A film named 'Innocence of Muslims' ignating rage across muslim world

[AfricaOwn]

Apophis;869438 wrote:

Atheists maybe loud and annoying (to the faithful) but rarely raise a hand to 'defend atheism', which is good, wouldn't you say?

.

There is nothing for them to defend, they stand for nothing wouldn't you say?

[AfricaOwn]

Apophis;869673 wrote:

They stand for what many human beings stand for and value: reason, logic and scientific evidence. These are good things, wouldn't you say?

So in your opinions morality is objective...which is not tied to God?

[N.O.R.F]

What is freedom of speach?

 

How did it come about?

 

Why?

 

The 19th century British philosopher and thinker, John Stuart Mill argued that the main basic justification of freedom of speech is that truth is advanced in the competition of ideas, and that the competition of ideas can only occur within liberty. From this justification the following objectives of freedom of speech have been discussed by thinkers:

 

- acquisition of knowledge,

- acknowledgement truth,

- accounting governments and individuals,

- intellectual and scientific progress.

 

Conversely, neo-liberal thinkers seem to deny their own tradition, and exclaim that insults, bad language and degradation is necessary for the achievement of the objectives of freedom of speech. Under scrutiny, this perspective is self-defeating and is uncivilised.

 

Taking the recent disgraceful insults and degradation of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) as an example, it can be argued that it defeats the very justification and objectives of the liberal notion of freedom of speech. Freedom to insult which includes the use of degrading language and visual obscenities actually contradicts the very foundation of freedom of speech. For example, in order to acquire truth and facilitate progress good argumentation is required, and this argumentation must be couched in human language. Insulting and using degrading language or imagery does not facilitate truth and progress. Imagine, the physicist Stephen Hawking explaining String Theory using pornographic imagery or President Obama swearing during his inaugural address.

 

Accounting governments and individuals also requires good argumentation. If I were to go up to Tony Blair or George Bush and use vile language would I successfully bring them to account? Of course I wouldn't. In order for me to do so I would need to articulate a positive case against their crimes and injustices. With these, and there are many other examples, insults and degradation defeats the very objectives of speech.

 

Therefore, if freedom to insult actually negates the objectives of freedom of speech, then shouldn't freedom to insult be restricted? [Obviously there must be conditions to this and it is in the context of achieving the objectives of speech. Also, there are many restrictions to speech in secular liberal nations, for example there are libel laws, product defamation laws, hate speech laws, noise pollution etc. So logically freedom of speech doesn't really exist! What exists is speech or expression in the context of law and society's values - this is a more coherent definition.)

 

The recent video of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) has not achieved any of the objectives of freedom of speech. It has just gone against the very moral norms of both traditions, East and West. It is a pathetic display of immorality, an explicit unwillingness to engage in intellectual discussion and an expression of unjustified hatred.

 

IERA

[Isra]

^ We can't forget that this video was not sponsored by a state...it's the actions of an individual! A criminal of all things! I will always go back and say that the blame lies with Arab media for peddling this story and making this obscure meaningless video an important thing. How many countless videos are online that horrifyingly racist or anti-Semitic?!

 

I always felt something was very wrong with some of the Libyan population after that awful display of Gadafi's body that people were viewing like a museum artifact! Wouldn't be surprised if that article Ibtisam posted is true..

[GaraadMon]

It has been narrated on the authority of al-Bara' b. 'Azib who said: 'Ali b. Abu Talib penned the treaty between the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and the polytheists on the Day of Hudaibiya. He wrote: This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, has settled. They (the polytheists) said: Do not write words" the Messenger of Allah". If we knew that you were the Messenger of Allah, we would not fight against you. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ali: Strike out these words. He (Ali) said: I am not going to strike them out. So the Prophet (may peace be upon him) struck them out with his own hand. The narrator said that the conditions upon which the two sides had agreed included that the Muslims would enter Mecca (next year) and would stay there for three days, and that they would not enter bearing arms except in their sheaths or bolsters.

I've always interpereted this hadith as essentially saying to 'save face'.

 

أذلة على المؤمنين أعزة على الكافرين

"...humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers..."

[Qur'an 5:54]

@Rumaysah. Who here actually supports the propogation of this video? Is telling Muslims to not raise a violent mob at every insult considered to be non-humble?. There's nothing about the order of critisism being assigned in that verse. Most people operate under the idea that self-criticism is essential before criticising others. All you've done is twist a verse to remove accountablity from 1 billion + people.

[Jacpher]

Apophis;869597 wrote:

My point was/is everybody should have freedom of speech

Except the "young bearded Arab looking men"

[Jacpher]

^If they ain't good "law abiding citizens" then why would you support the curtailment of their rights?

[GaroweGal]

The whole thing is stu.pid and odd. The movie was released in July yet now there are protests. Also it was a low budget lame youtube video, it shouldn't even register on Muslim minds. All these protests has tarnished the image of Islam/Muslims yet again and given more support to the far right wing movements in the west.

[Mario B]

GaroweGal;870010 wrote:

The whole thing is stu.pid and odd. The movie was released in July yet now there are protests. Also it was a low budget lame youtube video, it shouldn't even register on Muslim minds. All these protests has tarnished the image of Islam/Muslims yet again and given more support to the far right wing movements in the west.

I couldn't agree with you more! Morons like him should never be given oxygen of publicity. Who would have heard of Salman Rushdie if it wasn't for Khoeimeni's fatwa.

[N.O.R.F]

Apophis;869770 wrote:

What a load of nonsense.

 

This, is as valid as

 

This

 

Both are forms of free speech and should be protected.

Try stating why its nonsense.

[Cara.]

Because the author suffers from the strange perception that "free speech" is something some Western philosopher invented and that it needs justifying. No, CURTAILING free speech needs justifying, because it's a basic human right. Protecting violent mobs from having their feelings hurt is not reason to curtail a basic human right.

[UZTAAD]

different groups are using this film for their own ends, such as alqaeda,salif groups etc to get more supporters . and the ignorant masses are being manipulated. some need a fuel to continue in their business

[N.O.R.F]

Cara.;870193 wrote:

Because the author suffers from the strange perception that "free speech" is something some Western philosopher invented and that it needs justifying. No, CURTAILING free speech needs justifying, because it's a basic human right. Protecting violent mobs from having their feelings hurt is not reason to curtail a basic human right.

Not sure how one concludes the author believes a western philosopher invented freedom of speech from that but anyway, his points were a) the original purpose of free speech was for the advancement of society and to hold governments to account b) speech containing insults and degradation doesn’t achieve the objectives of free speech c) there is no ‘free’ speech due to the existing defamation and hate speech laws (free speech is already curtailed). Do you disagree with that?

 

Now, what is the difference between say this video insulting the prophet CSWS (I haven’t seen it but let’s assume it is insulting) and The Sun newspaper defaming Joe Bloggs and being sued for it (a regular occurance)?

[Raamsade]

There is a silver lining in all this mayhem. These deranged mobs running amuck are putting off a lot of Muslims which wasn't the case 10 or 20 years ago. This suggests there is slow but clearly discernable acceptance of the sanctity of freedom of speech by Muslims. This augurs well for the future.

 

But we got a long way to go till many in the Muslim world realize that just because something offends you doesn't mean you have a right to go on murdern and mayhem frenzy. I get offended all the time when girls refuse to go out with me and I think it is my inviolable human right to neck pretty ankles... in fact my life will be demonstrably better if I had more luck with the ladies. My offense at being rejected doesn't, however, give me carte blanche to act like demented physcho.

[Cara.]

^But you do anyway

 

Norf, so sue the filmmaker. Of course, the court may throw the case out because you won't be able to demonstrate defamation of YOUR character, but I'd wager the jury would feel more sympathy for you than for the nutter that made the film.

 

And saying "the original purpose of free speech" misses the point entirely. The laws protecting free speech are meant to prevent the government from censoring free expression of the citizenry.

 

If you have a problem with another citizen's self-expression, many options are available to you:

 

1. If they are in your home you can kick them, and call the police if they refuse to leave.

 

2. If they are on TV you can change the channel, then call the TV company to threaten to cut your subscription until they improve the broadcasts. Money talks, after all.

 

3. If it's a close friend you can sever ties with them. They were rubbish anyway.

 

4. If you believe that what they are saying does actual harm to you (turning potential employers against you, for example), you can take them to court. I think the UK even has fairly strict anti-libel/defamation laws, so you're golden!

 

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??