Islam fights free speech

[Notanumber]

Zakir Naik is a self-proclaimed expert on the quran; surely, he would be qualified to undertake the task. If not, he should know someone who is capable of carrying out a fundamental review of the malevolent document.

Political Islam is hiding behind the skirts of the so-called ‘Religion of Peace’.

 

[Notanumber]

This is true, and should also apply to much of the bible.

This is also true, but the big difference is that I could go to my local Parish Church and denounce the bible without fear of endangering my life.

I would not want to go to my local mosque and try doing the same to the quran, even though they call it the ‘Religion of Peace’.

BTW, the quran is based on parts of the bible is it not?

 

[Akivah]

Sorry not intentionally delete my post few seconds ago. (to delete the duplicated one).

the condemnation is not satisfy anyone.

I said , it's depend the poster gaol, if he want to understand or being anti-Muslims,so I do condemn the generalizing used in this thread.

I ask you this question to understand me more, hope to get honest answser
Do you condemn "anti-Jewish" threads to satisfy anti-Jewish memeber ?

I truly don't understand your question.

 

[icehorse]

A pointless statement .. you know that's impossible! Just because you dislike it, so what?

People will come up with excuses for their behaviour, whatever they believe..
When people are oppressed, you will find that they become unpredictable .. not particularly surprising to me

I don't know who *you* think is doing the oppressing. It's common on RF for Muslims to claim that Islam's problems are all because of "western interventions". My understanding of the history of the Muslim world, and the Muslim world today is that most oppressed Muslims are being oppressed by other Muslims. Is that what you meant?

 

[psychoslice]

This is also true, but the big difference is that I could go to my local Parish Church and denounce the bible without fear of endangering my life.

I would not want to go to my local mosque and try doing the same to the quran, even though they call it the ‘Religion of Peace’.

BTW, the quran is based on parts of the bible is it not?

Yes your are certainly right, and I have read the Quran and there is plagiarising from the bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know who *you* think is doing the oppressing. It's common on RF for Muslims to claim that Islam's problems are all because of "western interventions". My understanding of the history of the Muslim world, and the Muslim world today is that most oppressed Muslims are being oppressed by other Muslims. Is that what you meant?

Mankind oppress each other, regardless of religion..
You can clearly see Muslims oppressing other Muslims .. so can I, and also experience it first-hand

Yet I can see how Muslims are being oppressed by the west due to the financial system .. this is creating tension and dividing Muslims..
A prime example would be the rich oil countries via poor African countries. Many Muslims are becoming westernised, and the west collaborates with them politically and financially.

Six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other. Many poorer, pious Muslims become frustrated with this which naturally causes trouble

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I disagree Muslims killing Muslims because West choice to gave/support "the rebels" more weapons for years.
I do believe it's about indirect war between West and Russia, so Muslims are just land and most victimes.

Uh, I don't think @muhammad_isa was being specific. I believe he's referring to the Sunni-Shia conflict more generally. As in the sectarian violence between Muslims that began before most European nations even emerged as recognisable entities.

I do believe for recent voilence "ideoligy and deeds" are just increased by Western interventions.

By saying "increased" you're admitting there was a sectarian element present to begin with. The greatest irony of this is the Middle East might not be in the state its in if the Ottoman Empire hadn't collapsed, and that wouldn't have happened in the way it did if the Ottomans hadn't been meddling in what was up until that point, an entirely European conflict (I'm talking about World War One).

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Also to say you have free speech is true but I have freedom also and if one person invades someone else's freedom or space, then that person is negating the first persons freedom. Which is why Muslims were so upset about Charlie Hedbo ( this is only one example of thousands)

How on earth is a cartoon drawn half the world away, at which Muslims are not forced to look, negating your freedom or space? No religion has the right to freedom from criticism, mockery or satire.

 

[Godobeyer]

Uh, I don't think @muhammad_isa was being specific. I believe he's referring to the Sunni-Shia conflict more generally. As in the sectarian violence between Muslims that began before most European nations even emerged as recognisable entities.

Just after Iran revolution against king which was allie to West.
West supported Iraq to defeat Iran.

By saying "increased" you're admitting there was a sectarian element present to begin with. The greatest irony of this is the Middle East might not be in the state its in if the Ottoman Empire hadn't collapsed, and that wouldn't have happened in the way it did if the Ottomans hadn't been meddling in what was up until that point, an entirely European conflict (I'm talking about World War One).

Actually the West had long history in intervention in Muslims countries.

Actuatly West occupation most of the Middle East since 150 years ago.


What about after independents of most Muslim countries, I mean after WW2 ?
especially in Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Syria and Libya, what is your opinion about the interventions in these countries ?

 

[Godobeyer]

I truly don't understand your question.

No problem

How you would react when it's about anti-Jewish thread made by same anti-jewish person, when he post over and over anti-Jewish threads and posts ?

 

[happyo]

How on earth is a cartoon drawn half the world away, at which Muslims are not forced to look, negating your freedom or space? No religion has the right to freedom from criticism, mockery or satire.

It didn't negate my freedom lol I am not personally offended, but the ones who were offended, that's what they said. Drawing a picture of Mohammed is offensive to Muslims, or God for that matter or any other prophet. I simply didn't read the magazine, or look at that stuff or whatever. The magazine invaded their freedoms. There are things much closer to home that invade my freedoms like the Confederate flag it's offensive. Everyone has things that offend them. Everyone looses freedoms and right because other people can't respect others, and keep their own freedoms to themselves. Most people don't get any and blow people up or shoot people out of offense, but that isn't a Muslim trait, that comes from media biases.

 

[happyo]

Just after Iran revolution against king which was allie to West.
West supported Iraq to defeat Iran.






Actually the West had long history in intervention in Muslims countries.

Actuatly West occupation most of the Middle East since 150 years ago.


What about after independents of most Muslim countries, I mean after WW2 ?
especially in Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Syria and Libya, what is your opinion about the interventions in these countries ?

It's all about money and oil and power and if someone is in control of a country, who isn't a western ally, we just send in the troops or start a civil war, many times by assisting both sides of the war to obliterate everyone. Just start with a clean slate

 

[icehorse]

The magazine invaded their freedoms.

I can agree that the magazine offended some Muslims. But can you explain how that "invaded their freedoms"? Who on earth has the freedom to not be offended?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just wondering -- without having read this thread in any detail -- is there ANY religion (not just Islam) that actually relishes free speech? Think carefully, now. How many do you know that feel comfortable having their undemonstrated assumptions (on which the whole religion is based, after all) challenged? Heavens, I can even remember when Catholics weren't supposed to read the Bible for themselves (the Bible was in Latin, and only priests were taught to read it).

Questions are an essential part of free speech, and every religion I've encountered only countenances questions in the form of "how can I be saved..." as opposed to "how can that be true?..."

I asked questions in Sunday School (we're talking maybe 1955 now when I was 7) that got me kicked out completely. Apparently, I was making it difficult for the other kids to be indoctrinated.

Sorry, but it ain't just Islam. Religion demands faith and obedience, and without both, can't survive.

 

[icehorse]

Just wondering -- without having read this thread in any detail -- is there ANY religion (not just Islam) that actually relishes free speech? Think carefully, now. How many do you know that feel comfortable having their undemonstrated assumptions (on which the whole religion is based, after all) challenged? Heavens, I can even remember when Catholics weren't supposed to read the Bible for themselves (the Bible was in Latin, and only priests were taught to read it).

Questions are an essential part of free speech, and every religion I've encountered only countenances questions in the form of "how can I be saved..." as opposed to "how can that be true?..."

I asked questions in Sunday School (we're talking maybe 1955 now when I was 7) that got me kicked out completely. Apparently, I was making it difficult for the other kids to be indoctrinated.

Sorry, but it ain't just Islam. Religion demands faith and obedience, and without both, can't survive.

While I agree in general, isn't yours the "two wrongs make it right" argument as far as this thread goes?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

While I agree in general, isn't yours the "two wrongs make it right" argument as far as this thread goes?

Well, I don't think so, obviously, since I did make the statement that questions are a part of free speech -- and implied that all religions (and all ideologies, for that matter) make a deliberate effort to suppress questions that challenge what is supposed to be believed.

In my world-view, the ONLY wrong is to tell anyone to stop thinking, stop asking questions, and believe what I tell them to believe. (So please, question me further, if you'd like.)

 

[happyo]

I can agree that the magazine offended some Muslims. But can you explain how that "invaded their freedoms"? Who on earth has the freedom to not be offended?

Exactly. We are all free. Every single person. We all have the same exact rights as every other person. It's people who take our rights away. Some people have only a few rights taken away by some one else, maybe even only accidentally, some people are born into slavery or starve to death before they are two years old. But that is all man made crap. Some people don't have enough money to ensure basic freedoms but money is man made. And those people starving, it's because of war and beurocracy (spelling sorry). So for someone to be homicidally offended by pictures seems strange to some one who isn't in their shoes, but how many people are killed or would kill to take food from someone who still has that freedom.

 

[icehorse]

Well, I don't think so, obviously, since I did make the statement that questions are a part of free speech -- and implied that all religions (and all ideologies, for that matter) make a deliberate effort to suppress questions that challenge what is supposed to be believed.

In my world-view, the ONLY wrong is to tell anyone to stop thinking, stop asking questions, and believe what I tell them to believe. (So please, question me further, if you'd like.)

Hi Evan, I took your post #434 to be a sort of sideways way to deflect criticism of Islam. Did I get that wrong?

 

[icehorse]

So for someone to be homicidally offended by pictures seems strange to some one who isn't in their shoes, but how many people are killed or would kill to take food from someone who still has that freedom.

Hey happy,

I'm struggling to understand your last sentence, can you put this another way?

 

[Parsimony]

I will give your proof tomorrow.

Any day now...