such a command. However, if we present a valid argument, Danish law might! If our argument is good enough in Denmark, it will (logically at least) be good enough in any other democracy.

 

Still, such a move will only lead to similar retaliations that will, eventually, mean that many of our Islamic rights are curtailed. Like I already said, the boys in the Arab (Islamic) world can happily burn the flags (with the permission of their dictatorial governments) and then return to their normal lives and act as if nothing had happened! However, with us in the West, the game is different. We should try to stay a step ahead of all these events and try to know what our actions will cause. As things stand, suppressing a newspaper’s right to mock and ridicule and succeeding (with the help of the law) in doing so, will also mean that they can do the same to us (some will argue that they’re already doing it).

 

We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed.

[STOIC]

Ngonge,

At the heart of this debate, you are right that we need to separate the mixing of religion and Western political stands. Islam has been clear about the freedom of speech when the Quraan centrally laid out human social interrelation move from the most particular and intimate relationship between a wife and a husband to that of the people of the world. On fundamental principles, the opinion of one way respect or one religion having the superiority over another is absurd to the intellect of the western society. We are not discussing the superiority of a religion here; I will leave that as it is. Countries judge and evaluate legal rights in terms of people moral right. We as a Muslims living in the west can advocate for a law that protects our right, but we need to respect the freedom of others too. If we value others right, then any right we ask for will be relatively simple. It is clear that our view of our host nation’s freedom of expression is extremely important to us since our social obligations stem from the law they set. They are justified to upholding and enforcing at any cost any law that they set for their countries. One may ask, “How much of a freedom of speech can one have or say?†The answer is found in your post when you alluded that a right is a duty imposed on individual by the law of the land.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions.

Saaxib you had me nodding in agreement all the way till the last sentence. I do not accept this statement of yours if by holding an opinion you mean publishing it in a daily newspaper. I can hold an opinion all I want but when I walk up to someone's face and share that opinion with them, I better be damn sure they will not be offended by it, and if they are, I should be ready, willing and able to accept the consequences. Being offended by a faith does not give one the right to offend the faithful of that faith. Similarly, being offended by a lifestyle, race or color of a person does not mean I have the right to offend that person. My desire to offend directly conflicts with his desire not be offended.

 

Edited: There is a risk of provocation we all take by exercising our free speech. That's where the gray matter lies.

[Khayr]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves with this discussion. First of all (and Khayer might want to pay attention here), we have to set up some sort of point of reference that we measure (or base) our discussion against. Are we talking from an Islamic viewpoint (meaning: Islamic rules, laws and customs)? Or, are we talking from the Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Speech?

Islamic rules/principles govern the Muslim line of thinking. Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Xawa as I call it, need to be examined under the light of my values-Islamic Tradition (quran, sunnah, shariah etc.).

 

So, I am talking am the Islamic Tradition, thats what I use to praise or critique a noun,adjective and/or a verb etc.

 

Discussions become confused (not to mention obtuse) when we mix and match the two. In my opinion, Islam has already put clear barriers on the Freedom of Speech. We already know what we can and can not say. The instructions are clear and on the odd occasions where they’re not, our scholars do their utmost to clarify them for us using the holy book and traditions of the prophet. I‘m being very simplistic and brief for the sake of clarity (for this last bit can be a topic of its own). The Western way on the other hand is a bit more convoluted and muddled up

Convulted and muddled up-Yes

 

Reason being that its hypocritical to say that ALL ARE EQUAL in Secular Liberalism when infact that entire premise behind the creation of Secular Liberal freedoms was to curb Religion so that people could persue their inhibitions. There was no Universal ceiling, which is what Religion has always imposed i.e. God sets the rules and not Man, which secular liberalism has inverted into Man sets the rule and God is out the door.

 

In my comments and posts so far, I’ve been trying to address and deal with the Western rules. When talking about Muslims and Islam I concerned myself with those living in the West and not the habitually indignant teenagers of Rammallah (burning a different flag each week) or the old men of Pakistan. Our brothers in those parts of the world don’t care for or understand the meaning of Freedom of Speech. They’re not interested in philosophical discussions about the offence, they only demand retribution. They deal with these incidents one-at-a-time and make great use of their legendry amnesia. What gets matters more muddy though is when Muslims residing in the West join the debate. Here we find ourselves with one foot in each camp. Like our brethren in the East, we too want retribution but unlike our brethren in the East we also want rights! Is it conceivably possible to have both whilst staying out of the political system?

As a muslim,you can UTILIZE the political system to your own gains to protect yourself and your religious beliefs because this is what Secular Liberalism promotes and why it promotes its agenda in places like Iraq. e.g. Iraqis are suddenly sunnis and shias to the world and they can't get along under a Muslim state but if only they take religion out, then they can ALL live in PEace AND Harmony (false goal of life).

 

So I ask you Ngonge, why can't a muslim in the west want their Rights, if everyone else can demand for their Rights and complain about certain Liberal Rights too i.e. Freedom of press (libel and defammation), freedom of assembly etc.

It is Hypocritical to criticize muslims when they want to use the system but praise blacks or women, for doing so.

You're preaching SELF-HATE here saxib. Take pride, take pride, take pride that you are a Muslim (at least in lineage).

 

The way I see it, and I’m going to be very simplistic again here, is that Freedom of Speech/Expression means that EVERYTHING GOES, until, someone brings up a valid complaint in a court of law. For example, despite the American constitution and declaration of independence asserting the equality of man, Rosa Park had to make a stand, get arrested and go all the way to the Supreme Court to receive the equal treatment that the American constitution said she deserved! The case of Wade v Roe did the same for the privacy rights of American citizens (abortion). In short, the democratic ideal protects and ensures Freedoms( Speech, Expression, etc) but also allows and makes room for these Freedoms to be tackled and challenged. Indeed, nothing is sacred unless the law says it is. And, the law, as one of Mr Dickens’ characters once remarked, is an Ãss!

Nothing is sacred until a Supreme court rules on it, or a bill becomes law and all that is subkect to CHANGE. Just scream and kick enough and tomorrow it will change. It is all RELATIVE.

 

Weren't black people Humans before Rose parks, so why the change in Popular Sentiment-today!

Just because something becomes law or Popular Sentiment supports it, don't make it RIGHT today or tomorrow. That is the Islamic view point. Universal truths, rules that don't change with TIME or the whim of the people. For if that wasn't the case in Islam,the Quran could be re-edited to make common law acceptable, the huddud laws of the Shariah would be abolished, the Zakat would be made Haram (people are in too much debt anyways and its a burden etc.)

 

Adultery will always be Haram in Islam, Polygamy will always be Halal in Islam no matter how many cry against it, Shariah will always be the form of governance that is to be practiced for Muslims regardless if people will view muslims as non-economic, non-sensical minded, male chauvenists.

 

Now, let us get back to the Danish and their freedom of speech. Can we successfully prosecute that newspaper in a Danish court of law? Surely if there are limits to that paper’s freedom of speech we should be able to find them and use them to shut it (and all those that might dream of following its example) up! The argument that one would have to present will have to be waterproof and prove the transgressions of that newspaper. These transgressions should not include the Islamic command that no drawings should be made of the prophet or the creator. For, as you’re perfectly aware, Danish law does not recognise such a command. However, if we present a valid argument, Danish law might! If our argument is good enough in Denmark, it will (logically at least) be good enough in any other democracy.

Under Liberal Rights law, it can be argued fo but it can be turned down at any court level, depending once again on Popular Sentiment. What was to be respected 10yrs has greatly changed today.

However, that is not the route to take (personal opinion) because you show weakness but participating in a game to which THEY have set and laid down the rules and ....these rules are subject to change WITHOUT NOTICE or REASON.

 

Still, such a move will only lead to similar retaliations that will, eventually, mean that many of our Islamic rights are curtailed. Like I already said, the boys in the Arab (Islamic) world can happily burn the flags (with the permission of their dictatorial governments) and then return to their normal lives and act as if nothing had happened! However, with us in the West, the game is different. We should try to stay a step ahead of all these events and try to know what our actions will cause. As things stand, suppressing a newspaper’s right to mock and ridicule and succeeding (with the help of the law) in doing so, will also mean that they can do the same to us (some will argue that they’re already doing it).

Alhamdulillah, our brothers and sisters around the world don't need to engage in a debate to know what is Right and Wrong. They live in a world that still has some reminance of Islam, of Sacredness. Ngogne, stop criticizing them because they didn't jump behind a keyboard and spew verbal diarrhea!

We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed.

 

We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed.

How come a G8 country can threaten muslims with sanctions and bombings when they don't like what a Muslim nation and its people are doing?

 

Thats HYPOCRISY saxib, you agree?

 

In anycase,

 

this is getting tired some and is starting to sound like 'DEBATE FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE'

which only serves the our Xawa/Ego and attracts the shayateen. So, inshaAllah, i'll leave it at that.

[NGONGE]

Khayer,

 

So you want to use Islam as your yardstick in this discussion yet at the same time want to ‘utilise’ political systems?

 

You will need to disentangle that little web for me, saaxib. I’m utterly confounded by your logic here.

 

 

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by NGONGE:

We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions.

Saaxib you had me nodding in agreement all the way till the last sentence. I do not accept this statement of yours if by

holding an opinion

you mean publishing it in a daily newspaper. I can hold an opinion all I want but when I walk up to someone's face and share that opinion with them, I better be damn sure they will not be offended by it, and if they are, I should be ready, willing and able to accept the consequences. Being offended by a faith does not give one the right to offend the faithful of that faith. Similarly, being offended by a lifestyle, race or color of a person does not mean I have the right to offend that person.

My desire to offend directly conflicts with his desire not be offended.

 

Edited: There is a risk of provocation we all take by exercising our free speech. That's where the gray matter lies.

Why should you make sure that someone would not be offended by your opinions or views? What’s there to stop you? Manners? Etiquette? Religious rules?

 

What if you don’t have manners, don’t care for etiquette and don’t adhere to any religion? What will stop you then? Ah! You alluded to ‘consequences’! What sort of consequences are we talking here? Will we huff and puff and blow their house in? Surely that’s illegal! What are the consequences and why should they matter to someone that expressed an opinion/view (in whatever form they wished) that whilst distasteful, was/is within the limits of law?

 

In the case of the cartoons, the objections people had were twofold. First, we as Muslims objected to a picture of our prophet being drawn. Our faith forbids it. We’re rightfully offended that someone dared to draw these cartoons. However, since that someone is not a member of our faith, the prohibition of drawing such cartoons does not apply to him/her. We can be offended but since the ‘criminal’ and ‘crime’ took place in non-Muslim lands, we can’t (for now) realistically seek to gag the offender. The second objection (offence) is what those cartoons attempted to imply. The turban shaped as a bomb was not the subtlest of hints, the painter wished to communicate the opinion that Islam is a terrorist faith! This opinion/view/idea is not a new one in the Western media. It’s been implied, asserted and discussed for the past thirty years (and more). It was not picked up on then, why is it now? One can only conclude that it’s really the cartoons and not what they imply that are irking all the protestors. This conclusion is strengthened when one hears about the ironic threats of bombings, revenge and violent retribution.

 

Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right?

 

Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)!

 

If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Khayer

,

 

 

Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right?

 

Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)!

 

If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on.

'Liberterian Freedom' saxib are not the reason d'etre of our existence in this world-remember that ALWAYS and don't be confused, saxib.

 

In anycase, as a muslims we don't have to Edit, omit anything from our texts because our mandate is From HEAVEN and not from liberal democracies.

 

To be con'td....gotta run

[MR ORGILAQE]

In anycase, as a muslims we don't have to Edit, omit anything from our texts because our mandate is From HEAVEN and not from liberal democracies.

 

Way to go KHAYR ....no argument there

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Khayr:

quote:Originally posted by NGONGE:

Khayer,

 

 

Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right?

 

Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)!

 

If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on.

'Liberterian Freedom'

saxib are not the reason d'etre of our existence in this world-remember that ALWAYS and don't be confused, saxib.

 

In anycase, as a muslims we don't have to Edit, omit anything from our texts because our mandate is From HEAVEN and not from liberal democracies.

 

To be con'td....gotta run

Curtailing freedoms is not the WORST PUNISHMENT

that you can receive-to the muslim, because we are not created for the dunya, rather the akhira and that inshallah is our aim-we come from Allah and to Him we return!

 

Curtailing freedoms is a Liberal minded, liberal world view of Grave Sin and/or the WORSE PUNISHMENT that you can receive in this life, according to the modern day POPULAR SENTINMENT (What the majority of people feel)

 

If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws?

You are confusing yourself and others, saxib.

 

Unlimited Pluarlism is not what the Muslim has to or should accept (at least in their mind and hear) b/c that would mean that the Haram can be Halal and the Halal to be Haram, all in the name of 'Protecting our piece of the pie'.

 

As a Muslim and to remain true to my deen and convictions, I don't have to ACCEPT in my MIND and HEART Pluralistic/Liberal Ideals e.g. Freedoms.

 

In anycase,

 

the Muslim is to exercise CAUTION and WISDOM and inshallah do what is WISE and that which is in line with the Islamic tradition and not act hastily and/or call for Reformation of their deen to fit Popular Sentiments.

 

O ye who believe! Persevere in patience and constancy;in such perseverance; strengthen each other; and fear Allah; that ye may prosper.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on.

Well articulated argument saaxib. I'm afraid, though, that I'm no more convinced than I was some days ago. You see, the balance between rights has been disturbed saaxib, and I know you'd like to carry this discussion to higher level than the particular issue of cartoons but I'm afraid you will fail. You will fail because in this environment where muslims are, literally, under seige saaxib, it matters not what medium the offences came in. That they are offensive is not even in dispute here. The real question is, have the existing laws in certain countries been shown to be outdated and inadequate to deal with the current state of the world. One where plurality and multiculturlism are the norm. This was hate speech and the laws need to catch up to that. Not everything can enjoy the protection of freedom of speech. That's an invitation to nihilism and its quite a dire state to be in.

 

I'll leave it at that.

[Baashi]

^Very well put Castro.

 

My understanding is that deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence. There is an understanding, in the US system, that the force of speech can be a form of action that effects and can harm people. In this view government is justified to sanction the harmful effects of speech through courts.

 

That doesn’t mean that authorities can restrict speech or regulate the content of speech. What it means is that they can employ the laws that are already in the books to protect identifiable groups from discrimination which is the end result of hate speeches. The use of laws through libel and slander can and do sanction the harmful effects of speech.

 

Defamation, degradation, and incitement to hatred against minority groups through free speech do more than express ideas, rather this offence often results murder and promotes intolerance. Government has compelling interest in sanctioning words/cartoons and other expressions of speech deemed to express hatred or contempt toward identifiable groups such as Muslims.

 

In Islamic view speech is regulated by the divine Qurán and the teachings of the prophet. The understanding is that macruuf is the desirable speech whereas all other forms of speech that don’t fall under macruuf is simply munkar. This should be the standard in the Muslim countries.

 

Now west and Islamic polities are different in many ways. They have different world outlook. A Westerner in Islamic country is expected to abide the rules of that country and vice versa. Muslims who are under the domain of secular authority where freedom of expression is absolute should understand that odds are stacked against them and only contest the provocation of others when the laws warrant such action.

 

Muslims who are under the domain of secular authority where freedom of speech is sanctioned such as US should use UCLA and Anti-Defamation league as well to safeguard their interests and values and get protection from criminal offences such as hate speeches.

 

Ciao

[STOIC]

Khayr, I understand your argument about Islam being inflexible (I hope Ngonge does it too), but you failed to convince us how you want to live among a society that doesn't understand your religion without making an effort to fight through their established laws. I don't think if any one is arguing for a change within Islam (at least not in this thread). Today in the western world the limit of freedom of speech is one of the obstacles that we are finding to be alien to our Islamic principles. Ngonge, clearly made it sure that his argument seeped inside our mind, I totally agreed with his argument (I think you will do the same if you print his long paragraphs and perhaps read it by dissecting his argument).

[NGONGE]

Khayer,

 

You’ve given me two incomprehensible responses there, saaxib. Take your time, read my words and try to deal with them in the context they were posted in. Spare the bravado to your visits to the Danish discussion forums. My aim here is to discuss a problem that affects you and me as Muslims. I want to think of solutions to cope with and deal with such situations. I’m not here to question your faith or try to persuade you to abandon it. So, please, be the good mullah that you’ve always been and afford me the benefit of the doubt despite what your messed up instincts tell you.

 

Castro,

 

You chose to deal with the Danish issue being a form of hate speech but ignored my example of the hadeeth! If you have a law that stops the Danes from mocking your faith, that law will also apply to you PRACTISING your faith. Was I not clear there? Explain to me how could you conceivably stop a Jew or Christians from using that exact law that you demand, and taking any Muslim Imam to court for reciting a few verses from the Koran, which are not complimentary to Jews or Christians? It can’t be done.

 

The Danes and others flaunt their freedom of speech and insist upon having their say but that right (when all is said and done) is not that important to them (the right to offend Muslims I mean). It’s, at most, a luxury the law provides them with. In our case and our ‘hate’ speeches they’re, for the most part, an obligation or at least a big part of our faith (a non-Muslim would regard some of our Islamic traditions and sayings as hate speeches).

 

When the anger abates, this is what we’ll be left with, saaxib!

 

 

The realistic and very imminent danger is that we’ll reject the bird we’ve got in our hand. Attempt to catch the two in the tree but end up having our shooting guns confiscated!

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

You chose to deal with the Danish issue being a form of hate speech but ignored my example of the hadeeth!

The omission was no accident saaxib. Though the issues are not unrelated, I'm afraid considering it in this context amounts to muddying the waters. And what makes you think the west is not hard at work writing legislation that would ban such hadeeths? When, not if, they do ban them, and we hadn't created laws to protect our sensibilities from such rubbish as the cartoons, that will be the ultimate loss and probably time to leave the west.