Islam fights free speech

[Smart_Guy]

I actually didn't wrote how I felt about it. Your text comprehension just gets worse with each day.

It should be didn't write (or did write, if you wanna make an emphasis), not didn't wrote.

What?? You picked on his honest spelling mistake of Judaism (here) first

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what of Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, SJWs, gay right activists, feminists, and other groups that have those among them who clearly support varying degrees and forms of censorship?
And of course it's hard to say Islam is doing that when only a minority of Muslims are.

 

[Laika]

Well in the DIR forums I would not be allowed to reject bad arguments.

This OP is specifically about one major concern I have about Islam. It is the only major religion for which critics should justifiably fear for their physical safety. The article I linked to specified many instances of this problem.

To the apologists: You guys play this shell game over and over again. We've been debating Islam with each other for a long time now and you know that I'm not racist and that I understand the difference between Islam and Muslims. Those arguments are simply lazy on your part.

Now, it IS true that not all Muslims will commit acts of violence when their faith is criticized. Of course, that goes without saying. In fact, as I've said many times, I'm happy to acknowledge that statistically, very few Muslims would do so. But the few that would, are mounting a consequential attack on human rights. And those who would do violence come from many different regions and cultures. The one thing they seem to have in common is Islam.

Rule 10 prohibits "questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR" and "debate". It says nothing about you rejecting "bad" arguments on a case by case basis. I'm sure most Muslims will be flattered that you can quote and interpret scripture if you want to make a case that their religion makes people do "bad things".

You have a problem with Islam and there are Muslims here who you can discuss it with. You can be as morally outraged as you want- it doesn't mean a dam thing until you act on it. Simply letting this fester in public doesn't help you or anyone else. All it does is you start a thread, people rally round you and NOTHING changes. NOTHING. We'll be doing this all over again in a week or two.

TALK TO THEM. ACT ON YOUR BELIEFS.

What difference is there between you and a Muslim apologist if you don't? Criticise all you want- but until you actually change something, there is no practical difference between them. The consequence is white noise, not change.

 

[icehorse]

Rule 10 prohibits "questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR" and "debate". It says nothing about you rejecting "bad" arguments on a case by case basis. I'm sure most Muslims will be flattered that you can quote and interpret scripture if you want to make a case that their religion makes people do "bad things".

You have a problem with Islam and there are Muslims here who you can discuss it with. You can be as morally outraged as you want- it doesn't mean a dam thing until you act on it. Simply letting this fester in public doesn't help you or anyone else. All it does is you start a thread, people rally round you and NOTHING changes. NOTHING. We'll be doing this all over again in a week or two.

TALK TO THEM. ACT ON YOUR BELIEFS.

What difference is there between you and a Muslim apologist if you don't? Criticise all you want- but until you actually change something, there is no practical difference between them. The consequence is white noise, not change.

I have a different opinion about the usefulness of debate. And wait, I thought I WAS talking to them and acting on my beliefs?

 

[icehorse]

So what of Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, SJWs, gay right activists, feminists, and other groups that have those among them who clearly support varying degrees and forms of censorship?
And of course it's hard to say Islam is doing that when only a minority of Muslims are.

Is this the "two wrongs make it right" argument?

And regardless, do those other groups you mentioned issue public offers of compensation for targeted assassinations?

 

[Notanumber]

The problem with Islam is that it is not just a religion it is a political ideology.

 

[psychoslice]

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington.

 

[Laika]

I have a different opinion about the usefulness of debate. And wait, I thought I WAS talking to them and acting on my beliefs?

No. The grand total of your "discussion" is throwing out an accusation against Muslims and then retracting or qualifying statements to avoid criticism. Not once have you specified ANY causal relationship between Islam and human rights abuses that would validate your criticism. Nor do you demonstrate that the evidence you provided is a wider problem for which ALL Muslims must be held accountable. You haven't quoted the scripture in the Quran and the Hadith as a source of religious authority or defined whether all Muslims conceive of that authority as the same or how much scope of interpretation there is. You just condemn Islam as a whole or any argument then make vague rhetorical references to free speech and human rights.

Whatever you want to say- go and say it to Muslims directly. Then you can settle it based on argument and evidence with people who practice these beliefs on a daily basis.

If you want to essentially "convict" Islam in its entirety of human rights abuses and treat all Muslims as collectively guilty of those abuses because of their shared beliefs, give Islam a fair trial with you as the prosecution and letting Muslims act as the defence. Then make up your mind. Simply having people rushing to agree with you doesn't mean the accusation is true.

When it boils down to it this isn't a discussion- it's a show trial and a form of ritualised humiliation where Muslims are found guilty based on the ignorance and prejudices of forums opinion.

Can you raise the "usefulness" of debate above the level of being a cheerleader for mob justice?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Most of problems grace to the Western politic leader involve in Muslim business,so burn it up.

At first glance, that almost reads like 'the West sticks its nose into Muslim countries so Western countries deserve terrorist attacks'. I'm sure that's not what you meant though.

I already made the distinguish.
everyone had his own values.

I must have missed it. Did you do it in another thread or in this one? Could you possibly explain this distinction in a bit more detail to me so I understand precisely what you're talking about?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Rule 10 prohibits "questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR" and "debate". It says nothing about you rejecting "bad" arguments on a case by case basis. I'm sure most Muslims will be flattered that you can quote and interpret scripture if you want to make a case that their religion makes people do "bad things".

It also says "People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding" (my emphasis). I'm fairly certain most Muslim users would consider this thread (and its maker) to be quite hostile.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I personaly don't take every sahih in credible range. I just take which match with Quran and with my beliefs.

In other words you engage in confirmation bias. That's not surprising. Oh, and @Rival totally called this.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

To us it's like, either you accept it all in full or you don't accept any. We can't argue with every single Muslim on an individual basis, that would be ridiculous. If each Muslim defines what part of Hadith and Sunnah he does and doesn't believe, then there must be 1.4 billion different versions of Islam, which is absurd

There's also the phenomenon of individual beliefs being subsumed by the prevailing theological climate of the majority of people around them or the national government so that it becomes that much harder for Muslims who dissent in this way to have their views put across without being viewed with suspicion at the least.

 

[Notanumber]

I found this video to be very informative

 

[Laika]

It also says "People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding" (my emphasis). I'm fairly certain most Muslim users would consider this thread (and its maker) to be quite hostile.

I don't see the rational value of pseudo-criticism if it is only to express hostility towards Islam. If the standard for criticism of Islam is to completely by-pass the actual adherents on Islam so that people are "free" to engage gross generalisations, misrepresentation, accusations of collective guilt and responsibility without ever being put in a position where these views can be falsified based on evidence, the criticism is simple bullying tactics- not an intellectual exercise.

I want the critics of Islam on this forum actually talk to the Muslims they hold collectively responsible and guilty for human rights abuses for simply believing in Islam. It's not just a belief when people actually live and practice it.

If the practical consequences of believing in Islam makes someone a bigoted, violent, dangerous fanatic who commits acts of terrorism and violates human rights, then SURELY that's something the critics of Islam would try to stop by taking actually talking to muslims about the problem?

but- they don't. *shrugs*

 

[Godobeyer]

At first glance, that almost reads like 'the West sticks its nose into Muslim countries so Western countries deserve terrorist attacks'. I'm sure that's not what you meant though.

I don't said deserve , you said.

In conflicts that made by West and terrorists helped by West.
actuatly the terrorists killed Muslims more than West.
It's actuatly "expect" is better.
it's should be like this :
'the West sticks its nose into Muslim countries so Western countries expect terrorist attacks'.

I must have missed it. Did you do it in another thread or in this one? Could you possibly explain this distinction in a bit more detail to me so I understand precisely what you're talking about?

Here I explain it twice , I made a exemple about.

I forget to tag you here

 

[LuisDantas]

So what of Christians, Conservatives, Liberals, SJWs, gay right activists, feminists, and other groups that have those among them who clearly support varying degrees and forms of censorship?

What of them? Bring those cases up for discussion, by all means.

And of course it's hard to say Islam is doing that when only a minority of Muslims are.

I can only assume you are not paying attention. Your questions imply that there is no significant difference, after all.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't said deserve , you said.

In conflicts that made by West and terrorists helped by West.
actuatly the terrorists killed Muslims more than West.
It's actuatly "expect" is better.
it's should be like this :
'the West sticks its nose into Muslim countries so Western countries expect terrorist attacks'.

The problem with that line of thought is that it is difficult to distinguish from justification of colonianism and imperialism.

At least at first glance, you seem to be saying that this ephemerous "West" is responsible for whatever happens, good or ill, no matter what.

If Muslim countries are not supposed to be responsible for what they do (and that is what I am reading from your post), then it sure appears that forbidding their existence (with military action if it comes to that) is not the absurd action that they must otherwise be.

 

[Godobeyer]

Some percentage of Muslims - from all over the world - choose to be violent when Islam is criticized.

Yes some percentage of Western choose violent when second amendment OF US constitution , clear about right to defend by guns !!

Freedom of speech is bull**** when it's about provocation in West,I prove it.

I tag you but you skip it

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem with Islam is that it is not just a religion it is a political ideology.

I beg to differ. All religions have political consequences. That is somewhat more obvious in the case of Islam, but not a significant difference in and of itself.

What does compromise Islam is that it is too adverse to questioning and criticism, and ends up promoting fear as a means for what is supposed to be peace.

And that, by its turn, is a consequence of its utter failure to deal with the dangers of their monotheism and their reliance on scripture. Both are very dangerous and destructive unless they dwell in environments with huge amounts of questioning and criticism to keep them honest and safe.

Islam basically forbids itself from being a healthy religion. Or, to be sincere, I don't think it allows itself to be a religion at all. A cult of monotheism and obedience to law and custom does not qualify as a religion by my standards. If anything, it is a major distraction, an obstacle for the development of religion proper, because it occupies the necessary resources without having a fighting chance of fulfilling the purpose.

 

[YmirGF]

@icehorse ,@YmirGF
@LuisDantas I dare you to walk with a shirt , written on it VIVA AL-QEADA or VIVA BIN LADEN in USA. or
VIVA HITLER, VIVA DAESH in Europe, or VIVA ARABS in Israel ...etc

I do believe freedom of speech is used to please , unpleased once may judged or consider as provocation.

This is often a tactic used by people who do not actually understand the concept of "free speech". The term does not mean that you can say anything about anyone at any time. That is just silly. I am not free to scream, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I am not free to say that some political figure should be sent a bullet with their name on it. In Canada, due to our existing hate speech laws I am not free to tell others that any particular group or person should be killed, maimed or openly discriminated against. I am free to say pretty much anything else I want on pretty much any other topics. I am welcome to be critical of virtually any person, thing or group as long as I stay within specific boundaries that do not call for their harm, persecution or destruction.

The point is I would never say such a thing about a given person, group or entity in the first place so the Canadian hate speech laws have NO EFFECT on my public comments. For me, it is as if they do not exist as I would never breach those boundaries in the first place.

Your examples of what to print on a T-Shirt and walk around town in are absurd and exemplify your own lack of understanding on this issue. It would be like me telling you and @Smart_Guy to wander about your neighborhoods wearing a T-shirt saying, "Muhammad is a liar". The difference is if I took your suggestion and strutted about in a shirt exclaiming what you cite above the worst I could expect is some rude comments. It is unlikely that I would meet with any physical violence. I shudder to think about what the reaction would be if you were to take up my challenge and wander about in a shirt in your area written in a language everyone around you would understand. You might need hospitalization rather rapidly.

Further to this, like the ruling of not being allowed to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre there is good reason to outlaw Holocaust denial in European countries. The reason is that though the Nazi's were defeated it would have been impossible to root out each and every supporter and this is one way to curb their enthusiasm lest those left wished to foment the seeds of hatred on a very sensitive subject and to simply deny the reality of the situation that blackened the eye of all Germans for several generations.

You might not like those kinds of laws, you might, for some inexplicable reasons, doubt the numbers of Jews killed during that time, but there are good reasons why you are not allowed to publicly express that doubt.