Palestianian atheist arrested

[Meow Mix]

I'm not sure if you can slander a dead person. Also, opinion is not slander, and the burden of proof would be on the person alleging the slander to prove both falsity and malice. And no one has accused him of slander.

This is true, too. He wasn't charged with slander, but basically with blasphemy.

 

[Bismillah]

Children go through age-related cognitive growth that is as far as I know independent of culture so long as they're nourished healthily. It doesn't matter what time frame it is, at some points in time children of a certain age will be vulnerable and unable to offer what most of us would consider informed consent. This is why kids believe in Santa Claus: at times during their development they are the easiest things to manipulate ever. If you don't teach a kid not to talk to strangers they will get in a white unmarked van labelled "free candy." That isn't consent.

The cognitive growth of a child that includes the time period of "sponge like absorption" is limited to the first couple years. His or her awareness after this period is completely dependent on his environment. Again, a child may get into a van if he has led a sheltered life in an suburb, but that is vastly different from a Bedouin of the same age. Not to mention the fact that it is a fact that girls in the dessert physically mature faster than others. This in itself is an indication of environment and time period plays a major role not only in cognitive development, which is largely dependent on environment, but also the body's physical growth.

which I might find suspicious and morally wrong...

Perhaps your assertion would be strengthened with a specific example.

 

[Bismillah]

Blasphemous libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meow Mix]

The cognitive growth of a child that includes the time period of "sponge like absorption" is limited to the first couple years. His or her awareness after this period is completely dependent on his environment. Again, a child may get into a van if he has led a sheltered life in an suburb, but that is vastly different from a Bedouin of the same age. Not to mention the fact that it is a fact that girls in the dessert physically mature faster than others. This in itself is an indication of environment and time period plays a major role not only in cognitive development, which is largely dependent on environment, but also the body's physical growth.

Well, I'd have to bring data to the table to get into this argument, and I never intended to get into it in the first place. I don't have the patience to research it because I have a fever, so let's just leave it at I was trying to explain how someone "might" have been using as an argumentative approach. If you want to talk about this over the weekend or whenever I feel better I might be up to it because I'd like to research the matter anyway.

Perhaps your assertion would be strengthened with a specific example.

Again, don't know anyhting about it... the language was just dubious. Purchasing slaves USUALLY to free them implies some are kept. I don't really know. I'm not trying to actually make these arguments here, they were just example arguments to show how someone can make assertions about sacred figures as arguments rather than just base insults.

Sorta like if Martin Luther King Jr. were exempt from anyone saying anything negative about him ever, then the FBI would be prohibited from (truthfully) saying he committed extra-marital affairs. As soon as anything because exempt from scrutiny, thinking dies.

 

[Autodidact]

The cognitive growth of a child that includes the time period of "sponge like absorption" is limited to the first couple years. His or her awareness after this period is completely dependent on his environment. Again, a child may get into a van if he has led a sheltered life in an suburb, but that is vastly different from a Bedouin of the same age. Not to mention the fact that it is a fact that girls in the dessert physically mature faster than others. This in itself is an indication of environment and time period plays a major role not only in cognitive development, which is largely dependent on environment, but also the body's physical growth.



Perhaps your assertion would be strengthened with a specific example.

If you want to argue over the morality of child marriage (or slavery) please start a thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

Blasphemous libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't believe such laws should be enforced. Like with any radio station, TV channel or website, any time someone finds such media offensive they can change the channel.

Sure, if someone trumpets through the street with a megaphone they are crossing the line. But otherwise, what's wrong with changing the channel?

 

[Autodidact]

Blasphemous libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting stuff, Abibi.

Blasphemous libel is an common law offence under the common law. It is the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt, and the material must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians.
In England and Wales, the offence was abolished on 8 July 2008 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, having been replaced with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
It remains an offence in some Australian states and territories, although the Commonwealth and some states and territories have abolished it within their jurisdiction. For details, see blasphemy law in Australia.
In New Zealand it is illegal under the Crimes Act 1961 (Section 123) to publish any blasphemous libel. The maximum punishment is one year imprisonment. No one can be prosecuted without the consent of the Attorney General.
In Canada, Blasphemous Libel is an indictable offence under section 296(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is punishable by up to 2 years in prison.
It is a defence in both Canada and New Zealand that the accused was expressing an opinion on a religious subject provided that it is expressed in good faith and in decent language: "It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject."

I think it's a good example of how, at one time, Christianity was no better than Islam today, and would be just as bad had it not been reined in by enlightenment values, including free speech. I haven't researched it, but I bet the defense at the end is much more recent than the offense, and that at one time this law was actually used to lock people up. I might throw a little Google at it.

 

[Autodidact]

Laws of blasphemy and blasphemous libel abolished in UK

Submitted by admin on 28 May, 2008 - 14:10The amendment abolishing the blasphemy law was carried by 148 votes to 87 in the House of Lords. The fiery debate had a near record turn-out of bishops, who were split between those accepting the inevitability of change and those lamenting the signal abolition would give about the decline in religious influence and the secularisation of society. Some feared that abolition would unleash a tide of blasphemous publications.
Hanne Stinson, British Humanist Association Chief Executive, said: ‘We are delighted that the amendment has been passed in the House of Lords, and this shows a clear commitment from across the political and belief spectrums to abolish the outdated and discriminatory blasphemy laws. We are also pleased that the Government made clear the need to protect atheists and Humanists from discrimination, as well as to protect religious people. Unlike the blasphemy laws which protect only Church of England doctrine and belief, recent legislation to protect against religious hatred seeks to protect individuals of all faiths and none.’
...
Humanists Call for Repeal of U.S. Blasphemy Laws
Following Wednesday’s (5th March 2008) action by the British House of Lords to abolish all blasphemy laws in the United Kingdom, the American Humanist Association reiterated its longstanding call to remove all such statutes wherever they appear within the United States and its territories. Though few Americans know of their existence, unenforceable blasphemy laws appear on the books in several U.S. states, including Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming. No such federal laws exist. And in 1952, in Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against blasphemy bans of all sorts.

 

[Bismillah]

I don't have the patience to research it because I have a fever, so let's just leave it at I was trying to explain how someone "might" have been using as an argumentative approach

I'm sorry hope you feel better.

they were just example arguments to show how someone can make assertions about sacred figures as arguments rather than just base insults.

I understand, but I don't see either of the arguments holding any merit and thus they default to base insults. If I saw that he was actually making an argument i could understand, but I don't see it being made.

If you want to argue over the morality of child marriage (or slavery) please start a thread.

The question as to whether the man's statement of "rapist" is slander is intrinsically related to the thread.

I don't believe such laws should be enforced. Like with any radio station, TV channel or website, any time someone finds such media offensive they can change the channel.

Would you feel the same way if Fox reported the President as a rapist without any evidence?

 

[Bismillah]

I think it's a good example of how, at one time, Christianity was no better than Islam today, and would be just as bad had it not been reined in by enlightenment values, including free speech. I haven't researched it, but I bet the defense at the end is much more recent than the offense, and that at one time this law was actually used to lock people up. I might throw a little Google at it.

I don't think it is inherently a bad thing. Simply it prevents people from publishing material that serves no purpose to shock and dismay the public without any evidence.

Also from what I understand it was abolished in the U.K because it was considered redundant as another law already encompassed its main points.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm sorry hope you feel better.

Thanks, it's really awful

I understand, but I don't see either of the arguments holding any merit and thus they default to base insults. If I saw that he was actually making an argument i could understand, but I don't see it being made.

Well, I can't comment more without knowing more about it. But I will say that if someone makes an ignorant argument they still might not be intending insult, they might think they're making a point. It's not black and white when it comes to separating insults from opinions.

Would you feel the same way if Fox reported the President as a rapist without any evidence?

But, Fox is "fair and balanced," it would HAVE to be true!

LOL. Anyway, I'm not sure whether libel/slander applies to dead and especially legendary (not legendary as in false per se, please understand which context I mean) figures.

Even if we ignore the legal precedent and ask, "SHOULD" it apply, then it again goes back to whether or not there's evidence. If someone at least tries to present an argument then they're not necessarily slandering/libeling, they could just be ignorant if they're wrong -- the correct course of action would be opponents putting them in their place, not jailing them.

Now if someone were to say something like "Zeus rapes chickens" and it's left at that, then yeah... that's clearly pretty bad. But I don't think that's what this guy was doing.

PS, also -- though this is unrelated to the Palestinian atheist -- keep in mind that people can do outrageous things in the name of humor legally. Even living respectable people can be lambasted in a comedy sketch without legal repurcussions as long as it's clear that it's comedy and not real. Come to think of it, that could apply to the portion where the Palestinian atheist was using satire to make his points.

 

[kai]

Blasphemous libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will ask you too Abibi do you have any reference to the crime and punishment of Blasphemy in the Quran or Hadith?

 

[Bismillah]

Thanks, it's really awful

I have some pretty severe sinus migraines at times so I know how it is. Normally I take a steam shower pop some pills and try and sleep it off. You shouldn't be on R.F in this condition :no:

Well, I can't comment more without knowing more about it. But I will say that if someone makes an ignorant argument they still might not be intending insult, they might think they're making a point. It's not black and white when it comes to separating insults from opinions.

People are responsible for their actions. I don't agree that he should be imprisoned for life, but rather a fine imposed. If repeated transgressions occur then it would be appropriate to take down his website and severe transgressions would be a maximum of a short stay in prison.

But, Fox is "fair and balanced," it would HAVE to be true!

FOX raises my blood pressure

Anyway, I'm not sure whether libel/slander applies to dead and especially legendary (not legendary as in false per se, please understand which context I mean) figures.

I understand what you mean, figures in history who have created influential movements to this day. Though there is such a thing according to that link of slander applying to these figures as it aims to harm particular groups without any motivation except for public discord.

Even if we ignore the legal precedent and ask, "SHOULD" it apply, then it again goes back to whether or not there's evidence. If someone at least tries to present an argument then they're not necessarily slandering/libeling, they could just be ignorant if they're wrong -- the correct course of action would be opponents putting them in their place, not jailing them.

Ok I see your PoV and can understand. The problem is that I think he left as the Prophet was a "rapist". That claim in itself is in substantiated and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Come to think of it, that could apply to the portion where the Palestinian atheist was using satire to make his points.

The only satire that was apparent to me was his choice of username as "Allah". Other than that he presented his views in a serious and sincere manner.

 

[Bismillah]

I will ask you too Abibi do you have any reference to the crime and punishment of Blasphemy in the Quran or Hadith?

No kai I don't. Though I'm not sure how useful this would be because Fatah is a secular political movement I believe?

 

[kai]

No kai I don't. Though I'm not sure how useful this would be because Fatah is a secular political movement I believe?

Well i was just wondering how serious Blasphemy should be taken by Muslims if its not dealt with in the Quran or Hadith?


And if it isnt, what interest would a secular organisation like Fatah have in penalising such a thing?

 

[.lava]

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

yes, there is think about it. you can insult, attack and slander Islam, Islamic history and Islamic figures (even living figures) anywhere in Western nations. in China they turn mosques into stable for pigs. no minarets in Swiss. Azan disturbs Europeans. you might even get Nobel Prize for insulting anything related to Islam and Muslims. you'd be applauded by crowds if you use names of Prophets in a humiliating way in your so-called art. so basically in Western nations there is complete and supported freedom against Islam. don't you think we have right to keep our homes clean of this dirt. if there could be a place where noone should insult Islam, IMO it has to be Islamic nations, naturally. because those nation are our homes; places where we belong and where we feel secure.

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.

Islam is not a person. it is a religion and a way of life that we accept. therefor we are Muslims. we are the persons here and we don't accept it.

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

i don't have my version. truth is Western people used Islamic records and they partially took from it to create an ugly version of Islamic history. where else could they take Islamic history from? just like they do in their news. you know like they publish headlines such as "7 taleban got killed today" but they hide 4 of them were under 13 years old and two of them women and one of them was pregnant and the last one was only a suspect, yes he was a suspect, he had beard!

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

i don't care for what he does. a Muslim nation is a home for Muslims. if we were supposed to be insulted even in our homes, geez what shall we do? change the planet we live in?

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.

maybe he wanted to cause a problem but the rest of the society do not have to suffer with him.

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

agreed.

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.

since we have to use words to communicate words are everything. they could be in any manner. they could cause anything. he did it in a peaceful manner? you just said he wanted to cause problem. come on, boy, make sure your feet touch the ground. don't go opposite ways just to win the arguement

Because he dislikes the whole idea of Islam and would want to see it removed if he so could.

so now you know why he was seen as a treat to society. this desire might find its perfect place somewhere else but not in Muslim nations.

What's hard to understand about that?

nothing at all.

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

sure.

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?

i am judging for myself and i say Muslim societies should not let Western version of understanding of Islam ruin the truth of Islam. we should never let our kids learn Islam from enemies of Islam. God does not need anything. people do. for the sake of future of new generations we should avoid all the lies about God, its Prophets and Islam that's produced by non-Muslims to make Muslim look bad so that they could invade and steal more

.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think it is inherently a bad thing. Simply it prevents people from publishing material that serves no purpose to shock and dismay the public without any evidence.

A few things:

(1) An enlightened public would be more shocked and dismayed by a government which can imprison people for peacefully expressing their opinions.

(2) He didn't provide evidence because he was giving an outline of his opinions. He outlined many opinions without evidence. Do Muslims have to provide evidence every time they state their opinions or is this restriction on speech only placed on non-Muslims?

(3) If you wanted to prevent people in the Middle East from being shocked and dismayed by things they find on the internet, you would have to ban the internet! You would have to make RF inaccessible from Palestine, and yet, the authorities have not banned RF even though there are many things a Palestinian could find on this site which could shock and dismay them. Clearly, this man wasn't arrested to prevent people from finding offensive things on the internet. The key here is not so much what this guy said, but the fact that he is Palestinian, and and that he is an apostate. Therefore, he is simply not free to express himself -- politically or religiously.

If he was a Canadian blogger Palestinians and most Muslims would simply ignore him, or debate him, or employ many strategies available to all mature adults when they encounter opinions they dislike (as often happens on this very forum).

 

[Smoke]

for the sake of future of new generations we should avoid all the lies about God, its Prophets and Islam that's produced by non-Muslims to make Muslim look bad so that they could invade and steal more.

No lie about Muhammad ever did half as much to make Islam look bad as the behavior of Muslims. This case is another example of that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

don't you think we have right to keep our homes clean of this dirt.

Yes. You have the right to keep *your* home clean of this dirt. But this Palestinian guy wasn't in your home, was he? He was blogging from his own home and then he was blogging from an internet cafe. Do you own his home as well as your home?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Blasphemous libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote: 'Blasphemous libel is an common law offence under the common law. It is the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt, and the material must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians.
In England and Wales, the offence was abolished on 8 July 2008 by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, having been replaced with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.'

Looking further...

'The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (citation 2006 c. 1) which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion.'

'The bill contains wording to amend the Public Order Act'

'Section 29A: Meaning of "religious hatred"
In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.'

'Section 29B: A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.'

...in addition it should be mentioned that British libel laws are the laughing stock of Europe.