Islam fights free speech

[faroukfarouk]

The bottom line is any book that creates incitement are banned by the so called modern World.
We in Islam do not have a problem with those banning.
Now if one wants to be critical of Islam then there is a red line.In other words there are limits.
There is a big difference between criticism and incitement.
To make a mockery of ones religious beliefs or abuse our Prophets is blatant incitement.
All those books listed in the OP leads to blatant incitement.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You can be critical of our Women right issue.
You can be critical of family value issues.
you can be critical of our usury issues.
You can be critical of our apostate issue.
Basically be critical of our way of life issues and we will openly challenge you yours.
All we ask of you is don't mock our beliefs.
If you ask us questions with respect we would give you a respectable answer.

 

[icehorse]

You can be critical of our Women right issue.
You can be critical of family value issues.
you can be critical of our usury issues.
You can be critical of our apostate issue.
Basically be critical of our way of life issues and we will openly challenge you yours.
All we ask of you is don't mock our beliefs.
If you ask us questions with respect we would give you a respectable answer.

You ask much more than that. You ask us to curtail free inquiry.

I will ask you again. Who is wise enough to tell you, farouk, words that you are not allowed to read? Who is that person?

 

[Notanumber]

A robust religion should be able to withstand mockery without finding it necessary to resort to intimidation of any kind.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Catcher in the Rye – JD Salinger
Lady Chatterley’s Lover – DH Lawrence
Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
Tropic of Cancer – Henry Miller
Lolita – Vladmir Nabokov
Ulysses – James Joyce
The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinback
The Well of Loneliness – Radclyffe Hall
American Psycho – Brett Easton Ellis

The above books are banned by the free speech Western world.
Why?
What kind of freedom are we talking about?

More often than not these books were banned at the behest of conservative religious groups or individuals and Western citizens are doing their best to overturn this censorship. In most (maybe even all) cases they've succeeded. Can the same be said for books like the Satanic Verses in the Muslim world or is Salman Rushdie still living under police protection because of death threats? Oh, and I should probably mention such bans don't exist in the vast majority of Western countries. Maybe in a few isolated areas.

And Lolita is banned because the plot is about an older man having sex with a younger girl. Does the fact this book in particular is banned bother you, since you idolise a man who had sex with a nine year old?

You can be critical of our Women right issue.
You can be critical of family value issues.
you can be critical of our usury issues.
You can be critical of our apostate issue.
Basically be critical of our way of life issues and we will openly challenge you yours.
All we ask of you is don't mock our beliefs.
If you ask us questions with respect we would give you a respectable answer.

There is a big difference between criticism and incitement.

Salman Rushdie didn't mock Islamic beliefs yet he lives under police protection because he so outraged Islamic sensibilities. Hamed Abdel-Samad didn't mock Islamic beliefs either, nor did he incite others to leave Islam. He just addressed what he saw as contradictions in his life and wants Islam to shed its more intolerant aspects like Sharia law, gender segregation and the entitlement mentality we see so often. For this he has a fatwa placed on him that calls for his death.

Clearly, Islam and its followers aren't just asking to not be mocked; you want to silence criticism in general.

 

[Augustus]

What is the object of critiquing???

You do understand that a fair chunk of the Quran is a critique of Christianity, Judaism and polytheism don't you? To be honest it is more of a rhetorical polemic than a critique, but it's close enough as needs be.

In the spirit of reciprocity, should you not be comfortable with them critiquing likewise (or engaging in forceful rhetorical polemic)?

 

[Smart_Guy]

A robust religion should be able to withstand mockery without finding it necessary to resort to intimidation of any kind.

No such human being as "robust religion" exits in the first place to withstand anything.

 

[SomeRandom]

The Catcher in the Rye – JD Salinger
Lady Chatterley’s Lover – DH Lawrence
Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
Tropic of Cancer – Henry Miller
Lolita – Vladmir Nabokov
Ulysses – James Joyce
The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinback
The Well of Loneliness – Radclyffe Hall
American Psycho – Brett Easton Ellis

The above books are banned by the free speech Western world.
Why?
What kind of freedom are we talking about?

I live in the West (Australia) every single one of those books are on my shelf, which I purchased readily at my local bookstore. We moved past government book bans after the 50s mate. Hell I even own some of the movie adaptations, again bought readily at my local DVD store.
Today, more often than not such "bans" only extend to children's libraries (like school and high school.) Like you wouldn't make porn readily accessible on school run internet servers for the same reason. Personally my favorite banned school book is Fahrenheit 451. Like lol oh the irony.
Though to me personally, every book except Lolita should be accessible to teenagers. Maybe 15 and over for Lolita. But local/public libraries stock them without so much as a second glance from people.
So what the hell are you talking about?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm going out on a limb here but almost every case was trumped up by religious lunatics... we've since put most of them in their place.

Religious lunatics.....really......you got to be joking.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain, 1884
Banned because of its frequent use of the word “******.” Otherwise it is alleged the book is “racially insensitive,” “oppressive,” and “perpetuates racism.”

The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X and Alex Haley, 1965 (Grove Press)
Banned because Objectors have called this seminal work a “how-to-manual” for crime and decried because of “anti-white statements” present in the book.

Beloved, Toni Morrison, 1987
Banned because complaints are lodged against the book of its violence, sexual content and discussion of bestiality.

The list just goes on and on.
Admit it you have limited free speech.

The thrust of your attack is truly moronic. No one is stating that freedom of speech means freedom to say ANYTHING. What part of that do you NOT GET?

The problem is that all too many Muslims, with rather thin skins, don't like having their favorite concepts put under a microscope and judged to be sadly lacking in many areas. Forgive us if we find little to pat you on the head over. I predict that Islam will continually bang its head against modernity and see no chance of this changing. Most other religions have taken this impact with modernity fairly well, some better than others, but most have managed to get with the times without sacrificing too much of their dignity.

Islam is a different bird altogether in that Muhammad implored his followers to not stray from what he had given them and that Islam is perfect, being THE religion of God. Many, many, many Muslims believe that Islam IS perfect and in no need of change even though we see very clear reasons that require a major reformation to at least thwart the distinctly fanatical elements in the midst of the Ummah. Fanaticism is never a good thing and is tied to the emotional investment people put into their faith. The weird part is that this particular faith views itself as being supreme and better than any other faith on the planet even when reality shows that that is hardly the case given the plight of Muslims the world over. What is truly weird is that many Muslims see themselves as the natural leaders of the world and yet there is no area, no category, other than fanaticism, that Muslims lead the world in.

 

[YmirGF]

The bottom line is any book that creates incitement are banned by the so called modern World.

While technically true, I freely admit, our systems at least allow for appeals and overturning of such decisions. Very few things remain indefinitely on a banned list. It may take years, but eventually, the public IS given access to these formerly taboo works.

We in Islam do not have a problem with those banning.

The censorship you folks are calling for is permanent ban and that is just not how things work in free and open societies.

Now if one wants to be critical of Islam then there is a red line.In other words there are limits.

And it is far more clearly adhered to that President Obama's now infamous "red lines". You know dealing with all too many Muslims is similar to dealing with alcoholics or drug addicts. You cannot help an alcoholic or a drug addict until they are willing to admit that they have a problem. When Muslims can finally admit there is a problem with Islam vs. modernity then we can begin to find solutions and negotiate (which means give and take on BOTH sides.)

There is a big difference between criticism and incitement.

Very true. Very true. The downside to this is something you might find annoying might drive another more fanatical Muslim to strap a bomb belt onto themselves to show their displeasure.

To make a mockery of ones religious beliefs or abuse our Prophets is blatant incitement.

What is problematic here is that "your prophets" is shared by two other religions. You have laid claim to them. Only Muhammad is you own genuine exclusive prophet. For you to get excited about the prophets expropriated from other religions is a bit ludicrous especially if the followers of the others religions turn a blind eye or the other cheek....

We get that many Muslims have what certainly seem to many of us as an unhealthy fixation on the prophet-hood of Muhammad. We get that. Muslims the world over have made it painfully obvious for centuries now. Believe it or not it was this fixation on Muhammad that resulted in early "western" scholars referring to Islam is Muhammadanism. The term was used extensively right up until the mid 1960's or so because so many confused the endless veneration of Muhammad with outright worship. It is still certainly "hero worship"...

All those books listed in the OP leads to blatant incitement.

Those of us who have been in discussions with Muslim for a very long time are little bored with the whole thing now. It almost to the point where we wonder what ISN"T blatant incitement to many Muslims. Our mere existence is a perennial thorn in your side and our immense success must really, really hurt. That you need us for so much must also hurt terribly. What happens when all the oil is gone? We won't need you for very much then.

 

[Parsimony]

You can be critical of our Women right issue.
You can be critical of family value issues.
you can be critical of our usury issues.
You can be critical of our apostate issue.
Basically be critical of our way of life issues and we will openly challenge you yours.
All we ask of you is don't mock our beliefs.
If you ask us questions with respect we would give you a respectable answer.

Where do you draw the line between criticism and mocking? Have you ever mocked another person's beliefs?

 

[YmirGF]

Where do you draw the line between criticism and mocking?

Sadly, that is a variable and the big question. From my perspective I've seen very few cases of outright mocking - very few, but few Muslims see criticisms the way I do.

 

[Akivah]

The Catcher in the Rye – JD Salinger
Lady Chatterley’s Lover – DH Lawrence
Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
Tropic of Cancer – Henry Miller
Lolita – Vladmir Nabokov
Ulysses – James Joyce
The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinback
The Well of Loneliness – Radclyffe Hall
American Psycho – Brett Easton Ellis

The above books are banned by the free speech Western world.
Why?
What kind of freedom are we talking about?

Which of these authors were given death threats and assassination sentences by the Western authorities? Which of their publishing offices were firebombed?

 

[Akivah]

No intimidation my friend nor its a threat.Its reality.
We are human so don't expect us to respect you.You got to earn your respect.
Yes we love to keep the peace but peace comes at a price.
You swear my mother so don't expect me to swear your mother.
We not monkeys.
Monkey see,monkey do.
My friend if you insult my religion then don't expect me to accept it.
You must be prepared for a backlash.

Should we expect this backlash to be physically violent? Are Muslims unable to just verbally dispute a criticism?

Also, your first sentence says "no intimidation or threat", but this is at odds with your last sentence. It seems that Islam is all about threats, intimidation, and violence.

 

[Akivah]

I said most the terrorism around the world due the intervention of West in Muslim countries.

We were the most victims of intervention and terrorism.

You keep dodging the point of this thread. Several authors were give death threats by Muslims and fatwas calling for their deaths were issued. Are you saying that if the West didn't intervene in Muslim countries, death threats and assassination fatwas would not be issued by Muslims against authors that write works critical of Islam?

 

[Godobeyer]

You keep dodging the point of this thread. Several authors were give death threats by Muslims and fatwas calling for their deaths were issued. Are you saying that if the West didn't intervene in Muslim countries, death threats and assassination fatwas would not be issued by Muslims against authors that write works critical of Islam?

Yes , it's very probably .
becaused the exterm ideolgy and deeds are become more after the intervention .

For my "dodgin" the point.
I am adressing to "anti-Islam and anti-Muslim" person, so I could not satisfy him whatever I said,
because we already explain and condemn ....etc thousand times to him before.

Plus, we discussed also the generalizing and distinction between Islam and Muslims deeds.

 

[Akivah]

Yes , it's very probably .
becaused the exterm ideolgy and deeds are become more after the intervention .

For my "dodgin" the point.
I am adressing to "anti-Islam and anti-Muslim" person, so I could not satisfy him whatever I said,
because we already explain and condemn ....etc thousand times to him before.

I never saw your condemnation, I'd like to read it. What is your post # in which you criticized death threats and assassination fatwas made against authors that were critical to Islam?

 

[Godobeyer]

I never saw your condemnation, I'd like to read it. What is your post # in which you criticized death threats and assassination fatwas made against authors that were critical to Islam?

You miss my condemnation of charlie hebdo attacks ?

So do you think everytime we suppose to condemn again and again each time, if a anti-Islam and anti-Muslim member re-made thread about such crimes or fatwas ?

 

[YmirGF]

I never saw your condemnation, I'd like to read it. What is your post # in which you criticized death threats and assassination fatwas made against authors that were critical to Islam?

I will vouch for @Godobeyer. I don't recall him ever expressing support for any terrorist acts.

Admittedly, his English skills are not great, but his English is much, much better than my Arabic. So you have to cut some slack here and there, now and again.

 

[Godobeyer]

I will vouch for @Godobeyer. I don't recall him ever expressing support for any terrorist acts.

Thanks God I have witness Mr @Akivah