Pakistan wants "Freedom to Kill Freedom of Speech" in name of "Freedom of Religion"

[stvdv]

Pakistan forced Geert Wilders to cancel Muhammad Cartoon Contest by "murder threat"

1 Amsterdam Imaam called to protect Geert Wilders, but Muslim organisation CMO did not agree (spoiler 6)

Personally I think Freedom of Speech should not be used to irritate on purpose. But the issue here is 10.000 Muslims so full of hate that they don't see that using an "atom bomb" is overkill to express their unhappiness with a "relatively harmless drawing of Muhammad".

In Pakistan 10.000 protested [maybe 1% of the 1 million total who agree]. Is it still terrorists only?
Pakistan Leader tells the world "If I had an atom bomb I would remove Holland from the earth" [spoiler 9)].
I never hear 10.000 protest against these kind of things in the Islam/Koran; of course extremist protest more.

What do you think about Freedom of Speech? [A few questions come to mind]:
a) Is Freedom of Speech okay when it offends Muslims as in this case "Muhammad Cartoon Contest"?
b) Is Freedom of Speech still okay when it evokes "murder threats"? [compare with US man in spoiler 3)]
c) Is it "responsible act of the West" to allow blasphemy[Koran] leading to "murder threats" by Muslims?
d) Is it correct that G.Wilders stopped Contest? Should we change this Law or obey to demands "terrorists"?
e) Should Freedom of Speech/Religion be re-evaluated [Law + highest Imaam + Pope] before/after killings?
f) Are "murder threats" Pakistan acts of "terrorism"? How to solve this internationally? [see also spoiler 8)]
g) If 10.000 Pakistani join protest to "kill G.Wilders" is this still Islamists only?

h) Should Muslims have the right to impose their Sharia Law onto other countries (by threatening to kill)?
i) Should there be a kind of International Law forbidding Muslims to make these kinds of murder threats?
j) Should head of Imaams speak out against this kill threat [See below]? Say nothing conveys agreeing?

Most interesting argument IMO is made in number 6) below in spoiler [under the titel "Political gain"]
Political gain
The Contact Body Muslims and Government (CMO) does not call for the protection of Wilders. "That is the task of the authorities", says chairman Halil Karaaslan
[This Feels like "not taking responsibility for this horrible threat. We talk about "Muslim community in Pakistan ordering to murder Dutch politicians in cold blood because of a Drawing Context in Holland for God's sake". No Paris regrets nor internationally Muslim responsibility I see]

Spoiler: 5 Links about Pakistan vs Wilders on blasphemy Muhammad

1) Pakistani man arrested for threatening to kill dutch politcian Geert Wilders
Pakistani man arrested for threatening to kill Dutch politician visited anti-Israel event - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

2) Afghan taliban urges retaliation [10.000 protest. If this is 1% then 1 million think alike. Can't be terrorists only IMO]
Afghan Taliban Urges Retaliation for Planned Dutch Cartoon Contest

3) In US murder threat might cost you $250,000 fine + 5 year prison
US man 'threatened to shoot' reporters

4) Instead of admitting "Freedom to Kill against Freedom of Speech" is sick, they twist their real motives
Dutch cartoon contest and protests in Pakistan: All for show?

5) Because the lives of all Dutch people is in danger (threatened) Geert Wilders cancelled the contest.
Dutch anti-Islam lawmaker cancels Prophet cartoon contest

6) 1 Dutch Imaam (Amsterdam) asks Muslims to protect Geert Wilders
Google Translate

7) Paris Muslim shooting because of Muhammad cartoon context
Charlie Hebdo Shooting: 12 Killed at Muhammad Cartoons Magazine in Paris

8) Sick Pakistani reply on cancellation Cartoon constest [Islamists don't regret murder threat G.Wilder]
Pakistan Govt Celebrates Wilders Mohammed Cartoon Contest Cancellation

9) Dutch Pakistani kept quiet. Pakistan 10.000 protest. Leader "If atom bomb remove Holland from earth"]
Cartoon row sought to rile Dutch Muslims, but found only dignity

10) Was it wrong that G.Wilders was forced by "murder threat" Pakistan to stop the Cartoon Contest?
Geert Wilders is a bigot, but he should not have canceled his Prophet Mohammed cartoon event

 

[Estro Felino]

This Pakistani singer tweeted

Rabi Pirzada on Twitter

Freedom of expression can never justify blasphemy.We strongly protest against disrespect of Our Beloved Prophet (PBUH) in France. Making cartoon of Prophet is the worst act of terrorism.The Sketch makers must be hanged immediately.

It's spontaneous to cancel cartoon contests when someone points a knife to our throat
None of us wants to die, I guess

 

[PruePhillip]

Pakistan forced Geert Wilders to cancel Muhammad Cartoon Contest by "murder threat"
[/SPOILER]

Historically there has been little "freedom of speech" anywhere, IMO.
It's a matter of degrees.
Islam will get a free ride in the West from the Liberal Left who champion
every cause. This same Left will be the first target of a resurgent Islam
when it achieves power.
Blasphemy laws are a big problem. Now Indonesia is going down that
same path.
What is terrifying about Pakistan is that it is nuclear, and it could become
the first nuclear Jihadist state.

 

[Spiderman]

Muslims offend me, but they should be allowed to say what they want as long as they don't act it out or make threats.

Muhammad cartoons are not threatening and Muslims can simply not look at them.

I find that extremist muslims kick, scream, and wine about petty infantile things. Is Allah and Muhammad such wimps and big babies that they can't handle a cartoon?? A cartoon is simply a cartoon. Why can't they understand that?

I'm a grown man. You can draw a picture of a pig with my face and I'll let it slide like water bouncing off a rock.

It looks like I'm more mature and strong than Allah and Muhammad , who Muslims make out to be total wimps who can't handle a cartoon image! Quite pathetic!

 

[Polymath257]

a)-c) Free speech means you don't have the freedom to be un-offended. You have the freedom to respond in a civil fashion to offenses. But

d) every person needs to deal with their own security. But no, the law should not be changed to restrict such speech.

e) No. Killings are the responsibility of those who kill, not those who criticize.

f) I don't know if threats are terrorism, but they are certainly threats against civil society. People who make such threats should be tried and convicted of making them.

g),h) No, you don't get to impose religious law on any society. That is also part of freedom of religion: other religions (or no religion) are treated equally.

i) I don't know whether international law applies, but it should be a strong local law if nothing else.

j) Of course they should speak out again such threats. But so should other leaders in other situations.

 

[Father Heathen]

Do these people ever take a step back and ask themselves why freer countries tend to be more developed? They call for murder and in the same breathe demand respect for their beliefs, but in doing so demonstrate precisely why their beliefs don't deserve respect.

 

[Father Heathen]

Islam will get a free ride in the West from the Liberal Left who champion every cause. This same Left will be the first target of a resurgent Islam
when it achieves power.

Can you provide some examples of "the liberal left" supporting terrorism and religious fundamentalism?

 

[icehorse]

Can you provide some examples of "the liberal left" supporting terrorism and religious fundamentalism?

Your question is a strawman.

That said, roughly half of the world's Muslims would like to have Sharia be the law of the land. Whenever ANYONE says "Islam is a religion of peace" or shouts "that's Islamophobic", that person is supporting religious fundamentalism. Perhaps this is support through ignorance, but it's still support.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your question is a strawman.

How so? Care to elaborate? If anything is a straw man, it's the assertion that liberals as a whole somehow support Islamic fundamentalism despite having values that are directly opposed to one another.

That said, roughly half of the world's Muslims would like to have Sharia be the law of the land. Whenever ANYONE says "Islam is a religion of peace" or shouts "that's Islamophobic", that person is supporting religious fundamentalism. Perhaps this is support through ignorance, but it's still support.

Sure, but does such foolishness represent liberals as a whole?

 

[Polymath257]

Anyone wiling to level a death threat because of a cartoon of someone who has been dead for centuries doesn't deserve respect, let alone concession. The laws should condemn the threats and protect the cartoonist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pakistan Leader tells the world "If I had an atom bomb I would remove Holland from the earth".

I don't doubt something happened, but Pakistan DOES have a nuclear arsenal, so there are some facts here that are wrong. And the fact they have "the bomb," and groups like Al Qaeda, that is alarming enough on its own.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't doubt something happened, but Pakistan DOES have a nuclear arsenal, so there are some facts here that are wrong. And the fact they have "the bomb," and groups like Al Qaeda, that is alarming enough on its own.

That was my first thought, too. Pakistan does have nukes. And if they were going to nuke anyone, it'll be India.

 

[icehorse]

How so? Care to elaborate? If anything is a straw man, it's the assertion that liberals as a whole somehow support Islamic fundamentalism despite having values that are directly opposed to one another.

You asked:

Can you provide some examples of "the liberal left" supporting terrorism and religious fundamentalism?

That was a strawman argument, because no one in this thread claimed that the liberal left support both of those things.

Sure, but does such foolishness represent liberals as a whole?

@PruePhillip's post was a bit ambiguous, but I read him to mean not all liberals, but the extreme end of the liberal camp.

 

[PruePhillip]

Can you provide some examples of "the liberal left" supporting terrorism and religious fundamentalism?

I didn't say that. In my country there is a clamor for open borders, respect for
Sharia law and the like. Christians are increasingly under attack for misogyny,
homophobia, indoctrination, racism etc.. yet this is precisely what Muslims do
and think, without censure because they are a persecuted minority.
Thus the "free ride" Muslims are getting in many Western societies.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sadly, it is generally unwise to expect the random Muslim to have a good grasp of religious freedom, let alone freedom of speech.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sadly, it is generally unwise to expect the random Muslim to have a good grasp of religious freedom, let alone freedom of speech.

These things develop over centuries. Freedom was something
fought long and hard for over many generations in the West.

 

[LuisDantas]

These things develop over centuries. Freedom was something
fought long and hard for over many generations in the West.

While that is true, and this is an often presented argument, it fails to consider that the "West" did not have much of a previous example to learn from.

The Islaamic world does - and resents that something fierce.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't say that. In my country there is a clamor for open borders, respect for
Sharia law and the like. Christians are increasingly under attack for misogyny,
homophobia, indoctrination, racism etc.. yet this is precisely what Muslims do
and think, without censure because they are a persecuted minority.
Thus the "free ride" Muslims are getting in many Western societies.

Can you say more about where you are from and can you cite examples of people asking for respect of Sharia? I hear many reports of these things, and I tend to believe that there is a problem. That said, it seems hard to get solid news reporting on these topics. Thanks.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Wait, wait. Let's not forget that all of this Qur'an inspired hate-filled totalitarianism, violence, intolerance, and abuse performed in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. The fact that the most intolerant, abusive and misogynistic regimes in the world are all Islamic countries is just a coincidence, because it has nothing to do with Islam. To suggest otherwise makes you a Racist, even though Islam is a religion, and not a race.

 

[Notanumber]

The rot set in when so called free countries failed to support Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses.