Palestianian atheist arrested

[Meow Mix]

we agree to disagree then. i am fine with it. just note that calling Prophet a rapist is not acceptable. even if laws let you, someone who could not stand hearing such a lie might attack you physically. i rather not see this kind of expressions in my nation because i sincerely do not want new generations grow up seeing and hearing lies about our beloved Prophet

oh, and i apologize for giving emotional reaction earlier. it was an attitude i wasnot expecting from you. but still, i could have been more logical and rational

.

No need for apologies, we all got emotional over this... there are a lot of deeply fundamental things at stake in this conversation as we've noticed

 

[.lava]

No need for apologies, we all got emotional over this... there are a lot of deeply fundamental things at stake in this conversation as we've noticed

thank you

.

 

[jarofthoughts]

just note that calling Prophet a rapist is not acceptable.

Perhaps not on a social level and anyone is of course free to consider such a person to be moronic, an idiot, an insensitive [insert bad word] or whatever they like. But if freedom of speech is to be upheld, and I fervently believe it should, then no-one should fear imprisonment nor violence for saying such things.

even if laws let you, someone who could not stand hearing such a lie might attack you physically.

Then they are in the wrong and should be imprisoned for it. Period.

i rather not see this kind of expressions in my nation because i sincerely do not want new generations grow up seeing and hearing lies about our beloved Prophet

Do you not think that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about what to consider lies?

 

[.lava]

Is there any reason why Islam should be exempt from verbal attack?



Any idea has enemies, or at least, opponents. Islam needs to accept that they are no different and that legislation and/or violence is not an accepted response.



And nothing is stopping you or anyone else from making your version available.



Probably, but he also attacks religions in general. Which is his right.



You seem to be missing the point. He WANTED to cause problems. All people who try to initiate a change of some kind are causing problems for those who are opposed to change. And that is exactly how it should be.



No-one should receive death threats for voicing their opinion.



Yes he did.
Words are not violent.
As far as I can see he has never physically attacked anyone nor has he incited violence.
Hence, he did this in a peaceful manner.



Because he dislikes the whole idea of Islam and would want to see it removed if he so could.
What's hard to understand about that?



People have the right to their opinions.
They also have the right to tell other people about those opinions.

Are Muslims so afraid of letting people judge for themselves that they must ban the opinions of others?
Why do they feel that a free open discourse is so dangerous?
If Islam is such a perfect idea shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merit?
Does god really need someone to defend him?

and i have a Jarofthoughts who replies every single sentence i type seperately O_O
i'll try to respond later if you don't mind, Mr. Niggling

.

 

[.lava]

Perhaps not on a social level and anyone is of course free to consider such a person to be moronic, an idiot, an insensitive [insert bad word] or whatever they like. But if freedom of speech is to be upheld, and I fervently believe it should, then no-one should fear imprisonment nor violence for saying such things.



Then they are in the wrong and should be imprisoned for it. Period.



Do you not think that they should be allowed to make up their own minds about what to consider lies?

hahaha oh dear.. please read my previous reply

.

 

[Meow Mix]

Perhaps not on a social level and anyone is of course free to consider such a person to be moronic, an idiot, an insensitive [insert bad word] or whatever they like. But if freedom of speech is to be upheld, and I fervently believe it should, then no-one should fear imprisonment nor violence for saying such things.

Well there is such a thing as slander, but I agree with you.

For instance back to my Martin Luther King example... many people have huge, huge adoration and respect for Martin Luther King. It might be very offensive to those people to suggest that MLK might have participated in a threesome shortly before his death.

In fact, the FBI had information on MLK engaging in at least extra-marital sex in hotel rooms occasionally.

Bringing this up to an ardent MLK admirer would seem like a "base insult," a "lie," but it's actually just an argument that the man wasn't a saint and he was human like the rest of us.

If someone argues that Mohammed was a "rapist" then they should qualify what they mean. In some places having sex with a young girl is considered rape for instance, so if someone was just arguing that then they might just be making a point from that perspective. Censoring them isn't the solution.

The minute something becomes immune to criticism or scrutiny is the minute thinking dies.

 

[jarofthoughts]

and i have a Jarofthoughts who replies every single sentence i type seperately O_O
i'll try to respond later if you don't mind, Mr. Niggling

.

hahaha oh dear.. please read my previous reply

.

No problem.
In your own time when you have time if you have time.

I just like to make my points as clear as I can to avoid misunderstandings...

 

[Bismillah]

In some places having sex with a young girl is considered rape for instance, so if someone was just arguing that then they might just be making a point from that perspective.

What perspective is that? Can you please refer to me the society which considered child marriage to be rape in the 600's? There simply is no perspective of calling the Prophet a rapist, period. While he has the right to express his opinion, it is limited to an extent. Some of the material he has published is unquestionably malicious in nature and should be held as libel.

 

[.lava]

What perspective is that? Can you please refer to me the society which considered child marriage to be rape in the 600's? There simply is no perspective of calling the Prophet a rapist, period. While he has the right to express his opinion, it is limited to an extent. Some of the material he has published is unquestionably malicious in nature and should be held as libel.

agreed. thank you for sharing your thoughts

.

 

[Meow Mix]

What perspective is that? Can you please refer to me the society which considered child marriage to be rape in the 600's? There simply is no perspective of calling the Prophet a rapist, period. While he has the right to express his opinion, it is limited to an extent. Some of the material he has published is unquestionably malicious in nature and should be held as libel.

Well for obvious reasons I don't want to get into this, but it seems to me that someone with a direct link to God would have timeless morals, not morals based on the time... if God is omniscient and good.

That's as far as I'll go, am just saying the direction someone could go in an attempt to make a legitimate point. I'm not trying to offend and I don't even know enough about the subject at hand. If I did though, I'm just saying that someone making such an argument may not be intending to insult (though it might be hitting sensitive spots) but rather to make an argument. And I don't think it should be censored by the government. People have a choice to read it or not.

And granted, "rapist" is a strong word. But this is an emotional issue: it's not just emotional for Muslims, you know; but likely was an emotional issue for this ex-Muslim atheist too. Sometimes our emotions make our words stronger than we intend.

 

[Bismillah]

Well for obvious reasons I don't want to get into this, but it seems to me that someone with a direct link to God would have timeless morals, not morals based on the time... if God is omniscient and good.

Morals are subjective and inherently dependent on the time period. What made polygamy necessary in ancient Arabia, the wide gap between the number of females and males as well as the uncertain status of widows, does not make it necessary now. Indeed I don't think there are many cases in the modern world where Polygamy can be correct from an Islamic view point.

Even if you take the position that the Prophet did marry Aisha immediately after puberty, something I don't accept, it is self defeating to impose the current morals of society on another that is thousands of years in the past. Archaeologists understand this and make extra precautions to not let their own subjective morals taint their understanding and exploration of ancient cultures.

At that point in time child marriages were completely legitimate everywhere. Calling it rape is baseless and it is slander. There is no argument or perspective to be brought forth, only controversy and public backlash.

 

[.lava]

Well for obvious reasons I don't want to get into this, but it seems to me that someone with a direct link to God would have timeless morals, not morals based on the time... if God is omniscient and good.

That's as far as I'll go, am just saying the direction someone could go in an attempt to make a legitimate point. I'm not trying to offend and I don't even know enough about the subject at hand. If I did though, I'm just saying that someone making such an argument may not be intending to insult (though it might be hitting sensitive spots) but rather to make an argument. And I don't think it should be censored by the government. People have a choice to read it or not.

And granted, "rapist" is a strong word. But this is an emotional issue: it's not just emotional for Muslims, you know; but likely was an emotional issue for this ex-Muslim atheist too. Sometimes our emotions make our words stronger than we intend.

it is not an assumption he is insulting. he is clearly insulting. he might be emotional though. but those emotions are not rooted in excitement and disappointment; it is hatred and revenge IMO

.

 

[Meow Mix]

Morals are subjective and inherently dependent on the time period. What made polygamy necessary in ancient Arabia, the wide gap between the number of females and males as well as the uncertain status of widows, does not make it necessary now. Indeed I don't think there are many cases in the modern world where Polygamy can be correct from an Islamic view point.

Even if you take the position that the Prophet did marry Aisha immediately after puberty, something I don't accept, it is self defeating to impose the current morals of society on another that is thousands of years in the past. Archaeologists understand this and make extra precautions to not let their own subjective morals taint their understanding and exploration of ancient cultures.

At that point in time child marriages were completely legitimate everywhere. Calling it rape is baseless and it is slander. There is no argument or perspective to be brought forth, only controversy and public backlash.

Like I said I don't know enough about Islam specifically to make the argument, I was just expressing how it "could" be an argument intended to persuade and not just to insult.

I do however disagree that just because child marriages were legitimate that it made it less than wrong, though. Slavery was also rampant but I consider that wrong regardless of time frame. I would never say "Oh slavery was common back then, so no big deal." Same with having sex with very young girls. (Again I don't claim Mohammed had sex with a young girl, I don't know enough about the topic, just speaking in generalities).

For instance in the Bible (something I'm more familiar with) there are people who give rules on slavery, etc. I'm sorry, but I think it's logical that if God is omniscient and good and moral, that NEVER at any time in history would God condone slavery, even if it was "all the rage" at a certain point in time. Just an example of what I mean. Again, I must bow out of this particular subject on Mohammed and Aisha because I know nothing about it. I was merely arguing that legitimate arguments can be interpreted as insults sometimes if they are about sensitive things.

 

[Meow Mix]

it is not an assumption he is insulting. he is clearly insulting. he might be emotional though. but those emotions are not rooted in excitement and disappointment; it is hatred and revenge IMO

.

I disagree that it's that clear. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Besides, I don't even think punishment by the law is even merited for the most egregious insulting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Lava, you have done a great job in this thread...Bravo!

Hey Sahar, when you replied to kai about the "no compulsion in religion" issue and you said "it is compulsion ... they will step on the disbelievers' necks", etc. .... you are against compulsion, correct?

 

[jarofthoughts]

At that point in time child marriages were completely legitimate everywhere. Calling it rape is baseless and it is slander. There is no argument or perspective to be brought forth, only controversy and public backlash.

This is true, but it is an argument that perhaps Muhammad was not the perfect being some Muslims think he was, and that his morals and his example should not be followed blindly but critically examined against current society.

 

[Bismillah]

I was just expressing how it "could" be an argument intended to persuade and not just to insult.

And I am expressing that calling the Prophet a "rapist" is a slanderous statement. There is no other objective and argument to be made.

I do however disagree that just because child marriages were legitimate that it made it less than wrong, though.

I don't expect you to agree because you and I do not live in ancient Arabia do we. It's easy to assume that the problems we see in child marriages today make it wrong in an ancient society. However, the fundamental disconnect is that these problems don't even apply to that society.

Slavery was also rampant but I consider that wrong regardless of time frame.

The major juristic schools of Islam have historically accepted the institution of slavery.[1] Muhammad and those of the Sahaba (companions) who could afford it themselves owned slaves, freed many, and some of them acquired more from prisoners of war. Arabian slaves did benefit from the Islamic dispensations, which enormously improved their position through the reforms of a humanitarian tendency both at the time of Muhammad and the later early caliphs.[1]

Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. Traditional biographies of Muhammad give many examples where Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Abul Ala Maududi reports that Muhammad freed as many as 63 slaves.[3]

Muhammad and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Autodidact]

OK Meow Mix, i partially read English version of what he wrote and i dislike it. i consider it an attack on Islam, Islamic belief and feelings of Muslims. i did not read it all but the parts i read remind me what i hear from enemies of Islam. matter of fact it is perfect match. the exact same stuff. full of lies and slander. i would be happier if each of those lies and slanders were responded with true version of everything. seems like he has to attack Islam because that's the religion he left. he could have done it without causing problems. he could have done it without being threatened to death. he could have done it peacefully. but he did not. i don't understand why he has to attack and say bad things about Islam. i would not welcome it and i don't respect it.

None of this has the slightest relevance to discussion, and is exactly what we expect. i don't believe it is his right to do that[/quote] Why not? Is there some reason he should have to comply with what you like? Do you have to comply with what he likes?

 

[Meow Mix]

And I am expressing that calling the Prophet a "rapist" is a slanderous statement. There is no other objective and argument to be made.

It's a strong word, I'll leave it at that. I might use that word on people who have sex with very young girls though, especially people in power. *shrug*

I don't expect you to agree because you and I do not live in ancient Arabia do we. It's easy to assume that the problems we see in child marriages today make it wrong in an ancient society. However, the fundamental disconnect is that these problems don't even apply to that society.

Muhammad and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "problem" I see is stealing someone's childhood and forcing them to grow up so quickly. I think that's wrong, people should be able to enjoy their childhoods. Just because it was all the rage to marry young I still think there's a lower limit to when people have to grow up, and I would think that someone connected to God wouldn't cross it. That's all I'm saying.

As for slavery, freeing slaves is good but it also mentions owning slaves. Were 100% of slaves set free or just some?

 

[.lava]

None of this has the slightest relevance to discussion, and is exactly what we expect.[/FONT] i don't believe it is his right to do that Why not? Is there some reason he should have to comply with what you like? Do you have to comply with what he likes?

then be happy for getting what you expected

.