Islam fights free speech

[Flankerl]

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

Except that he repeatedly writes Judaism that way. But I know how this works. Good for you!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

No, I'm saying it's an argument that to claim it's a problem with Islam, as if somehow everything else is exempt, is to ignore a very fundamental problem with humans, and that is we have used a number of different things to justify repression, violence, and war.
And while I am not aware of any compensation given (and why should they be responsible for things they had nothing to do with), there are many condemnations and denouncements from the peaceful majority of Muslims over the minority of violent Muslims who want nothing more than to repress the world. I don't agree with many things found in Abrahamic texts, but I've known too many Muslims to be suspicious of them as a whole. Most of them, just like most other people, just want to be left to go about their day.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

I have to assume you aren't paying attention to history.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Except that he repeatedly writes Judaism that way. But I know how this works. Good for you!

Did you try telling him it is a spelling mistake in a good way instead of doing it your usual way we all know of? Try to not letting difference in faith get in the way of socializing humans the way normal humans do.

If you did, then I guess I spoke out of place and apologize for that.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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'm glad I didn't jump to conclusions here. It would be such a shame if you thought Western countries deserved terrorist attacks.

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

I forget to tag you here

Thanks for showing me. I must have missed it.

@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.

You're assuming free speech has no limits which is untrue. Further, expressing support for organisations like Al Qaeda & Islamic State or individuals like Hitler or Bin Laden is prohibited because this lends itself to sympathising with and recruiting for ideologies which are measurably harmful & destructive. Expressing criticism or rejection of religious claims/ideas (in the context of Muslim countries this would be Muhammad's claims to prophethood, or of Islam itself), or even mocking such (even in bad taste) is not measurably harmful except to the people doing it because more often than not they are met with violence which can sometimes be lethal. There is nothing inherently violent, harmful or destructive about non-Islam. Beyond that, all it does is offend religious sensibilities and challenge the status quo. Your comparison as well as your understanding of what free speech is, is flawed and could use some work.

 

[Godobeyer]

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.

What I meant not all speech or all freedom are allowed. even in West, include the provocation.

there is no good reason to outlwas Holocaust denial, because that against freedom of speech,I do consider this double stand.

 

[Quetzal]

You're assuming free speech has no limits which is untrue.

This is a really common misunderstanding, too. If someone wears one of those shirts, the government can't arrest you wearing that shirt. They can, however, begin an extended investigation and detain you if they believe you are a threat that is reflected in your choice of clothing. Remember, freedom of speech protects you from being arrested for the expression of an idea, alone. That is where it stops, there are other limitations that folks don't seem to get.

 

[YmirGF]

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?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This post is fricken hilarious, @Laika

You make it sound like you knowledgeable about Islam, LOL. So are we now to address you as an expert of the wide range of schools is Islamic Jurisprudence?

What is it about those on the very far left being supportive of an arch-conservative authoritarian supremacist religion like Islam? It's almost breath-taking. Imam Laika?

I practically fell off my chair laughing over this tidbit "Not once have you specified ANY causal relationship between Islam and human rights abuses that would validate your criticism." The examples are legion... how many would you like? How far back in history do you want Icehorsey to go? Your slightly hysterical comment underscores a deep misunderstanding and ignorance of the systemic abuses in the Muslim world throughout history and is almost laughable.

Then there was this goodie, "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." which blithely ignores IceHorses continual bleating about the now famous (and quite disturbing) PEW Research Survey of the Muslim world. I can think of no other poster on RF who has relied on that survey more than @icehorse

Likewise, your suggestion to place questions in the Islamic foxhole wherein rebuttal is considerably muted is ludicrous. I guess it's a good idea if you want a white-washed version of events, sure. Go for it. But in the DIR's you CANNOT argue a given point. If you don't believe me - try it and prove me wrong.

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm glad I didn't jump to conclusions here. It would be such a shame if you thought Western countries deserved terrorist attacks.

I never said deserve or believe in it.
my point : If you fire up the world around , expect some flames or smoke .

You're assuming free speech has no limits which is untrue

Now you get me !
Do you agree even in West ?

 

[YmirGF]

What I meant not all speech or all freedom are allowed. even in West, include the provocation.

there is no good reason to outlwas Holocaust denial, because that against freedom of speech,I do consider this double stand.

You are quite wrong on your last point, Godobeyer. There were literally thousands of Nazi supporters living all across Europe after the 2nd world war. Holocaust denial is an AGENDA driven animal that is usually highly anti-semetic/anti-Jewish. Given that those underlying hatreds and prejudices still exists underscores the need fo short circuit such public discussions.

 

[Godobeyer]

You are quite wrong on your last point, Godobeyer. There were literally thousands of Nazi supporters living all across Europe after the 2nd world war. Holocaust denial is an AGENDA driven animal that is usually highly anti-semetic/anti-Jewish. Given that those underlying hatreds and prejudices still exists underscores the need fo short circuit such public discussions.

you funny
So because Nazis supporters living , so freedom of speech is restricted at that part history lol
so law is active until all Nazis supporters died

There is also anti-Muslims and anti-Islam , How about protect their history too ?

 

[Rival]

This is a really common misunderstanding, too. If someone wears one of those shirts, the government can't arrest you wearing that shirt. They can, however, begin an extended investigation and detain you if they believe you are a threat that is reflected in your choice of clothing. Remember, freedom of speech protects you from being arrested for the expression of an idea, alone. That is where it stops, there are other limitations that folks don't seem to get.

Whilst I mostly agree with you, I would like to point out quite strongly that 'free speech' in Europe and America can be two very different animals. Especially, imo, Britain. You only speak for the U.S., Quetzal.

 

[Godobeyer]

Except that he repeatedly writes Judaism that way. But I know how this works. Good for you!

So expect that I made errors it's my third foreign language , but I don't expect that you make error in English just next post

Shame on you

 

[Godobeyer]

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.

Yes I do believe most of terrorism is on the blame of West.

West was allie to Alqaeda and Taliban to fight SU is fact

When the terrorits back to their original countries they killed hunderd of thousand of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Algeria ...etc from 1992 until now , is fact.

The intervention of West in Iraq and Syria and Libya was evil,it's bring civil wars and terrorism, is fact.

 

[Notanumber]

Why is Islam so easily offended?

 

[Flankerl]

So expect that I made errors it's my third foreign language , but I don't expect that you make error in English just next post

Shame on you

That's cute, English is my 4th or 5th language.

Two can play that game.

West was allie to Alqaeda and Taliban to fight SU is fact

That is both wrong. The USA supported the Mujahideen of which the Taliban were no part as they didn't even exist back then and started in Pakistan.
Al-Qaeda meanwhile was founded by Arab volunteers who fought with the Afghan Mujahideen. But that doesn't mean the USA supported Al-Qaeda.

 

[YmirGF]

Why is Islam so easily offended?

Islam is not easily offended though many, many Muslims get themselves pretty excited at the faintest whiff of criticism.
Part of the problem is that many, many Muslims believe that Islam is perfect therefore any criticism is unwarranted and due to ignorance.
Though many, many Muslims profess love and respect for Jesus they blithely ignore his alleged suggestion to Matthew 5:39

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes I do believe most of terrorism is on the blame of West.

West was allie to Alqaeda and Taliban to fight SU is fact

When the terrorits back to their original countries they killed hunderd of thousand of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Algeria ...etc from 1992 until now , is fact.

Do you also believe people who choose to join Islamist terrorist groups or espouse beliefs which support or sympathise with Islamic terrorism should also be blamed or do you think the blame for Islamist terrorism lies solely with the West?

The intervention of West in Iraq and Syria and Libya was evil,it's bring civil wars and terrorism, is fact.

I can agree with the first two, but Libya is a lose-lose situation for the West. We get the blame for Libya being a failed state even though Muslims can't seem to stand the notion of Western nations rebuilding nations they've torn down. On the other hand if we hadn't intervened Gaddafi's army would have engaged in an orgy of slaughter and destruction in Benghazi and Muslims the world over would have pointed the finger at us for standing aside while yet another dictator backed and armed by the West slaughtered his own people when we should have done our best to stop him.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Can I ask what you think Islam is? (I'm not looking for your opinion on Islam here i.e. whether you think it is inherently violent, or problematic, or whatever, but rather what you think Islam as a religion/way of life constitutes - its beliefs, practices, etc., and what the sources for those beliefs and practices are)

 

[Quetzal]

Islam is not easily offended though many, many Muslims get themselves pretty excited at the faintest whiff of criticism.
Part of the problem is that many, many Muslims believe that Islam is perfect therefore any criticism is unwarranted and due to ignorance.
Though many, many Muslims profess love and respect for Jesus they blithely ignore his alleged suggestion to Matthew 5:39

(Not to detail TOO far) but this is not limited to Muslims, either. Just thought I would point that out.