Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Forever-KA

@Forever-KA

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#111

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Even I agree that Freedom of Speech is not absolute and I myself enlisted the four limitations to that freedom. But something cannot be banned just because you are offended. People can be offended by anything..People belonging to other religions can be offended when you say "There is No God but Allah" or when a Christian says "Jesus Christ is the only true Lord and Savior"... So should we ban your right to worship Allah or Jesus exclusively because it offends polytheists, Buddhists, atheists etc?

Racism is not same as offending religious sentiments..If someone were to say "Kill all Muslims" or "Muslims should be stripped of all their rights" that would have been hate speech because it targets people - and I would have opposed that in the same fashion I oppose racism. We need to make distinction between people and ideology. Criticism/mockery of religion attacks ideologies/doctrines/dogmas (and perhaps dead Prophets and mythological figures too) whereas racism/holocaust issues attack real living humans and that's why they are listed among hate speech. Attacking Islam is not same as attacking Muslims, no matter how personally Muslims take it. Similarly, attacking Judaism is not same as attacking Jews and the same is true for all other religions too. While Holocaust denial might not be an acceptable behavior in Europe, there is no prohibition on criticism of Judaism.

And if we are to ban all works that insult people's religions, and in case we are sincere in our endeavor, the first book that needs to be banned is Quran itself (followed by Hadiths). I am yet to come across a single work or publication that insults other religions and their followers the way Quran does..Quran openly and repeatedly insults the non-Muslims, calls them names, curses them, threatens them of consequences, condemns them to hell..More specifically it calls Jews as children of pigs and monkeys, calls Christians ignorant and foolish, it exhorts Muslims to fight polytheists and idolaters; smite their necks, chop of their limbs until they convert to Islam or pay Jizya, and also provides graphic details of the non-Muslim's fate in hell - that includes impalement, disembowelment, how their intestines would be boiled or how Allah is going to provide them additional skin to prolong their suffering in everlasting hell fire..

Muslim (Book #041, Hadith #6985)
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

If this isn't hate speech, what is!! Can you find another work that is more hate-mongering, more bigoted than the Holy Quran itself? Now tell me, what's your "ultimate argument" on this? If Quran with all its verses preaching hate and bigotry is allowed, why can't we allow other works that are pallid in comparison?

1- You either did not understand my point or you do not have a proper answer. You keep deviating from the point I am making. There is already restriction on freedom of speech based on sentiments of people. Just because it is not there for some sentiments or the type of setiments are different (based on events, personal traits) does not mean it is not there. If we estbalish that then there should be restriction on such acts also which like or not do hurt sentiments of many.

2- The Hadees is part of a prophecy and not an incitement. I do not have full knowledge now but if I am correct it is that an anti-christ will come followed by christ and the world will divide into two camps. There will be fights between the two and the day of judgement will be the day when the anti-christ movement will be in defeat. It is not talking about killing Jews. Jews here refers to anti christ camp. You are free to not believe it but dont present it as something promoting violence.

Similarly verses from Quran have also been manipulated. A verse that people quote says do not be friends with non-Muslims. Few sentences below it says be equitable to non-Muslims. The former was part of an wahi (message) to Muslims of that time not to be friends with non-Muslims who they were fighting. It is NOT a message asking do not be friends with non-Muslims.

3- Finally, there are thousands of Hadees and not all are authentic. Some are lesser Hadees meaning they were not validated. Some contraditcs others. The true hadees is the one which does not contradict Quran. We need to study things in context. If I believe you then there are billions of Muslims who not good Muslims as they are not doing what you suggest Quran asks them to do.

In conclusion. By your methodology of copy and pasting and taking things out of context I too can paint any religion/faith/viewpoint as violent. Please go and do a proper study. Since your accusations were serious I tried to explain a little. However it is taking lot of time right now.

This will be my final post here. Hopefully lol.

P.S Saw your post below BTV. I do not disagree much except for some point. Maybe would clarify some other time. Enough right now. lol. Thanks

Edited by King-Anu - 13 years ago

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#112

@ King-Anu and to-an-extent Aya (since I started this discussion with you about criticisms of religion):

- This particular movie may have crossed its line, ridiculed and mocked people's sentiments, and abused freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is really a big issue in the Muslim community and most Muslim countries. Will you deny it? Any views critical to Islam is generally deemed with the utmost disdain. How many people can write a book deconstructing prophet Muhammad's character and get away with it?
Yet Richard Dawkins has been a harsh critic of religions, mostly Christianity, but he did not have to face the same consequence for voicing his views that someone like Taslima Nasreen or Hirsi had to face. You keep saying all religions/nations have some issues but fail to see that CURRENTLY, freedom of speech/expression against religions is the biggest issue in mostly Muslim communities.
This is the aspect that you keep dodging or ignoring.

I am not blaming Islam or the average Muslims for it. YET, the fact that these atrocities were committed by Muslims can't be denied. So it's time for the peace-loving Muslims, the ones who says "Islam gives the right to freedom of speech and such action against anyone is not justified" to come forward and try to end this. Not only are people critical of Islam being harmed, but Muslims are getting the bad-name as well. The outside world perceives Muslims are extremely sensitive to criticisms and violent people - and after this, can you blame them for their views?

If Muslims wish to change the world's view about them, wish to be respected, then they have to come forward and respect and entertain the views of others who are critical of their religion.
If they wish to show Islam as a tolerant religion, then they ought to tolerate views critical of Islam as well.

- There is a limit or extent to which you can go without offending others sentiments. It's not possible to state a view critical to religion or religious beliefs that will not offend at least one member of the religious community. Firstly, offense is a very subjective and relative concept, and different people will have different tolerance level as well as threshold. Some people will be offended at pretty much anything you utter - does it mean we should not speak at all?

There are times when you have to state your views against religions / their interpretations and law derived from religions. When people can justify burning widows, honor killings, child marriage, discriminatory acts etc by their respective religious texts, it's only acceptable that people will voice against these atrocities, and that means being critical of the religious texts or its interpretation. Sometimes criticisms are but the only option people have.

You can sugar-coat your sentences, wrap it up with euphemisms, do your best to say your words in a way that does not offend anyone - but, unfortunately, if the content of your post is critical of religion, then someone or the other will be offended. There is very little you can do about it. This is why criticisms against religions should be valid, no matter who gets offended.

As long as a person can put down his views in an academic manner, like lawyers debate in a court, his views should be valid. If that means being critical of prophet Muhammad and his marriage to Ayesha - so be it. If that means being critical of Jesus Christ and his ideologies- then so be it. If that means being critical of Ram and his behavior to Sita, then so be it.

That does not mean badmouthing a religion, treating it like a dirt in public etc can be justified. I have already given the example, but Zakir Naik, until he started shooting hate speeches against gays and others, was welcome to give his views. He has been critical of others religions, and often even harshly - but in an academic manner - critiqued various religious scriptures, calling Hinduism a mythology, deconstructed the character of Ram, other religious figures, called gays criminal, unnatural etc. Most of his views were welcomed with open arms.

Going by that logic, shouldn't a non-Muslim's or ex-Muslim's views be welcomed too? Yet you have people like Taslima Nasreen who had been exiled from her country mostly because of religious criticisms. Is that not hypocritical, on one hand applauding Zakir's criticism against non-Islamic religions, but shunning people who critiques Islam?

- "Western societies having issues", "other religions also being violent", etc - how does that make problems within the Muslim community disappear? Does "Islamic societies having issues" make problems with western societies disappear? No, right? Two wrongs don't make a right.

- I agree that the Qu'ran burning in public was a disrespectful, insensitive, uncivilized and mostly unproductive act. I can't justify it because not only is it insensitive and disrespectful to a number of people, but it is also doesn't help the world in any way. Also, people who claims themselves to be so tolerant and "better than these religious fanatics" should not be behaving like fanatics or uncivilized people themselves. Academically critiquing the Quran is a much better option - and far more productive too - than burning it.

- Finally, this movie, no matter how offensive, cannot really be equal to taking someone's life. I would say the same thing had it been a movie making fun of the Holocaust, Jesus, gays, Americans, even my parents. Peaceful resolution is the way, and if that does not work, then issue need to be taken to court - putting "fatwas" on killing people who utters a word against their prophet is not how a peaceful religion or its members are supposed to work. 😊 Again by punishing people violently who utters a word against their religions, the Muslim community is only making itself look violent and intolerant. They are doing disservice to their own community.
(Again I don't blame all Muslims for that).

Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 13 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

344471

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#113

@ King-Anu (based on your last post):

- Firstly, just because someone may hold a different view about a religion than what you do, does not automatically mean the person has not done a thorough study about the religion. Can one not read a scripture and not be honestly critical of it? How do you know he was intentionally misquoting / misinterpreting / maligning the religion? What is up with religious people (mostly Christians and Muslims from my limited experience) who keep saying "STOP TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT" or "stop copy/pasting things from fancy Hadeeths" or simply "Study the religion properly before copy/pasting from anti-Islamic sites"?. Not everyone is intentionally misquoting Islam/any religion. Some may indeed be ignorant about the context, and in that case it is better to educate the person (like you did here) than simply say "You are putting things out of context". This is more of a point in general.

- Thanks for clarifying. Sounds much better now.

- If not everything in the Qu'ran is not a message for all time, then it only make sense that EACH and EVERYTHING of the Qu'ran can't be followed in the 21st century because some aspects were for its time only. Same goes for the Bible, Geeta, Torah and other scriptures. BTW, is it mentioned clearly and unambiguously which parts are universal and which parts are contextual? If no, then people who wish to deviate from what is in the Qu'ran can do so without deeming it as an UnIslamic act - so long that they are not harming anyone. I hope you get my point.

Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 13 years ago

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#114

Originally posted by: King-Anu
This is what I understood lol. I am still curious

a) My posts are like ranibow meaning expressing different colors. However posts are single color meaning I am not open minded

b) My posts are like raninbow meaning expressing different colors. Like my posts my opinions are different every time meaning I am incoherent debater.

lol. whatever it is one thing is for sure i wont mind. lol.

You better ask RTH. I got something totally different out of its based on my silly imagination. Let RTH clarify it if she wills. 😆
*runs*

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#115

Originally posted by: King-Anu
1- You either did not understand my point or you do not have an answer. There is restriction to freedom of speech based on sentiments of people. Just because it is not there for some sentiments and there for others does not mean it is not there. If we estbalish that then there should be restriction on such acts also which like or not do hurt sentiments of many.

2- The hadees is part of a prophecy and not an incitement. I do not have full knowledge now but if I am correct it is that an anti-christ will come followed by christ and the world will divide into two camps. There will be fights between the two and the day of judgement will be the day when the anti-christ would be in a bad shape lol. It is not talking about killing Jews. Jews here refer to anti christ camp. You are free to not believe it but dont present it as something promoting violence now.

Similarly verses from Quran have also been manipulated where Quran was merely describing wars happening during time. It was presented as if Quran was advocating violence. Nope. Another verse that people quote says do not be friends with non-Muslims. Few sentences below it says be equitable to non-Muslims. The former was part of an advice to Muslims of that time not to be friends with non-Muslims who they were fighting. IT WAS NOT A MESSAGE FOR ALL TIMES.

3- Finally, there are thousands of Hadees and not all are authentic. Some are lesser Hadees meaning they were not validated. Some contraditcs others. The true hadees is the one which does not contradict Quran. Lets not do a copy and paste job to malign a religion. We need to study things in context. There are billions of Muslims who if I believe you are not good Muslims as they are not doing what you suggest Quran asks them to do.

In conclusion. By your methodology of copy and pasting and taking things out of context I too can paint any religion/faith/viewpoint as violent. Please go and do a proper study. Since your accusations were serious I tried to explain a little. However it is taking lot of time right now.

Okay..lemme see..Its me who is being ignorant here? I made a point which is to draw distinction between attacking people and attacking ideologies, which you simply bypassed. That was my response to your accusation of double standards of West..If some speech or publication attacks people - be it Muslims or Jews or Christians or colored citizens/immigrants anyone else - I shall oppose it..However if its directed against religious ideologies I don't see any reason to ban it..If West considers criticism of Judaism or Christianity as blasphemous while condoning criticism of Islam, you may accuse them of double standards..But here we are comparing apples and oranges..

Second, the Hadith I have quoted is Sahih Muslim, one of the most trusted Hadiths of Islam alongside Bukhari and Tabari..The word 'Sahih' (correct) is conferred to a Hadith to mark its authenticity and superiority to others. I am not describing events of war, but bigotry towards other religions who didn't accept Islam..This is a favorite tactic of Muslims..Whenever in a fix, accuse your opponent of quoting out of context. The verses that abuse other religions and their followers and condemn non-Muslims to hell or depict their fate don't need any context..They would mean the same in any context - be it war or peace..And the verse I have quoted is a prophetic commandment as to how Muslims must deal with Jews as the Judgement day draws closer..It can be easily understood as an exhortation to exterminate the Jews before the d-day..Whether you consider Jews to be a metaphor for anti-Christ or members of Satan's camp or not that's your wishful thinking. I don't know from where did you get that!! The inherent bigotry and intolerance in Quran is crystal clear to all but Muslims..

Anyways, don't worry..I don't advocate banning Quran..I don't believe in suppressing evil..I think it should be faced and defeated..

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 13 years ago

#116

POH, your interpretation of my "rainbow" comment is bang on!!! 😆

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#117

As for the Sura 3.118

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.

This is not exactly about friendship, but of intimate trust..The word used here is 'awlia' which means trustee or protector..Muslims are forbidden from trusting or sharing any intimate bond with Christians, Jews and Pagans...This verse was narrated after the Battle of Badr and not during it and so its not merely for a particular time..The entire Quran is supposedly eternal and non-amendable, except for those parts that have been abrogated by latter revealations..

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Quote

344471

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#118

Originally posted by: Rehanism
The entire Quran is supposedly eternal and non-amendable..

Is it, really? I keep hearing conflicting views. On one level, some Muslims claim each and every written verse in the Qu'ran is for all time and for everyone; on the other hand when any "violent" verse is found, they say, it was for its time only and permissible within the context of its time/place. So I guess part of Qu'ran's messages maybe timeless, but part of it is contextual, for a particular time. This is why, even for Muslims, following EACH and EVERYTHING of the Qu'ran ALL THE TIME and in ALL CIRCUMSTANCE may not be possible.

Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 13 years ago

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#119

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

Is it, really? I keep hearing conflicting views. On one level, some Muslims claim each and every written verse in the Qu'ran is for all time and for everyone; on the other hand when any "violent" verse is found, they say, it was for its time only and permissible within the context of its time/place. So I guess part of Qu'ran's messages maybe timeless, but part of it is contextual, for a particular time. This is why, even for Muslims, following EACH and EVERYTHING of the Qu'ran ALL THE TIME and in ALL CIRCUMSTANCE may not be possible.

Yes, as per Islamic belief, the Quran is eternal and the final word of God and the perfect copy of a book called Umm-al-kitab that Allah wrote at the beginning of Creation and that exists in Heaven with him. Biddah, or any attempt to reform or amend Quran or Sunnah, is un-Islamic and a crime that would invite death sentence. This is the reason why 'moderate' Muslims despite being in numerical majority never dare to speak of reforming Islam - the best they can do is to offer apologies and excuses to justify its abominable character.

Now obviously in practice its hogwash, because Quran, despite its grandiose claims about itself, is meaningless without the support of Hadiths and Siras, which were written by biographers and historians...If you take up a copy of Quran and start reading it without any prior knowledge of its background or the history of its author (Quran doesn't throw any light on Muhammad's life), I can bet anything you won't be able to make any sense of it..It is merely a book of threats, unsavory commandments and decrees peppered with scare-mongering stories of hell and damnation..It has no head or tail, nor is it organized chronologically - instead its organized in order of decreasing length of the Suras..So its obvious that Quran and its verses (many of which contradict each other) are useless unless you have got a Hadith to back it up..Interestingly several verses of Quran have been abrogated by latter verses (chronologically)..For instance Sura 9, arguably the most violent chapter of the entire book, is believed to be the last revealed, and may of its verses abrogate earlier verses that speak of tolerance (most of which were revealed when Muhammad was powerless in Mecca)..

But one thing I can say for sure is, in case you wish to know what a model Islamic society is like, study Taliban and their culture..You'll see even Zakir-Know-it-all-Naik who can supposedly bail out Islam from all charges leveled against it, never dares to condemn Taliban - he knows very well that Taliban follows the puritanical Islam that its founder intended it to be..Instead he chooses to divert the topic by blaming America for terrorism against Muslims..

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#120

Enough of Islam now...Lets discuss about the Saffron Brigade of India..IMO, they are almost as nasty as Taliban when it comes to moral policing or hooliganism..In recent times, as Congress has become unpopular, they have began to spread their wings..Right from infamous attacks on M.F. Hussein to bashing up people on V-day to burning people's house for alleged blasphemy, their gundagiri is ever increasing and apparently there is nothing we can do to stop them..

Quote

1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 22

Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's - Page 12

Related Topics

Explore Topics