Akivah
Well-Known Member
Let's assume that it is true that Charlie Hebdo broke both the Hate Laws and Freedom of Press laws of France. In your opinion, is the proper punishment for these crimes, death for the entire staff?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do France Allow Freedom of Speech/Religion?
- Thread starter faroukfarouk
- Start date
Let's assume that it is true that Charlie Hebdo broke both the Hate Laws and Freedom of Press laws of France. In your opinion, is the proper punishment for these crimes, death for the entire staff?
faroukfarouk
Active Member
No that is not my point of contention.
If CH are guilty then the Judiciary are an accomplice to this crime.
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Are you aware that he was Jew?
How could he when there was no election?
The British did not want to fight and hence made a peace treaty with him.
Well if you talking about bribes then why not?
Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
On paper, it's free. In reality, sadly, it's not. I mean North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea and look how much of a "republic" that is.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Except he wasn't.
Two points about this are noteworthy.
- That the myth of him being a Jew because the area he was born in had a sizeable Jewish minority while ignoring that his grandparents moved there.
- That you actually feel its important to note that he supposedly was Jewish.
Category:General elections in Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh look it even begins in 1923, just after the war.
Really? They fought for four years and lost 40.000 men because they didn't want to fight?
Yeah uhm I wasn't.
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Ok lets talk about this defaming law so far as a deceased person is concerned.
The International Centre on censorship defines defamation as an act of damaging another reputation through words(slander) or publication(libel).Reputation is the esteem in which individuals are generally held within a particular community and it is their honor and good name.
In the year 2000 the Special Rapporteurs on free expression of the UN,the Organization for security and cooperation in Europe and the Organization of American States issued a joint declaration and endorsed a document published with UNESCO'S support which function as international guidelines on defamation laws.I just want to list one that was endorsed which states that a deceased person do not have reputations and therefore cannot be defamed.
Now it seems France endorses such international documents just to satisfy its international masters.
Red Economist lets look at the incident as a whole before answering some questions.
When CH decided to publish those disgusting pictures the matter was taken to court.
The court judged in favor of CH.
The Muslim organizations then pleaded not to publish because due to its sensitive nature it will break the peace.
CH refused to listen.
The matter was then taken to the international level.The Muslim organizations then asked for help from Muslim countries to stop the publications.
The Muslim countries then turned to their Godfather Obama.
Obama then went to the United Nations and declared that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
In 2006 President Jacques Chirac condemned the publications and warned against such “obvious provocations.”“Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided,” he said. “Freedom of expression should be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.”
Now let me explain why an attack on Prophet Muhammad(PBBUH) is an attack on Islam and its followers.
In Islam one of its article of faith is to believe and love the Prophets(PBBUH).We are to show love to the Prophet(PBBUH) more than we love our own children or family.If we cannot show that love then we simply are not in Islam.Hence you will understand that an attack on our Prophet(PBBUH) is an attack on our religion Islam.This was made very clear to the courts and also to CH but all to no avail.
Now my questions.
Was this not a crime of provocation?
Was the State not an accomplice to this crime?
gsa
Well-Known Member
You are free to consider an attack on your alleged prophet to be considered an attack on your religion. You are even free to consider it provocative and an attack on you. What you cannot do within the bounds of reason, common sense and the law in the vast majority of civilized societies is equate a criticism of the alleged prophet of Islam with a physical attack, and act accordingly. This is easy enough to understand, and I do not believe that Muslims do not understand this. I think that your actual motivation is Islamic supremacy.
No.
When you included the law regarding "incitement" my back went up because it seemed that this was the next logical step, which is why I didn't reply to it immediately. I was hoping you were smart enough to stop there.
CH drew a bunch of second rate stick-men, put a turban and a beard on it and called it Muhammad. Take a good hard look a human history and you will find the people were persecuted for their religion in ways far worse than a badly drawn cartoon. It might as well be a child's drawing by a bunch of adolescents at the back of the class. It was infantile.
People drew strength from their religion, their faith in god and humanity and that justice would prevail. They endured enormous sacrifices, hardships and trails out of a belief in the righteousness of their faith, their love of god and of humanity and the belief that mankind could be redeemed and redeem themselves even when everyone else was against them. If you want to insult the Prophet Muhammad, Islam and people of faith the world over, thinking that your religion is so fragile, so vulnerable, can be so easily defeated by a bunch of pathetic losers who made fun of you is the right way to go. it means you think you've already lost. This isn't about Islam, it's about a sense of victimhood in which love turns quickly into hate, and hurt pride into a desire for revenge. I realize being a Muslim isn't easy, that people judge you and think wrongly of you, because Islam is associated with violence. so do yourself a favor and prove them wrong and show them you are better than that and it was Islam that gave you the strength to rise above the insults; have some self-respect and the moral courage to recognize you aren't going to be intimidated by a bunch of cartoonists and be fearless before others criticism.
God is great and Muhammad deserves better; "PEACE be upon him".
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Freemason Dictator Mustafa Kemal confesses his Jewishness:
“I’m a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi-not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours. My opinion is that every Jew in this country would do well to join his camp. I have at home a Hebrew Bible printed in Venice. It’s rather old, and I remember my father bringing me to a Karaite teacher who taught me to read it. I can still remember a few words of it, such as– ‘Shema Yisra’el, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad"
“If the British are going to assume the responsibility for Anatolia, they will need the co-operation of experienced Turkish governors to work under them. What I want to know is the proper quarter to which I can offer my services in that capacity.”
Flankeri history can not be modified just to appease the Jews who may be offended by the facts.Weather you like it or not weather the facts are pleasing or disturbing history will remain as it is and you will have to learn to accept it.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
I looked for some kind of a source and the first I found had the following headline
"Truth About Masonic Jewish Gay Dictator Mustafa"
10/10
Your hate is noted.
"Truth About Masonic Jewish Gay Dictator Mustafa"
10/10
Your hate is noted.
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Hello Red Economist
Sorry for the late reply as i got tied with other threads.
Note there are many laws that i could talk about in France like another that come to mind is the Gayssot Act which prohibits racist and religious hate speech under which negationism including holocaust denial is an offence.
But my whole point of this thread was to show how laws are in their statue books but it was not applied simply because it had to do with Islam.There is so much hatred that even a State partakes in the evil of hatred.
Further i just want to clear the air.I justify the killings of CH but do not justify the violence. CH intent was to hurt the Muslim community..CH,no doubt,committed a crime with those disgusting cartoons and they paid a price for their crimes.On the day of resurrection when all Muslims will be gathered and the Almighty will ask who justifies the CH killings and i will stand up and confirm my justification.When God asks why i justified it then i will respond that they insulted your beloved and you also justify it.Now if i am asked by God regarding those that committed the killings then my response is simply that i cannot judge their actions because only God will be able to judge them.After all God is the sole judge on the day when mankind will be assembled to answer for their deeds.
Finally i just want you to know that although i agree and also disagree with your opinions i must commend you on your unbiased response.There are very few members in RF that actually responds in such a unbiased manner especially when it comes to Islam and you one of that few.
I salute you and may you also enjoy peace on earth.
In my view killing over a drawing on a piece of paper seems to be trivializing human life. But I can see how when that drawing is a powerful symbol, someone can reach the conclusion of the necessity of violence and think it just. I feel saddened that so many Muslims feel they have no other means to respond to the status quo than with violence and believe it to be a sincere, if not courageous, act of religious devotion. I respect you for your honesty, but I don't think even god can make violence right as it strikes too deeply at the core of who we are as human beings. we're social animals after all and violence diminishes us even if it could be considered the lesser evil. Trying to tell the difference between Islamophobia and more legitimate criticism of Islam for not being compatible with secular and liberal values. I believe that there is room for both secular and Muslim beliefs and that the better Muslims and Westerners understand each other, the easier it will be to come to a peaceful and mutually acceptable accommodation. I'm moved by your response as it means I may be on the right track. I hope you'll find others like me.
*blinks*
You realise that all you need to do is apply the same freaking rule to everyone and the world is a better place, right?
Let God judge. Neither you nor some gun weilding thugs have that right.
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Well when i recall the first time that these careless cartoons of our beloved Prophet(PBBUH) was published i do remember the height of emotion it incited within our Muslim community.Seething with anger at the audacity of such biased blasphemy we called on the community to be proactive because that was the teachings of our mentor.Most of us from the community decided to use the media platforms and forums as a tool to rectify and enlighten people of who this great personality was but it was to no avail because of its second publication.Note from our side we did our best to keep the peace but if the Govt of the day could not side with us then we knew that the peace will definitely be broken.Well it was just a matter of time.
I think the most important lesson to learn from these events is to not allow the media to encroach on freedom of religion in their pursuit of freedom of speech.
Granted, it may well look to you as a defensive position, but to others it would seem as one in which Muslims acted on the offensive, because they do not recognize that the cartoons of Muhammad constituted a blasphemy and therefore legitimate basis for public anger. I realize I have little chance of changing your view, but I feel obliged to at least try as a gesture of good faith.
Based on the way you use the concept of freedom of religion, it implies that you feel the rights of the Islamic community take precedence over individual rights to free speech. I assume you therefore believe that a society should be governed by Islamic/Sharia law?
I'm an atheist and a (male) apostate and so would therefore have committed a crime against god and would necessarily be put to death. So whilst I have tried to show respect for you're beliefs, it would imply that it would not be reciprocated under such a system. That would be the implication of using freedom of religion in that way.
When really stripped down to its bare essentials the position you took over whether France permits freedom of religion is really the right for you to impose those beliefs on others based on the assumption that they originate from god; in the case of Charlie Hebdo, that meant the right to punish blasphemy (also a form of apostasy and therefore subject to the death penalty). Liberalism has to negotiate the paradox of tolerance, in which a state can only tolerate those who practice tolerance to others. Freedom of religion means specifically the right for a person to exercise their right to religious belief so long as to does not denies those same freedoms to others or cause them harm.
If someone wants to impose their own beliefs on others, a liberal system necessarily has to curtail their freedoms to remove the danger it poses to it's own structure. This is something that happens to a greater or lesser extent in all systems but in a liberal one how a government goes about it can be deeply hypocritical and destructive to other people's freedoms. The very position that a religion can take precedence over individual rights is incompatible with liberal institutions and is a theocratic one in which the law claims to be derived from god.
Have I understood you correctly?
faroukfarouk
Active Member
Note its either ignorancy or intent that they used our beloved Prophet(PBBUH) in those cartoons.We as a community made it aware to them that the issue is sensitive.We explained how its going to break the peace but they regarded our good intentions as threats.So i sincerely think, after alleviating all their ignorancy,it was more their intent in hurting that disturbed the peace.
Note we are living in a non-Muslim country and the least we ask for is respect and tolerance for our beliefs.Just as France pass laws to protect sensitive issues for other faiths we see no reason why our small demands cannot be met.Our objective is to live in peace and harmony with all our citizens irrespective if you an atheist or you belong to a religion.
Finally let me ask you question.
The Grand Mosque in Jerusalem called Masjid Al Aqsa is a very holy place of worship for the Muslim community.
If the present Jews, who illegally occupies the city, decides to break the Masjid and build a temple for themselves.
How do you expect the Muslim World community to react?
Tks in a advance.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem called Har HaBáyit is the holiest place of worship for the Jewish community.
If the past Muslims, who illegaly occupied the city, decided to build a Mosque on the ruins of our Temple for themselves.
How do you expect the Jewish World community to react?
I agree that what Charlie Hebdo did was inappropriate, insensitive and to be blunt, infantile. What I am un-sure about is how far the offense their actions caused can justify the retaliation. There must necessarily be a right for people to criticize beliefs they disagree with as part of the free exchange of ideas and the concept that something is so sacred that violating it must necessarily result in other people's death is "disturbing" to say the least. I would appreciate if people went about it with greater maturity, recognize that this is also part of the difficult process of integration for Muslims into liberal societies which often come from a Judea-Christian background.
Racism, anti-immigration sentiment, socioeconomic segregation, the on-going crisis of national and ethnic identity in the midst of globalization and the generic fear of the "other" makes this process even harder as the majority lashes out against minorities because of it's insecurities. integration is necessarily a two way process of understanding and accommodation and it is certainly true that many people are marginalized by the dominant cultural and ethnic groups (usually white, Christian) and that is our fault. But it is also important for us to know that neighbors don't turn into martyrs if we cause offense. There has to be some common ground to share as a basis for mutual respect and tolerance. I think we are still yet to define on whose term the peace endures.
That is very reassuring.
I confess it is difficult to get my head around how such deep offense can be caused by something like the CH cartoons. I can recognize it, but the very concept of something being "sacred" has been in retreat as religion has receded more and more into the private realm of individual or family life. I think this is more true of Europe than the US, where religion continues to represent a major force in culture and politics. Perhaps that says something about my own insecurities and ignorance of Islam than anything else.
I expect the Muslim Community (Ummah?) would be pissed as anyone would be if something sacred to them is violated. I admit my knowledge of middle east politics is limited but I think the real problem is not whether Jerusalem is considered sacred but why Jews and Muslims cannot co-exist in the same city. Is the issue not necessarily the difference in faith, but that these religious differences are part of difference in ethnicity and therefore of conflicting nation-states over the same territory? I believe that Muslim, Jews and Christians have lived peacefully together historically in the middle east (under the Ottoman empire?). How far is religion the cause for these conflicts or part of the rationalization of other differences as something more profound? My guess it would be a mixture of the two.
and I was raised as a kid who was in love with M.K. Our British education system was teaching him us as a hero. I would like to write so much things but I dont know where to start it
you cant even imagine how evil and systematically they work, you cant even imagine faroukfarouk
Active Member
There is absolutely no evidence that the mount in Jerusalem was the original place where the Jewish temple existed.
But there is evidence to the contrary.
First evident
Isa ibn Maryam(Jesus)peace and blessings be upon him did prophecize on the 2nd destruction of the Temple.His actual words were.......
"Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
His words clearly state that the entire temple, each and every stone, will be dug up, dislodged, and tossed away. It is interesting to note that there are massive stone blocks by the thousands set in the wall supporting the Temple Mount platform. Was Jesus wrong in His prophesying that not one stone would remain standing?Then again Jews do not accept his as a Prophet.
Second evident.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the entirety of the temple was indeed in total ruin and destruction after 70 AD. He went on to say that if he had not personally been in Jerusalem during the war and witnessed the demolition by Titus of the temple that took place there, he wouldn’t have believed it ever existed.Now this is very clear evidence that Isa ibn Maryam(PBBUH) prophecy was fulfilled.This is now very clear evidence that the present Jews are wailing at the wrong wall.
Final evident.
When one visits the Dome of the Rock it will be very evident that there is a huge rock inside and that is why its called the Dome of the Rock.The question is how ,is it possible for,a huge rock found its way on top of the mount when Jews claim that there Temple was behind the present wailing wall.It just does not fit the puzzle.