Palestianian atheist arrested

[Meow Mix]

Ok let's take it step by step. Why do you consider child marriages to be rape?

A marriage alone isn't rape, though I turn my nose at marrying that young even without consummation anyway. Either way it's a mature-enouth-to-give-informed-consent issue.

 

[Starsoul]

Not sure if this ones answered, here's my thought on it.

....

So what's the difference between an atheist arguing Mohammed isn't divine and a Muslim arguing that Jesus isn't God?

A lot of difference, muslims do it with respect, they don't slander Jesus while putting that point across. They don't abuse or try to vilify the subject in question by degrading the honor attached with them, Its only people of muslim faith who respect the Prophets of the Jewish and Christian faith, i have rarely seen the same in return.

On the other hand, (some) Athiests and other non-believers CANNOT present an argument without tainting it heavily in satirical abuse. Search any similar thread on Rf , you'd probably know. I don't know whether its resentment or bitterness for the most part that athiests feel for religion, but they have no qualms about giving their hate sentiment an enormous vent.

I doubt the same would be accepted by themselves as an 'expression of free speech", its really a wonder how they still sound too bitterly obstinate in their biased assertions, one would think that the bitterness might just end now and you have a whole new pandora to explore.

I myself would argue that Mohammed isn't divine. Would I be insulting if I made such an argument? Should I be exiled/jailed/whatever if I did?

You need to substantiate that argument outside of your focal belief, why would 'you' argue that with someone when you clearly do not believe in God? It would just be taken as an attempt to mortify the Prophet and the religion, nothing else, since you should not be debating religious figures when you come from an understanding that they do not exist, the point of your argument is well taken ONLY as offensive.

Lastly, Its all down to the values of the society, in a muslim society we aren't used to disrespecting people on their faces or their backs by lightening up some demeaning satire to generate a few laughs to make us feel good about ourselves while we obnoxiously slander other's beliefs, neither do we compete for the medal of 'the most abusive outspoken hate monger', as is the norm of some of the societies.

You are least likely to earn any respect if abuse is the only way you choose to glorify your intellectual worth with.

( Not addressing to you as in you, just general, you are way better in responding with respect .)

 

[jarofthoughts]

I remember reading an article of how European peasants aged faster than contemparary Europeans. This makes sense because aging is intrinsically related to stress and exertion of the body. Clearly in ancient times, the body underwent wear that far outstrips todays activity.
This as well as numerous articles of how women in the desert reach puberty earlier is reflective that even physical development is tied with enviornment.

If you have any links on this I would be very interested in reading those articles. This is new information to me.

What I mean by mental development is that a person will acheive maturity much earlier in a society that dictates that nine years a fifth of your life, than a nine year old in today's world.

They would probably achieve the appearance of maturity much sooner. I'm just not sure about actual cognitive development. However, I admit I have found no studies that neither support nor dismiss this claim.

Prayers are obligatory for children when they attain puberty, so you could imply that is the age when they attain religious responsibilites and hence maturity.

Is there a set age for that like with the Bar Mitzvah?

Support what? It's a known fact that many people married at that age so it is logical that society raised her from a point of view that prepared her right? Clearly if people are marrying at that age and preparing to start families they have the capacity to make their own decisions?

It is the highlighted assertion I have a problem with. Cognitive development takes time and while upbringing can to some degree hasten it in some areas it cannot negate that certain levels of maturity cannot be reached at age 9.

I'm assuming that they base their oppinions off of the Prophet's marriage. Again what I am stressing is that Aisha was capable of making her own decision at the time of her marriage. That was thousands of years ago and today we live in a much different world. Children are hardly able to make their own decisions until their mid teens. The two situations aren't comparable and the argument isn't substantiated in my eyes.

So I take it you disagree with the claims made in that article?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr.Sprinkles

I think from this definition that these statements are intended to give a specific group a negative image.

kai posted an article earlier which questioned whether statements against the dead could be held as libel. While it stated, in short, no it also included an exception if the statements harmed living people. In my view these statements are targetd against the Prophet intentionally insult Muslims as while and impact them just as greatly.

So yes in my oppinion, indefensible inflammatory remarks made against a particular group can and should be held as libel.

(1) I think many things people say on RF are "indefensible" but to convict someone of a crime in a court of law it would have to be really, really indefensible. Like, not even close to being defensible. You can't convict a guy of a crime because a hadith says Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old and he calls that rape.

You cannot convict someone of a crime because they say Julius Caesar committed genocide, even though Italians might get offended by defaming their ancient hero, even though you could make all sorts of excuses for his behavior from a historical perspective. ("Well sure, Julius Caeasar killed an entire tribe of 200,000 Germans, but they were at war and back then every woman and child was a warrior, also they had a different concept of war back then..." etc.)

(2) Stating an opinion that offends people is clearly not sufficient to be libel or defamation. It has to be a false allegation which the person knew was false, they only said it to harm people. There are touchy subjects where people will be offended, on both sides, even when they state their opinions honestly and believe in what they are saying.

It's a fact that these hadiths describe a 9 year old girl playing with dolls, taken by her mother and dressed up, then being overawed by the revered Prophet who implies what he is about to do to her is God's will. The same pattern of manipulation of children occurs today, supposed prophets of god and the leaders of some fundamentalist Mormon areas of the U.S. do the same thing. And there are places in the world today where these hadiths are used to justify having no minimum age of consent.

Given those facts, whether you choose to call it "rape" or not is an opinion. Most atheists/humanists, including myself, probably agree it is rape. Do you think we all do not truly think this, we would only say it to try to defame people? (As far as I'm concerned, those hadiths provoked and offended me.) I'm merely reading the hadiths and stating what I think about them, I'm not trying to hurt anyone and I'm not deliberately saying anything false.

(3) I think what is described in the hadiths is rape so not only do I think this position is defensible, I think it is correct. There is always a big debate between atheists/humanists and believers about whether or not we can apply the "moral standards of today" or even the "moral standards of human beings" to the actions of prophets, the God of Abraham, etc. In these debates atheists are not simply saying things they do not believe in order to upset the religious, and there's certainly not enough evidence to prove that in a court of law.

Here's an example of something that could be defamation: suppose I make something up just to annoy Muslims, like if I said Muhammad invented Bubonic plague in his laboratory, or something absurd like that. And furthermore, I claim that there are lots of scholarly and historical evidences, I misquote people from Harvard University's anthropology department to support my fabrication, etc. I would be deliberately making stuff up in order to be inflammatory.

That might very well be libel, but it is different from what the Palestinian blogger did. He stated an opinion and many people would agree with him.

I think even .lava agrees that what is described in these hadiths is basically rape .... that is why .lava says they are inauthentic hadiths.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think from this definition that these statements are intended to give a specific group a negative image.

But, a statement that gives a specific group a negative image is not defamation/libel/slander. I could say that white European men acted like genocidal maniacs towards the Native Americans in the 17th century. This might give a specific group a negative image. However, I don't care if it gives this group a negative image, I'm going to say it anyway because it's true. That's not defamation it's my honest opinion, and we all know the undisputed facts on which I base that opinion.

 

[Sahar]

In my opinion thats a sure sign the government is scared of people gaining too much information from outside Egypt

I wouldn't say from outside Egypt. We have many intellectuals, thinkers, journalists, activists who are the offspring of the Western liberal schools and there are others who are the offspring of the Islamic school. From both elements the political opposition to the ruling party and government came out. In the last years, the media witnessed more space for freedom of speech. Independent newspapers appeared. Talk and news shows that are critical of the government played a very important role in the political and intellectual life in Egypt in these last years. And the internet added much dynamicity to this life and outlet for activists, opposition groups and for the average citizen. We all remember the 6 April movement that started from Facebook. So they fear the INSIDE more than anything.

and that they don't want people spreading their dissatisfaction for the government and Hos-Hos with each other and outsiders.

Yes, I fully agree.

 

[Sahar]

Local rights group decries ban on Salafi satellite channel
A local rights organization urged Egypt on Monday to allow broadcast of a Salafi television channel on Egypt’s Nilesat satellite network that was blocked by authorities earlier this month.
In a statement, the Cairo-based Egyptian Organization for Human Rights said that halting transmission of the channel “constitutes a flagrant violation of the freedom of expression, which is upheld by the Egyptian Constitution and other international charters concerned with human rights."
...The channel was blocked only days after Minister of Information Anas al-Fiqqi had instructed television officials to review the content of channels carried by Nilesat to ensure they were "in compliance with their contractual obligations."

Some critics, however, fear authorities will use the same pretext to ban channels and programs known to be critical of the Egyptian regime, especially now that parliamentary elections--slate for next month--are around the corner.
In late September, authorities closed down the Orbit satellite television network's studios in Egypt, saying the Saudi network had failed to meet its financial obligations to Egypt’s Media Production City. Orbit had broadcast a popular talk show--Al-Qahira Al-Youm, or "Cairo Today"--which had openly criticized prominent political figures in Egypt.
Egyptian security agencies have also reportedly urged the privately-owned ON TV satellite channel to halt broadcast of a political talk show presented by prominent independent journalist Ibrahim Eissa, also known for his vocal criticisms of the Egyptian regime."
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/local-rights-group-decries-ban-salafi-satellite-channel

 

[Sahar]

...spreading their dissatisfaction for the government and Hos-Hos

LOL

 

[.lava]

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 .

of course you make sense. matter of fact everyone does. but that's not the issue here. first of all his family was aware of what he was saying on the net. therefor they cut the connection off and they were unhappy about it which means he was not exposed for what he did because he was arrested. secondly we are not talking about a place, a nation where people have all the options in life. it is Palestine and their possibilities are limitted, so are their services.

thank you Kerr, you are a very kind person. you shall with poeple just like yourself that's my wish for any kind of person actually

.

 

[Autodidact]

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

So apparently you disagree with .lava that the problem is insulting people? .lava, do you feel that Sahar should keep these sort of insults to herself?

I understand that you don't like his opinion, Sahar, but can't you discuss like a civilized person without resorting to base insults?

I mean, a lot of people think Islam is filth, but I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate them calling it that, and insisting you keep it in your home because they don't like it.

 

[.lava]

So apparently you disagree with .lava that the problem is insulting people? .lava, do you feel that Sahar should keep these sort of insults to herself?

if there was a space between me and my sister, it should be filled with our love, not you. so, know your place

.

 

[no-body]

so, Islam: "what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander"

Threads like this make me change my mind about Islam and make me fear it. Sharia law sounds frightening.

 

[Sahar]

So apparently you disagree with .lava that the problem is insulting people? .lava, do you feel that Sahar should keep these sort of insults to herself?

I understand that you don't like his opinion, Sahar, but can't you discuss like a civilized person without resorting to base insults?

Sorry dudette what insults? :sarcastic

 

[Sahar]

if there was a space between me and my sister, it should be filled with our love, not you. so, know your place

.

 

[Autodidact]

if there was a space between me and my sister, it should be filled with our love, not you. so, know your place

.

And what exactly is "my place," .lava?
Is this your way of dodging yet another question?
You know when you evade questions, the obvious conclusion is that you realize that answering them will reveal the flaws in your position, right?

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry dudette what insults? :sarcastic

Wow, that's amazing. Are you completely unable to see the world from another person's point of view, or to recognize common courtesy? Calling someone else's opinion "filth," is an insult, Sahar. .lava says that insults are wrong, and people should not be allowed to issue them. Apparently you disagree, at least as applied to yourself.

Or is it only when you or yours are being insulted that it should not be allowed?

 

[Meow Mix]

Not sure if this ones answered, here's my thought on it.
A lot of difference, muslims do it with respect, they don't slander Jesus while putting that point across. They don't abuse or try to vilify the subject in question by degrading the honor attached with them, Its only people of muslim faith who respect the Prophets of the Jewish and Christian faith, i have rarely seen the same in return.

That's probably true, but the point I was trying to make though is that questioning Mohammed's divinity is not in principle different from questioning the Godhood of Jesus. I do understand that either can be gently or forcefully.

On the other hand, (some) Athiests and other non-believers CANNOT present an argument without tainting it heavily in satirical abuse. Search any similar thread on Rf , you'd probably know. I don't know whether its resentment or bitterness for the most part that athiests feel for religion, but they have no qualms about giving their hate sentiment an enormous vent.

There may indeed be a higher prevalence of irreverence in some atheists, but I wouldn't limit it solely to them. For instance I've seen Christians and Muslims both disagreeing with the prophethood of Joseph Smith pretty forcefully. I think it comes down to the fact that obviously because Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet they are always going to disagree with Jesus's Godhood very gently and respectfully; but the same Muslim may not be as gentle with disagreements on Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, for instance.

Of course it all comes down to individuals. Sometimes I get emotional as I have in this thread and I'll be a little heavy handed, but normally I try to be very respectful... and I thank .lava for recognizing that it's not normally my character to be so tough on things and having patience with my outbursts.

You need to substantiate that argument outside of your focal belief, why would 'you' argue that with someone when you clearly do not believe in God? It would just be taken as an attempt to mortify the Prophet and the religion, nothing else, since you should not be debating religious figures when you come from an understanding that they do not exist, the point of your argument is well taken ONLY as offensive.

I disagree with this. Part of being an atheist in a debate is explaining to the believer why we lack belief in whatever gods they claim belief in. That includes said gods' prophets. It's a legitimate discussion for an atheist to explain why they feel that so-and-so isn't a divine prophet or a god and rather just a human being who garnered a lot of attention. In my case it isn't meant to offend, it's an explanation for why that particular brand of theism isn't believed by me.

For instance if I were to debate against Scientology, some of that would be about the evidence for and against but some of it would also be about how it seems to me L. Ron Hubbard was a regular human being not unlike other people. Does that make more sense? The same would occur if I were debating Islam with someone: if I were explaining why I'm not a Muslima, I'd talk about the evidence for and against and also about my thoughts on the validity of the prophets. It's never intended to offend, it's just a "this is why I don't believe they were special."

Lastly, Its all down to the values of the society, in a muslim society we aren't used to disrespecting people on their faces or their backs by lightening up some demeaning satire to generate a few laughs to make us feel good about ourselves while we obnoxiously slander other's beliefs, neither do we compete for the medal of 'the most abusive outspoken hate monger', as is the norm of some of the societies.

You are least likely to earn any respect if abuse is the only way you choose to glorify your intellectual worth with.

( Not addressing to you as in you, just general, you are way better in responding with respect .)

Well, I see that a few Muslims have a perception of freedom of speech as "the ability to insult," or at least I've seen a few argue that such is what the West values in it. That isn't true, though.

Yes, there are people who do nothing but insult and inflame with their freedom. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (the "god hates ****" people) are a good example.

But that isn't why we value freedom of speech. We value freedom of speech because people should be able to have their opinions heard. This is where I think the misconception occurs: when you censor any kind of speech, it's very extremely difficult to put it into law to abolish that speech while still protecting other legitimate speech.

In America we had a hero, Thomas Paine, who had an excellent quote on this: "He who would make his own liberties secure must guard even his enemy from oppression lest he establish a precedent that will reach back to himself."

This might be where perceptions that the West values free speech only for insulting comes from: we must not censor even those who annoy us because otherwise we'll establish a precedent for just censoring things we don't like and that can get out of hand.

For instance let's say we tried to pass a law that said you can't offend people or something like that. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a person that's respected in America as a civil rights leader and a church man, for instance. For a long time he was practically thought of like a saint: he could do no wrong, he was a holy man, etc.

It would be very offensive to people if someone started saying anything negative about MLK Jr. However, as it turns out, the FBI had evidence that he was engaging in extramarital sex -- something that a church person probably shouldn't do.

If people weren't able to ask questions about MLK Jr. because it was "offensive," the truth about that might never have been known. This is why it's important not to censor, even if something might "offend" somebody to suggest.

Yes, there's a line between legitimately asking questions/making arguments and just trying to offend, but how do you legally draw that line? Before the FBI turned up the hard evidence, should people who said "Maybe MLK was having sex outside of his marriage" have been jailed or punished for voicing their doubts? If you outlaw the utterance of anything that "might" be offensive then you have to outlaw many things such as many TV shows, comedians, magazines. Vegetarians might sue a movie for showing someone eating meat, and other ridiculous stuff, because you set this precedent for censorship.

Freedom of speech isn't about insulting or hurting feelings intentionally. It's about the free sharing of information and opinion. Inevitably some things will be said that might offend someone (even if it wasn't INTENDED to be offensive), but the theory is that no one is FORCING anyone to read or watch the offending material. If someone is saying something in a magazine or on a website or on a TV channel that someone doesn't like, the idea of freedom of speech is that they can just not read or watch that material -- or choose to counter it with their own material; NOT arrest the person who was saying it.

We all have sacred things to us, and I know it raises tempers when things are said against what's sacred to us. That's why I got emotional when it was suggested that freedom of speech should be limited because civil liberties are sacred to me. The difference though is that someone can argue against freedom of speech in a country that I ran and they would be free to do so without fear. However I would be afraid to argue against religion in some countries even with the best intentions and the gentlest arguments because I'd be terrified that people who didn't believe in freedom of expression would oppress me.

Freedom of expression seems to me the best option because everyone wins. People can express themselves and challenge even sacred things to test their truth, and if other people who hold those things sacred don't want to see such arguments they don't have to look at them -- or they can rise to the challenge and defeat those arguments.

 

[Sahar]

Wow, that's amazing. Are you completely unable to see the world from another person's point of view, or to recognize common courtesy? Calling someone else's opinion "filth," is an insult, Sahar. .lava says that insults are wrong, and people should not be allowed to issue them. Apparently you disagree, at least as applied to yourself.

Or is it only when you or yours are being insulted that it should not be allowed?

1- You are the last person to speak about common courtesy or being civilized, since the majority of your posts is to inflame and provoke others.
2- People have the right to call my thoughts/posts/articles/blogs/speech "filth" as long as they stay away from my person. And I don't mind calling theirs "filth" when necessary but agreed this wouldn't be the most courteous thing to do when we debate together.
3- Throughout the thread, I haven't seen any Muslim who insulted this guy.
4- When I said filth I only used the same words contained in Mr Spinkles' posts "his home", "his filth", "internet cafe"...etc.
5- The context of any speech I said was about insulting and cursing the holy figures in any religion and Islam is included.
6- Don't ever try to sow seeds of ill will between me and lava.

 

[Autodidact]

1- You are the last person to speak about common courtesy or being civilized, since the majority of your posts is to inflame and provoke others.

Please cite my post in which I insulted anyone, or was discourteous in any way. *hint* debate ! = discourtesy. It's the purpose of the forum. If you cannot find my rude, insulting post, please withdraw your scurrilous libel. Thank you.
2- People have the right to call my thoughts/posts/articles/blogs/speech "filth" as long as they stay away from my person. And I don't mind calling theirs "filth" when necessary but agreed this wouldn't be the most courteous thing to do when we debate together. [/quote] Of course they have the right to, that's not the issue. The issue is whether people should be permitted to insult each other. Apparently you think so, since you just did it.

3- Throughout the thread, I haven't seen any Muslim who insulted this guy.

Other than you and .lava, I haven't either.

4- When I said filth I only used the same words contained in Mr Spinkles' posts "his home", "his filth", "internet cafe"...etc.

So you don't see his views as filth?

5- The context of any speech I said was about insulting and cursing the holy figures in any religion and Islam is included.

Which you consider to be filth? btw, I don't believe there was any cursing involved.

6- Don't ever try to sow seeds of ill will between me and lava.

Don't ever tell me what to do. I'm just debating the issue, which is what we're supposed to be here to do. Apparently you feel you can't disagree with someone without ill will? That's weird.

So, in your view, should people be allowed to insult each other, or not?

 

[Sahar]

Apparently you feel you can't disagree with someone without ill will? That's weird.

A good example of your provoking attitude and this has been through this thread and many others. No thanks I won't bother replying to this.