Palestianian atheist arrested

[Autodidact]

denying is your right. noone has to be on your path. for instance, i think noone would wonder if Palestinian Chrisitans deny Muhammad SAW. of course they deny him. and Muslims deny trinity. but they live together in the same place and as you see no Christians are in prison for not believing the same as Muslims. what i oppose here in whole of this thread is insult. i might deny trinity because i do not believe in trinity. but i don't insult whoever believes it or i don't mock the belief itself. if you guys don't see any difference between, i could not make you see i am afraid

.

Yes, .lava, we understand that you don't think people should insult Muhammed. We get that. But that's not the question. The question is, should the government put them in jail for doing so? That's what we want to know.

 

[Autodidact]

....which is ordinary, expected and accepted. i do respect rights of an atheist not to believe in what i believe

.

Excellent. Do you respect our right to say so?

 

[.lava]

Excellent. Do you respect our right to say so?

yes, of course

.

 

[.lava]

Yes, .lava, we understand that you don't think people should insult Muhammed. We get that. But that's not the question. The question is, should the government put them in jail for doing so? That's what we want to know.

so the person in the question here is someone who could not stop insutling Islam in a Muslim land... he is absolutely not able to stop swearing at Allah so he must insult what Muslims hold as divine... no need to jail him and spend taxes on feeding him. he should go and live where he fits better. that's what i think

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

wow i have never met any Muslim who would say that.

Not directly, but that's the implication for many Christians.

But my point is this: where should the line be of what is or isn't allowed?

I don't think that it works to place the line based on just offensiveness, because many ideas that are deeply-held by one person are deeply offensive to another.

In terms of this specific incident, I think there's also the issue of consistency: if a Muslim in a Muslim-majority country found themselves suddenly in the minority, how would they want to be treated? Would they want the right to speak their mind then? Would they want to be silenced just because the majority doesn't like their point of view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so the person in the question here is someone who could not stop insutling Islam in a Muslim land... he is absolutely not able to stop swearing at Allah so he must insult what Muslims hold as divine... no need to jail him and spend taxes on feeding him. he should go and live where he fits better. that's what i think

.

So he should be banished from the place where he was born and raised?

 

[Autodidact]

so the person in the question here is someone who could not stop insutling Islam in a Muslim land... he is absolutely not able to stop swearing at Allah so he must insult what Muslims hold as divine... no need to jail him and spend taxes on feeding him. he should go and live where he fits better. that's what i think

.

I don't remember any swearing involved. All I remember is him stating his opinion and making his argument. He is able to stop, but does not wish to. Like you, he wants to be able to say what he thinks on the subject. And your opinion is that since he had the misfortune to be born in a "Muslim land," he should be exiled from his home. All I can say is, all the more reason to make sure as little of the earth as possible is "Muslim land."

 

[Revoltingest]

so the person in the question here is someone who could not stop insutling Islam in a Muslim land... he is absolutely not able to stop

How do you know that he cannot stop? Perhaps he simply chooses to continue what he's doing.

....no need to jail him and spend taxes on feeding him. he should go and live where he fits better. that's what i think.

It doesn't even matter where he lives, since he posts on the worldwide web. Would it be reasonable to kick
out all American Muslims who speak ill of our sacred freedom of speech?

 

[.lava]

[/FONT]
Not directly, but that's the implication for many Christians.

But my point is this: where should the line be of what is or isn't allowed?

I don't think that it works to place the line based on just offensiveness, because many ideas that are deeply-held by one person are deeply offensive to another.

In terms of this specific incident, I think there's also the issue of consistency: if a Muslim in a Muslim-majority country found themselves suddenly in the minority, how would they want to be treated? Would they want the right to speak their mind then? Would they want to be silenced just because the majority doesn't like their point of view?

somewhere in this thread Kerr said something very meaningful IMO. he said something like 'it should be a social issue not a legal one.' that's the best if you ask me. it would be the best if people did not need prevention of laws not to insult other's belief. we, by that i mean humanity, should not need to write it down as a law. in fact we should not need to write what human rights are. but we do because we have to. today there is no written law that i know of in my nation that prevents swearing at Prophet. that's because noone ever did it yet. but once people start attacking Islam we would need to write those laws down.

i do not need any law to tell me to act humane. i personally do not need any law to prevent me from insulting people who believe in trinity. my path requires respect anyway. any Christian here would directly assume i don't believe in trinity. that would be correct. i don't. but at the same time you could not find my thoughts in a heartbreaking or provoking manner. if being a Muslim on its own was offending people -which kind of happens today in Europe- that is a different issue. is being a Muslim a fault or a crime? raising fascism in Europe would say 'yes'. any oppressive Christian would say 'yes' because even if i don't voice my belief it is very well known that i disagree with Christian way of interpretation of God and religion. but we are not talking about those extremes, are we? we are talking about insult and mockery. no atheist person needs to voice his opinion in dozens of pages to make me see he does not believe in God. i already know that. no atheist needs to insult, mock and swear at Prophet to prove he does not beleve in what i believe. just because i would not insult your belief does not give you permission to draw that line wherever you want to. if there must be a line that ends freedom of speech, it has to be decided with agreement of both sides. and yes, if it could be done socially without written laws, that would be the best. but it is unfortunate, human needs laws to act human


.

 

[.lava]

So he should be banished from the place where he was born and raised?

any criminal who breaks peace in society is also were born in the same land with others. so what? nobody's talking about exiling people simply for not being Muslim. as i said earlier, there are Christians in Palestine. why do you think they are not in prison? they can live together because both shows certain amount of respect to one another. if there is diversity in a society and i think it is unavoidable, people has to show respect. if this guy wants to insult Prophet you could not compare it with critizicing a politic man. politics come and go but Prophet of Islam is unchangeable. it was Mohammad SAW and it would be Mohammad SAW forever

.

 

[.lava]

How do you know that he cannot stop? Perhaps he simply chooses to continue what he's doing.

It doesn't even matter where he lives, since he posts on the worldwide web. Would it be reasonable to kick
out all American Muslims who speak ill of our sacred freedom of speech?

i don't know.

so in this case, there is a man who's perfectly aware he is breaking peace in soceity, he is provoking others and he does not wish to stop. well...

.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

somewhere in this thread Kerr said something very meaningful IMO. he said something like 'it should be a social issue not a legal one.' that's the best if you ask me. it would be the best if people did not need prevention of laws not to insult other's belief. we, by that i mean humanity, should not need to write it down as a law. in fact we should not need to write what human rights are. but we do because we have to.

I don't disagree with you... so far. Personally, I probably wouldn't want to publish material that insults Muhammad. If someone else asked me if I thought it was a good idea, I'd probably tell them that it wasnt. But this is a separate matter to the question of law, which asks how the state should respond if someone chooses to do it anyway.

today there is no written law that i know of in my nation that prevents swearing at Prophet. that's because noone ever did it yet. but once people start attacking Islam we would need to write those laws down.

To our shame, there's such a law in my nation:

296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

But why do you see the need for a law against insulting the Prophet, even if people are actually doing it?

i do not need any law to tell me to act humane. i personally do not need any law to prevent me from insulting people who believe in trinity. my path requires respect anyway. any Christian here would directly assume i don't believe in trinity. that would be correct. i don't. but at the same time you could not find my thoughts in a heartbreaking or provoking manner. if being a Muslim on its own was offending people -which kind of happens today in Europe- that is a different issue. is being a Muslim a fault or a crime? raising fascism in Europe would say 'yes'. any oppressive Christian would say 'yes' because even if i don't voice my belief it is very well known that i disagree with Christian way of interpretation of God and religion. but we are not talking about those extremes, are we? we are talking about insult and mockery.

Locking up someone for insulting the Prophet is extreme.

And we are talking about these sorts of things. When you open the door to imposing Islam on non-Muslims, you also open the door to non-Muslim religions being imposed on Muslims elsewhere.

It would be hypocritical for a person to support the suppresion of anti-Muslim voices in Palestine while also condemning suppression of Muslim voices in Europe.

Silencing of this blogger in Palestine is the exact same mentality that led to the ban on minarets in Switzerland. And IMO, it's wrong in both cases.

 

[Revoltingest]

i don't know.

so in this case, there is a man who's perfectly aware he is breaking peace in soceity, he is provoking others and he does not wish to stop. well... .

How is the peace being broken?

 

[.lava]

How is the peace being broken?

i was not there. but so far i see.... he claims to be God, he tries to collect followers and he gives order to his followers... how could that end in your opinion?

.

 

[Autodidact]

somewhere in this thread Kerr said something very meaningful IMO. he said something like 'it should be a social issue not a legal one.' that's the best if you ask me. it would be the best if people did not need prevention of laws not to insult other's belief. we, by that i mean humanity, should not need to write it down as a law. in fact we should not need to write what human rights are. but we do because we have to. today there is no written law that i know of in my nation that prevents swearing at Prophet. that's because noone ever did it yet. but once people start attacking Islam we would need to write those laws down.

i do not need any law to tell me to act humane. i personally do not need any law to prevent me from insulting people who believe in trinity. my path requires respect anyway. any Christian here would directly assume i don't believe in trinity. that would be correct. i don't. but at the same time you could not find my thoughts in a heartbreaking or provoking manner. if being a Muslim on its own was offending people -which kind of happens today in Europe- that is a different issue. is being a Muslim a fault or a crime? raising fascism in Europe would say 'yes'. any oppressive Christian would say 'yes' because even if i don't voice my belief it is very well known that i disagree with Christian way of interpretation of God and religion. but we are not talking about those extremes, are we? we are talking about insult and mockery. no atheist person needs to voice his opinion in dozens of pages to make me see he does not believe in God. i already know that. no atheist needs to insult, mock and swear at Prophet to prove he does not beleve in what i believe. just because i would not insult your belief does not give you permission to draw that line wherever you want to. if there must be a line that ends freedom of speech, it has to be decided with agreement of both sides. and yes, if it could be done socially without written laws, that would be the best. but it is unfortunate, human needs laws to act human


.

Well that's exactly our point. It should be a social issue only. But it's not. The government has made it a legal issue. In fact, they expended considerable effort to track this guy down and expose him so they could make it a legal issue.

Does this mean you oppose the government's actions?

As for those who condemn him for insulting others, what course should they take, killing him, or exercising their own right to speak out and criticize him?

Where do you think the line should be drawn?

Should Muhammed be entitled to any greater protection than any other dead person?

 

[Autodidact]

i was not there. but so far i see.... he claims to be God, he tries to collect followers and he gives order to his followers... how could that end in your opinion?

.

Oh please, it was satire.

This sounds like you think Jesus was breaking the peace. Also possibly Muhammed.

 

[Revoltingest]

i was not there. but so far i see.... he claims to be God, he tries to collect followers and he gives order to his followers... how could that end in your opinion?.

A new religion, perhaps. After all, they all start somewhere, often with a prophet who claims to have God's ear.
But how does that break the peace?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i was not there. but so far i see.... he claims to be God, he tries to collect followers and he gives order to his followers... how could that end in your opinion?

.

Christianity?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A new religion, perhaps. After all, they all start somewhere, often with a prophet who claims to have God's ear.
But how does that break the peace?

If he claimed to be God it was certainly a joke. He used a silly image from a Monty Python movie, after all (a comedy).

Secondly, the logic is like I said before: "If you say things I find offensive, I am going to get violent. Therefore, by offending me, you are the one inciting violence."

 

[Meow Mix]

so the person in the question here is someone who could not stop insutling Islam in a Muslim land... he is absolutely not able to stop swearing at Allah so he must insult what Muslims hold as divine... no need to jail him and spend taxes on feeding him. he should go and live where he fits better. that's what i think

.

So you advocate tearing a man away from his family in order to have the basic human dignity of being able to express his own opinion in an OPTIONAL media (i.e., a web page that you can CLICK AWAY FROM if you disagree)?

Really, .lava? Isn't that pretty evil to suggest tearing a man from his family and friends just because some people don't have the spine to NOT look at a web page that offends them?