Palestianian atheist arrested

[Mr Spinkles]

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!

If someone committed a crime of course they are not excused for committing it in their home. The question which we are disputing is whether or not this man's blog should be considered a crime in the first place. Lava argued that it should be considered a crime, or disallowed, because she shouldn't have to tolerate filth in her own home. But, he wasn't in her home, was he? Does .lava get to decide which opinions are "dirty" for everyone else, in their homes?

 

[croak]

I think part of the reason for the support of censorship in some cases by some people is indeed because they believe they have absolute truth and therefore anything remotely negative said about what they believe can only be a lie, deliberate deception, and something ugly that should be stamped out rather than listened to.

It could also come down to the universally-held but culturally determined emotion of digust: "That's disgusting; I don't want to hear it!"

Disgust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

I think this is an excellent point. I agree. But is this Palestinian guy guilty of libel?

The basic legal definition of "libel" (which is basically slander in written instead of spoken words) is usually a *false* negative statement about someone, made with malicious intent to harm them or give them a negative image. It would be difficult to prove that (1) the Palestinian blogger made definitely false statements, as opposed to debatable or opinion statements; (2) he made false statements which he knew were false, with the intent of harming a man who has been dead for over 1,000 years.

After all, is it known for a *fact* that Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with a girl about 9 years of age? Isn't this what the hadiths say? Many countries, and most atheists and secularists or humanists, consider this rape because a 9-year-old girl is not capable of consenting and choosing for herself.

 

[Meow Mix]

It could also come down to the universally-held but culturally determined emotion of digust: "That's disgusting; I don't want to hear it!"

Disgust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love wikipedia. I could go for hours from one subject to the other. For instance when I read that article, it had a bit about people with Huntington's Disease being unable to recognize disgust in people's facial features. That was interesting, so I read that. Then 20 minutes later I realized I was on a completely different topic than I started on at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It does more than that.

The provision in the Canadian Criminal Code against "blasphemous libel" hasn't been used since the 1930s, but when it was used, it was used to silence legitimate criticism of the Catholic Church.

BTW - a fun fact that you might be interested in: when The Satanic Verses came out, a group of Muslims in Britain pushed for Salman Rushdie to be charged under British blasphemy laws. This led to a court ruling that the law against blasphemy in Britain protected only Christianity and not any other religion.

Another thought... put yourself in the shoes of a Catholic and consider the following passage:

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Would you say that this "serves no purpose to shock and dismay the public without any evidence"? I would.

It's part of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Apparently, it is possible to produce quite offensive material even with a blasphemy law on the books. This makes me wonder what use such a law actually has.

 

[Kerr]

as a response maybe it is OK. but it might not be the best as an act. i personally would not wish any Muslim to become murderer because of lies and slanders of this guy. i wrote what i think before. jailing him might be protecting him from getting killed and it also protect those who's weak and emotional enough to harm him. Palestinian authority might be trying to accomplish this. matter of fact, if Palestian authority did not jail him and in case he was killed then we would see a few posters here whining about it. now they complaint about he is being jailed. if he was dead, they would be complaining about how and why Palestinian authority did not interfere with the situation. it seems no matter what Muslims do, there would something to complaint about thanks to haters of Islam. i don't mean you, of course dear Kerr

.

If this was all about protecting him a better way would be not to charge him in the first place, so I do not really think it is for his benefit. Could really not agree less with that they did what they did, that they charged him and so... not that I am defending what he wrote, I just think there are better ways to deal with it. The way it is handled now may even make his point for him.

And don´t worry too much about the haters, they are not worth getting upset about.

EDIT:

Lol, I hope I made sense, it is late and I am so tired it is hard to think .

 

[Kerr]

Anyway, a part of the issue I can see, and I think many others can see it, is that people can find anything insulting. Even if it is nothing. So you can either try and ban insults, which means a lot of work and in the end it may do the society a disfavor, due to the risk that people can get very sensitive. Or you can treat them as what they really are, empty words, and instead of banning them either ignore or counter them in some way. Not that I am good at that, happen to be very sensitive myself, but I think in the long run we all would benefit from such an approach.

And now I am probably rambling, which means I should get off to bed . Sorry if I wasted anyones time, lol.

 

[Sahar]

If someone committed a crime of course they are not excused for committing it in their home. The question which we are disputing is whether or not this man's blog should be considered a crime in the first place. Lava argued that it should be considered a crime, or disallowed, because she shouldn't have to tolerate filth in her own home. But, he wasn't in her home, was he? Does .lava get to decide which opinions are "dirty" for everyone else, in their homes?

The guy didn't keep his filth to his home! He went out spreading his filth to others.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The guy didn't keep his filth to his home! He went out spreading his filth to others.

Which is his right.

No-one HAD to read his blog.
No-one HAD to visit his Facebook page.

Both would be easily avoided if one did not wish to read what he had to say.

 

[kai]

The guy didn't keep his filth to his home! He went out spreading his filth to others.

There was no compulsion to read his filth.

 

[kai]

This is topical.

A prominent Egyptian blogger who was imprisoned for four years for insulting Islam and defaming President Hosni Mubarak has been released.

BBC News - Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman freed



and this may be of interest;

http://www.anhri.net/en/?p=670

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The guy didn't keep his filth to his home! He went out spreading his filth to others.

Right. He spread his filth to your home by using mind control and forcing you and .lava to type "http://proud-a.blogspot.com/" in your web browser, against your will.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

As you know, I am against all these arbitrary restrictions on (Islamic) expression. I think these are the notable exceptions to the rule. But this is not the point. I did not mean to start a pointless debate trying to show that "Western" countries are superior to "Muslim" countries. I only intended to question .lava's argument, which was basically this: a few Western countries have imposed restrictions on Islamic expression; therefore, it is right to impose restrictions on non-Islamic expression in so-called "Muslim" countries.

I do not think this is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

Ah- HA! I just discovered Sahar is actually not4me! I was going to say, TWO intelligent Egyptian Muslimas is way too much for RF to handle.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Did anyone answer my question about what the hadiths say about Aisha?

The thing that really seems to anger people is that he accused Muhammad of rape.

A bunch of hadiths I have found say that Aisha consummated the marriage with Muhammad when she was 9 years old. To many people, this is rape because such a young girl cannot consent. So was this Palestinian blogger fabricating things in order to defame the Prophet, or was he merely stating an opinion based on well-known hadiths? His opinion that sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl constitutes rape is held by many people throughout the world, it is part of the law of many legal systems. If these hadiths didn't exist then perhaps you could argue the accusation of rape is totally unsubstantiated defamation. But given these hadiths, the accusation of rape isn't defamation, it's just an opinion that is going to upset those who revere Muhammad. But OTOH, frankly I am offended by these hadiths and anyone who tries to defend sex with little girls! At the end of the day this guy stated his opinion on a very touchy topic. But that is not defamation or lying.

Or am I mistaken about these hadiths?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Did the Palestinian blogger fabricate the following hadiths? If not, how can he be accused of defamation when he says Muhammad committed rape? Having sex with a 9 year old girl, is rape. (Source)

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Nikaah

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

​

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236: Ansaar

Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

​

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: Nikaah

Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

​

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: Nikaah

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

​

 

[.lava]

"But this is the truth, we don't need alternative opinions. I don't want my kids exposed to them either because it would distract them from The Truth." As if they can't think for themselves.

that's what you understood? that is not what i am saying. insulting someone else's belief is not something i would teach my kid as a manner. is it clear now?

.

 

[Sahar]

This is topical.

A prominent Egyptian blogger who was imprisoned for four years for insulting Islam and defaming President Hosni Mubarak has been released.

BBC News - Egyptian blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman freed

I hope he learned his lesson not to insult Hos-hos again.

Unfortunately, Egypt is heading backward regarding freedom of speech. Just recently, it started to ban satellite channels and send warnings to the shows that are critical of the government and the governing party. Not only channels but newspapers and websites as well. I heard that Egypt is thinking about banning FB here. What is this backwardness and stupidity? I don't know...

 

[Bismillah]

Mr. Sprinkles

After all, is it known for a *fact* that Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with a girl about 9 years of age? Isn't this what the hadiths say? Many countries, and most atheists and secularists or humanists, consider this rape because a 9-year-old girl is not capable of consenting and choosing for herself.

There are as many Sahih Hadith as well as historical figures that counter what those hadiths state as well.

In any case, assuming that the Prophet did marry Aisha at nine it still cannot be called rape. One because you are imposing modern day morality on a society hundreds of years past. Child marriages are considered in the modern world because children do not have the capacity to reason and think for themselves. I don't see any problems with the logic of this and agree with it.

This statement is resolute, but only applies to our society. One where children are nurtured, coddled, and ignorant of the world into their late teens. Even a simple comparison between a person who is nine years old in an American suburb and a Bedouin will reveal significant differences between the two in terms of mental growth and the capacity to make important decisions.

Comparing a nine year old of today's society with Ancient Arabia is down right illogical. Especially considering that the average life span was half of today. A person from that time period would already be independent enough to live alone let alone decide on marriage prospects. This thought that morality is limited to a designated time period is not only mine, but also shared with Anthropologists who understand that it is imperative to remove any cultural bias when examining ancient cultures.

It is nonsensical to apply the standard definition of rape in the modern world to ancient Arabia.

 

[kai]

I hope he learned his lesson not to insult Hos-hos again.

Unfortunately, Egypt is heading backward regarding freedom of speech. Just recently, it started to ban satellite channels and send warnings to the shows that are critical of the government and the governing party. Not only channels but newspapers and websites as well. I heard that Egypt is thinking about banning FB here. What is this backwardness and stupidity? I don't know...

In my opinion thats a sure sign the government is scared of people gaining too much information from outside Egypt and that they don't want people spreading their dissatisfaction for the government and Hos-Hos with each other and outsiders.