Palestianian atheist arrested

[Bismillah]

Mr. Sprinkles

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

Yet it happens in the West all the time.

(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?

If Fox were to accuse the President of being a rapist, but in their defense stated that it was only a bulleted headline and that it is unreasonable that they have to provide evidence for their claims (this is one ironic analogy) would it make their statements any less slanderous? No they would be punished according to the law system for libel.

(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.

This is a domestic case and is handled by the appropriate authorities. The difference between RF and this man being that RF allows members to express their beliefs, but does not tolerate unsubstantiated slander. Similar to how most countries view the subject.

I'm not against the idea that a nonbeliever can express his beliefs and even propagate them, indeed a posted several times that the Prophet agrees with this. I didn't care much for this man's blog until I came to know that the contents included such malicious statements with no argument and no purpose but to target a specific group. Unmitigated slander should be punished, but the extent of his punishment I do not agree with either.

 

[kai]

Mr. Sprinkles

Yet it happens in the West all the time.

If Fox were to accuse the President of being a rapist, but in their defense stated that it was only a bulleted headline and that it is unreasonable that they have to provide evidence for their claims (this is one ironic analogy) would it make their statements any less slanderous? No they would be punished according to the law system for libel.

This is a domestic case and is handled by the appropriate authorities. The difference between RF and this man being that RF allows members to express their beliefs, but does not tolerate unsubstantiated slander. Similar to how most countries view the subject.

I'm not against the idea that a nonbeliever can express his beliefs and even propagate them, indeed a posted several times that the Prophet agrees with this. I didn't care much for this man's blog until I came to know that the contents included such malicious statements with no argument and no purpose but to target a specific group. Unmitigated slander should be punished, but the extent of his punishment I do not agree with either.

The President could indeed sue because he is still alive and able too. and may be able to bring forth evidence to support his case.

I am not sure how you would prosecute the libel of an individual who died over 1400 years ago?

who would bring the charges ? what evidence would you bring to prove it was in fact libel ?


This may be of interest:

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Can you say anything about the dead?



Although in this case there is the sensitivity of millions of people that should be considered before making such accusations.

 

[Sahar]

I believe that nonbelievers have the right to surface their doubts of Islam and propagate their own beliefs. That is not a problem with me.

Slanderous material though is and should be prohibited as is in the West.

I haven't read his blog, but this word is an indication that at least parts of his work is slanderous. I could be wrong and this could be the only mention, but it's very likely that there is malicious content within his website.

Aha then I think we don't disagree.

 

[Bismillah]

I am not sure how you would prosecute the libel of an individual who died over 1400 years ago?

who would bring the charges ? what evidence would you bring to prove it was in fact libel ?

Kai are you aware of the blasphemous libel law that until recently was enforced within your own country and was discounted only because its main merits were judged redundant due to the passage of another piece of legislation? Not to mention that same law is still in effect in some Western countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

kai from your own article

The living can also take action when the claims against the deceased have knock-on effects against them.

The difference between insulting Diana and the Prophet is clear. One is limited to the criticism of one person, while the other umbrellas into criticizing and targeting a whole religion and its constituents.

 

[Bismillah]

Aha then I think we don't disagree.

I'm glad that I am able to see your PoV and that mine does not differ either

 

[Sahar]

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?

So if someone committed a crime or violated the law, he would be excused because he committed it on the net from his home or internet cafe!

 

[kai]

Aha then I think we don't disagree.

i don't disagree either but slander or libel is not "insulting the divine essence"

Yes in the west you can prosecute for slander or libel but not on a person that has been dead for 1400 years.

Maybe you can in Fatah controlled territory maybe you can in other countries but i am puzzled on how you would do that.


I believe he overstepped the mark but i will wait and see what actually happens to him before i actually declare foul.

 

[kai]

Kai are you aware of the blasphemous libel law that until recently was enforced within your own country and was discounted only because its main merits were judged redundant due to the passage of another piece of legislation? Not to mention that same law is still in effect in some Western countries such as Australia and New Zealand.


Yes yes i am and this may just come into it but it would be settled in a court of law.

kai from your own article

The living can also take action when the claims against the deceased have knock-on effects against them.

yes but thats relatives.

The difference between insulting Diana and the Prophet is clear. One is limited to the criticism of one person, while the other umbrellas into criticizing and targeting a whole religion and its constituents.

What you are saying is if you insult the prophet you insult us all and i can understand that.

 

[kai]

So if someone committed a crime or violated the law, he would be excused because he committed it on the net from his home or internet cafe!

The argument is, what law is he breaking?

 

[Bismillah]

Yes yes i am and this may just come into it but it would be settled in a court of law.

Won't this also be settled in a court of law? I'm not defending the punishment ascribed but the guy is not being lynched either.

What you are saying is if you insult the prophet you insult us all and i can understand that

I'm relieved though it isn't even directly insults. Indeed anyone who isn't a Muslim is implicitly insulting the Prophet and rejecting his message. What bothers me is when claims against the Prophet are made that are purposefully inflammatory with no argument or purpose other than to incite and provoke backlash from the community. From the statement made that is the only goal I can ascertain from his choice of words.

 

[Sahar]

Yes but you can insult atheists in Western nations too, it happens all the time, and you know this. It's not like Muslim bloggers are being imprisoned for insulting Charles Darwin or spreading lies about evolution or atheism. So, it's really not "freedom against Islam". It's just "freedom".

Ask yourself this question: why has it not become fashionable in the West in recent years to deliberately draw cartoons which may offend Hindus? Because insane Hindu fanatics have not threatened the critics of Hinduism with death and violence, which only turns those critics into free speech martyrs and creates a huge sensation.

Umm...because the West fights Islam and Muslims for ideological and historical reasons and for their interests and vile ambitions? Because Islam will always be the block against fully subduing Muslims to the Western imperialism?
Also, what are your reasoning behind banning the mosques' minarets and we haven't seen any equaivalent restriction to places of worship of other faiths? Does this have anything to do with the insane fanatics too?

 

[kai]

Won't this also be settled in a court of law? I'm not defending the punishment ascribed but the guy is not being lynched either.


Indeed if "insulting the divine essence" is a criminal offence then i hope it will be decided in a court of law.

I'm relieved though it isn't even directly insults. Indeed anyone who isn't a Muslim is implicitly insulting the Prophet and rejecting his message. What bothers me is when claims against the Prophet are made that are purposefully inflammatory with no argument or purpose other than to incite and provoke backlash from the community. From the statement made that is the only goal I can ascertain from his choice of words.

I think its early days and i would advise people waiting for the dust to settle and see what actually transpires before we before we start editing our friends lists.





due to some feed back i must point out this post was supposed to be humorous but failed dismally ( my mistake folks)

 

[Sahar]

Kai, we've been living in a society where there is diversity for ages. comparing to our culture Europe is a little baby on its way to freedom for diversity and a failure. because they could not handle diversity and they look for assimilating 'strangers' instead accepting them as they are, like we did for centuries. while we have churches that's protected, restored and used, Europe still argue about minarets and outfit of Muslims. there are nice things in Western societies but socially they are not better at all. on the contrary. all their ideas of freedom and democracy is only written, spoken & preached but nevel trully practiced and lived. we are not blind to this fact.

i don't consider becoming a slave to your ego to be freedom. that's what Western definition of freedom invites people to, the exact opposite of what a Muslim wishes to do if you ask me. what i meant by trend that's current is part of war on Islam. they make Muslims look like the trouble of entire world. trend is to attack Islam and find ways to belittle Muslims, their path and their way of life. i thought i should mention this clearly once more so that you would not think i agree with you. it is not freedom that we learn from West. it is how to abuse freedom we're learning and we look for humane ways to deal with it but that's not to say we'd become like you. of course we would deal with abusive people in a humane manner as we are commanded to do so but we would not adopt that abusive behavior to deal with it because it is not a treasure. the treasure is to deal with it humanely while refusing to act in the same manner that's shallow, inhumane and out come of vices, not virtues. and someone else's vice shall turn into our virtue as we live through this experience. that's the essence of being Islam; the alchemy of soul, real freedom of an individual; independency from temptation of others

.

Excellent,:clapmay Allah bless you!

 

[Sahar]

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?

I am against any compulsion in religion, yes. To be a Muslim, a follower of any other religion or not is a right given to us by the Creator.

 

[Bismillah]

I think its early days and i would advise people waiting for the dust to settle and see what actually transpires before we before we start editing our friends lists.

Does this mean you will remove me from your friend's list

 

[kai]

Kai, we've been living in a society where there is diversity for ages. comparing to our culture Europe is a little baby on its way to freedom for diversity and a failure. because they could not handle diversity and they look for assimilating 'strangers' instead accepting them as they are, like we did for centuries. while we have churches that's protected, restored and used, Europe still argue about minarets and outfit of Muslims. there are nice things in Western societies but socially they are not better at all. on the contrary. all their ideas of freedom and democracy is only written, spoken & preached but nevel trully practiced and lived. we are not blind to this fact.

i don't consider becoming a slave to your ego to be freedom. that's what Western definition of freedom invites people to, the exact opposite of what a Muslim wishes to do if you ask me. what i meant by trend that's current is part of war on Islam. they make Muslims look like the trouble of entire world. trend is to attack Islam and find ways to belittle Muslims, their path and their way of life. i thought i should mention this clearly once more so that you would not think i agree with you. it is not freedom that we learn from West. it is how to abuse freedom we're learning and we look for humane ways to deal with it but that's not to say we'd become like you. of course we would deal with abusive people in a humane manner as we are commanded to do so but we would not adopt that abusive behavior to deal with it because it is not a treasure. the treasure is to deal with it humanely while refusing to act in the same manner that's shallow, inhumane and out come of vices, not virtues. and someone else's vice shall turn into our virtue as we live through this experience. that's the essence of being Islam; the alchemy of soul, real freedom of an individual; independency from temptation of others

.

Lava you know i respect you and all but--- the Ottomans were imperialists many Muslims particularly Arabs didn't want Ottoman rule and joined with the west to over throw it. The Muslims world is in meltdown its ruled by despots and religious fanatics who subjugate their own brothers and sisters, Muslims these days do not need any help belittling themselves its the actions of Muslims themselves that bring them into conflict with other Muslims and the west .

And this Minaret thing , not every one agrees with it , nor the Burka ban either that's what we do in the west protest and debate and if the majorit dont like it it gets changed.


and just one more thing friend , freedom is the treasure and you cannot abuse freedom unless you have it.

 

[Bismillah]

majorit dont like it it gets changed.

And what if the majority supports an unjust law?

 

[kai]

Does this mean you will remove me from your friend's list

Ha Ha of course not not my friend, i was joking , why i have had some fights with not4me in my time( i usually lose ) and we are still friends.

 

[kai]

And what if the majority supports an unjust law?

then the minority protests and debates to get it changed.

 

[Sahar]

why i have had some fights with not4me...

not4me...hehe
You know what until now every time I log on the forum, I type not4me and it tells me invalid username or password. :banghead3