Religious hatred bill

[Pi]

Castro: How does it amount to muddying the waters? Pull your sleeves up and explain exactly what you mean. I for one have no answer to NGONGE's argument, but you seem reluctant to admit that. I thought about it long and hard, but to no luck. The Hadeeth about the Jews being killed during the end of time, and, that even that nature will work against them is something some jews, might (and are likely) to find offensive. So what do we do? To each his own? If you cry when you are "offended" (do you see how grey this "becoming offended" is), then others will cry too when they are "offended". This is just one example of what other might possibly find offensive. There are a lot of other examples. Just today at the Jum'ah prayer, the Imam was cursing the jews, and asking Allah to rip them apart and destroy them. And this cursing the jews buiseness is not rare or strange during friday prayers. It's quite common. So what now?

 

NGONGE: I'll think a little bit more about what you wrote, but for now, I have no choice but to accept your argument.

 

P.S. I actually looked up the hadith and it is saheeh and quite popular. So my feeling that it was just something a fanatic concocted did not hold. It's a prophetic saying.

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Look here walaayal,

 

Times have changed and each and everyone of us, if we have that conviction, will be tested; in some form of fashion.

 

The question will be DO you have enough IMAN to do what is WISE and RIGHT and in line with the Islamic Tradition or will comprimse for raaho iyo caano for the kids.

 

Stoic,

 

I am not on here to CONVINCE anyone or change their ATTITUDES. Convictions are not for Debating for the sake of Debating. Inshallah, my role as a muslim is to stay true to my deen, stay true to my conviction and judge things. I am stating what are my CONVICTIONS and Alhamdulillah for that. Convictions based upon the Islamic Tradition.

I'm not even talking about action here but CONVICTION in the Heart. As the ayat says (I think its sura al-shuara (the poets), correct me if I am wrong) that you can't have TWO QALBS/TWO HEARTS. Thats whats at stake here.

 

The word of God is Supreme and if it isn't we believe that it SHOULD BE - Conviction in our hearts.

 

No amount of sanctions, threatens, bombs etc. can change it,if your CONVICTION, your Allegiance to Allah and his Rasul (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) are TRUE, inshallah.

 

Fi Amanillah

[Castro]

Originally posted by Zero:

Castro: How does it amount to muddying the waters?

It involves introspection and the dreaded word of "reform" in Islam. Another issue discussed ad nauseam around here. One that goes beyond matters of free speech, hate speech and other issues the societies we live in deal with.

[Pi]

Huh? Castro, man, you are either lazy or sophistical. Your comment is either not germane (irrelevant) or it is too vague. The gist of the debate is that becoming offended is relative. You can't possibly disagree.

[Castro]

^ No, the gist of the debate is where is the line between free speech and freedom from hatred. The relativity of offensiveness is the obvious part. And do humor me by looking at what I said and not what I am. I am proud of my laziness, among my other fine attributes.

[Pi]

Castro, you are still dancing to a dead tune. Take your dancing hat off and put down your cane, dude. Let me say it in a different way. The line between Freedom of Speech and Incitement of Hatred (either offense is sub-category of hate or hate is a sub-category of offense. Take your pick. I dont like playing with semantics) is vague or blurry. But do you know why? Freedom of speech is clear: say whatever you want, in whatever words you desire, and whenever you want. What creates the fog and mist in our view is the Hatred/Offense. It's because the hatred/offending (or becoming offended)/discriminating/enflaming that is RELATIVE. You'd probably aruge, how the hell can hatred be relative or blurry, its clear as daylight. Go back to the hadith NGONGE referred to and place yourself in the shoes of a jew. Very simple. We cant possibly expect to be afforded the right to say certain things about certain faiths and peoples, and then expect others not to be granted the same right. There can be no DOUBLE STANDARD in the freedom of expression. Can you live with not being able to practise your religon?

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Zero:

Castro, you are still dancing to a dead tune. Take your dancing hat off and put down your cane, dude. Let me say it in a different way. The line between

Freedom of Speech

and

Incitement of Hatred

(either offense is sub-category of hate or hate is a sub-category of offense. Take your pick. I dont like playing with semantics) is vague or blurry. But do you know why? Freedom of speech is clear: say whatever you want, in whatever words you desire, and whenever you want. What creates the fog and mist in our view is the Hatred/Offense. It's because the hatred/offending (or becoming offended)/discriminating/enflaming that is RELATIVE. You'd probably aruge, how the hell can hatred be relative or blurry, its clear as daylight. Go back to the hadith NGONGE referred to and place yourself in the shoes of a jew. Very simple. We cant possibly expect to be afforded the right to say certain things about certain faiths and peoples, and then expect others not to be granted the same right. There can be no

DOUBLE STANDARD

in the freedom of expression. Can you live with not being able to practise your religon?

If I could interject here: Zero, the hadeeth in question is not an apt example. The hadeeth in question talks of events that WILL happen as the Day of Judgement nears not what SHOULD happen - the latter which could be seen as offensive. Christians believe that as Judgement Day approaches many Jews will convert to Christianity and be saved but most will perish and go to hell. Is that hate speech? Hardly. The cartoons in question made the statement that the Prophet(PBUH) was terrorist bomber, misygonist and other things. That can be clearly seen as offensive as opposed to a scenario in the future in which Jews don't even believe in. Let's do a mind experiment: If I believe all Chinese people WILL perish and be killed before the Day of Judgement comes - is that offensive, no. If I believe all Chinese SHOULD perish and be killed before the Day of Judegment comes - that is offensive.

 

And one hadeeth can hardly be the whole of the religion, no?

[Pi]

^^^ How many people have purchased the dunce cap from dollar stores and thrift outlets. ThePoint is donning one too. This is outrageous.

 

If I am a jew, and a muslim tells me that my people will perish, I will start fuming, cussing, frothing, and I'll wreak verbal havoc on them. Afterall, from where I am sitting this is his/her (the muslim) opinion. So imagine if the muslim adds: not only will the jews perish (something I would find offensive and tasteless) but they will perish at the hands of muslims! At this point, my body temperature would go through the roof, and my face would exhibit all the colors of the rainbow, turning from red to blue to green. Naturally, this would be a manisfestation of the storm raging inside of me. But the muslim has more to tell me: not only will I perish and perish at his hands, on top of that, even nature itself will abet and aid the muslim in exterminating me(trees and rocks will divulge my hiding place).

 

What Jew would not be offended by such an opinion. Still, there should be complete freedom of religion and speech. I can say that to the jew himself or in my sermons, and the jew should have the right to say whatever he wants in response to that (insults, caricatures etc).

 

Seriously, if you cant refute an argument, grant it a tentative acceptance. Dont make a fool out of yourself. Geez!

[Castro]

^ I'm afraid the clarity of vision and the ease with which you see the simplicity of this issue has eluded the legal and legislative branches of many a western nations. That you find Ngonge's argument enlightening is good, but to assume (incorrectly, of course) that it is the last word on this issue is mighty naive atheer. So, and I'll say this again in case you have comprehension issues, there is a line that freedom of speech cannot transgress against. That line is where other freedoms (freedom from harrasment and insults) begin to be infringed upon.

 

You said you were going to think more about this, no? Go ahead.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Zero:

^^^ How many people have purchased the

dunce cap

from dollar stores and thrift outlets. ThePoint is donning one too. This is outrageous.

 

If I am a jew, and a muslim tells me that my people will perish, I will start fuming, cussing, frothing, and I'll wreak verbal havoc on them. Afterall, from where I am sitting this is his/her (the muslim) opinion. So imagine if the muslim adds: not only will the jews perish (something I would find offensive and tasteless) but they will perish at the hands of muslims! At this point, my body temperature would go through the roof, and my face would exhibit all the colors of the rainbow, turning from red to blue to green. Naturally, this would be a manisfestation of the storm raging inside of me. But the muslim has more to tell me: not only will I perish and perish at his hands, on top of that, even nature itself will abet and aid the muslim in exterminating me(trees and rocks will divulge my hiding place).

 

What Jew would not be offended by such an opinion. Still, this is our religion, I should be able to say it, and he should be able to say whatever he wants.

 

Seriously, if you cant refute an argument, grant it a tentative acceptance. Dont make a fool out of yourself. Geez!

Sir, just make your argument and refrain from the insults. By definition - Muslims and Christians believe that those of religions other than theirs will perish except those saved by God. Does that Jews fume/mad/froth etc? Does that make the average Chinese or Hindu fume/mad/froth etc? Hardly - they simply don't beleive in it. Are you offended when a Christian tells you that you are damned - I am not - I grant them the right to believe whatever they wish to believe. Most religions have an exclusivity/monopoly on the truth/future - that's part of it.

 

Check: If a white guy tells you blacks, including you, are gonna perish - are you gonna fume/froth etc.? Most people wouldn't - they would simply dismiss it since they don't believe in it - and if you are going to fume/froth then there are serious emotional issues there.

 

Additionally, don't presume unknowns for the hadeeth - Muslims will be among those killing them - but we don't know if they will be the only ones killing them. And as to nature that is also part of the prophecy. How is this prophecy different from the Armageddon of Chrisitians - in which everyone else is damned and perishes except them? Do you see non-Christians parading around being offended by that belief system - no - because religious belief is granted the leeway to advocate its view of the future. Your comments are not consistent. And your comparison of the hadeeth and the cartoons is similarly inconsistent and wrong.

[Pi]

Castro, I must you say you dont look too unseemly or ungainly in a dunce cap. Oh well, I'll flick the light on more time, and if you still think the room is pitch dark, then I can't help you. You'll have to see a seasoned Opthamalogist, dude.

 

You stated that I overlooked the nuances and nicities of "legal and legislative" laws and procedures in some western countries. Could you have been anymore obscure? Could you have been any more off the mark? Well, I think you surpassed this slap-dash statment with another flimsy one. Apparently, it is naivete and comprehension issues (I thought NGONGE had patents on this phrase, I was tempted to use it with you and ThePoint ) that are handicapping my ability to understand your moot point.

 

Again- please, please, please- dont be afraid to accept something "tentatively" (do you think my use of this word is accidental? and here you are telling me that NGONGE's argument is not the last word. What do you think tentative means?) if you cannot argue against it. What you seem to be doing is not arguing for or against anything. You're just making preposterously vague statements that even you dont understand. Its the second time I am asking you if you can actually explain your words. But no, you cant, how can you explain something you dont understand? Aint gonna happen, Comrade.

 

EDIT:- ThePoint, take off the dunce cap. Really, just for a breif minute. Take it off!

 

P.S. That's my last say on this topic. Any further attempts to explain a crystal clear point will not bear any fruits.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Zero:

Castro, I must you say you dont look too unseemly or ungainly in a

dunce cap

. Oh well, I'll flick the light on more time, and if you still think the room is pitch dark, then I can't help you. You'll have to see a seasoned Opthamalogist, dude.

 

You stated that I overlooked the nuances and nicities of "legal and legislative" laws and procedures in some western countries. Could you have been anymore obscure? Could you have been any more off the mark? Well, I think you surpassed this slap-dash statment with another flimsy one. Apparently, it is naivete and comprehension issues (I thought

NGONGE

had patents on this phrase, I was tempted to use it with you and

ThePoint

) that are handicapping my ability to understand your moot point.

 

Again- please, please, please- dont be afraid to accept something "tentatively" (do you think my use of this word is accidental? and here you are telling me that NGONGE's argument is not the last word. What do you think tentative means?) if you cannot argue against it. What you seem to be doing is not arguing for or against anything. You're just making preposterously vague statements that even you dont understand. Its the second time I am asking you if you can actually explain your words. But no, you cant, how can you explain something you dont understand? Aint gonna happen, Comrade.

 

EDIT:-

ThePoint, take off the dunce cap. Really, just for a breif minute. Take it off!

 

P.S. That's my last say on this topic. Any further attempts to explain a crystal clear point will not bear any fruits.

The true dunce is one who sees the real or imagined 'dunce caps' of others but fails to see his own. Retreat is defeat. See Ya!

[Castro]

Originally posted by Zero:

P.S. That's my last say on this topic. Any further attempts to explain a crystal clear point will not bear any fruits.

You went from "I'll think a little bit more about what you wrote" to "accept something 'tentatively'" to the "crystal clear" statement above in a matter of two hours. You are indeed what the world needs. Go on to achieve great things and may the force be with you.

[Johnny B]

It is about time we bring the issue into perspective, so much yelling for the following cartoons haven´t surfaced for a well founded reason.

 

Enjoy it my fellow countrymen and women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

In this cartoon, from Al-Watan (Oman) (August 10, 2002), Jewish acts are equated with those of the Nazis. This Nazi-type anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew has a hooked nose, a hunched back, has no shoes, and is sweating. "

[Blessed]

^Those cartoons aren't of prophets, are they?

 

Besides, the issue is not about insults on Muslims and Islamic ideology and vice versa(that’s a daily sport in the media). We are upset with the depiction and attack of the person of Muhammed (saw).

 

 

As far as Britain is concerned, I’m glad that Jack Straw publicly highlighted the differences between the freedom of speech and the obligation to insult. If only his peers agreed, eh?