Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[imb706]

"...It is well known, even amongst western philosophical discourse that freedom of speech has no conceptual export into the real world - it doesn’t and cannot exist.

Ahahahahahaha, if that's your feeling, then why do you care if someone makes a muhammad bear cartoon? I mean, you're not making sense.

The South Park people knew knew very well beforehand what feedback they will receive as said in the interview by Xeni Jardin. It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and target a certain community.

Good, I commend their bravery and commitment to free speech then. More muhammad bears for everyone then.

Some of these include hate speech laws

Of which the US has none. I agree, hate speech laws go against free speech. I can say "**** you ******" out in the street if I want, but I won't, since that's rude and racist.

libel laws

Libel cannot be invoked by public figures though. It only counts if someone is lying about you and it's hurting your well being or smearing you.

With the rise in violent crime, anti social behaviour, domestic violence and sexual assault how can anyone be confident with western liberal values?

::rollseyes:: I guess the terrorism, rape, and spousal abuse in the muslim world doesn't count.

actually create a cohesive society?

Who would want a cohesive society? Nothing would get done then.

Now compare this to the Islamic cohesive values of mercy, compassion and God consciousness

Yeah, beheadings, torture, mutilation, real mercy there. Please, no one who's sane wants "islamic mercy."

and they will not be in competition with non-cohesive values of individualism and freedom..."

Pfft.

[Mutakhasis]

And I remind everyone once again the ruling on those who disrespect any of the Prophets of Allah [swt].

Imam Ibn Hazm [rah] said

"A person who insults Allah (swt) or any of His Prophets is a disbeliever and must be executed without mercy or compensation.”

[Ibn Hazm 'al-Muhalla' vol 10, 2308]

The dust will never settle

[tor_khan]

the West is currently engaging in a world war against Islam. It uses military forces to invade, occupy, overthrow, assasinate, and rebuild Muslim lands for its own interests. Western powers manipulate and control Muslim trade and business, seeking to harness resources and commerce for their own interests. This is evident in the economies of most Muslim countries. They are dominated by Western economies and Muslim wealth is invested and kept in Western banks

...

This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims.

I think this just about sums it up. Cartoons/No cartoons. That is just a tiny part of it. Ultimately it is about Western designs for global economic superiority - the current tactic is to create and then "repair" the havoc.

Christian Europe has been depiciting Islam and Muslims in their textbooks for years as bogeymen from the South and the East. People do right to question intentions and remain sceptical.

[imb706]

"A person who insults Allah (swt) or any of His Prophets is a disbeliever and must be executed without mercy or compensation.”

Ahahahahaha, I guess that "islamic mercy" flew out the window.

Christian Europe has been depiciting Islam and Muslims in their textbooks for years as bogeymen from the South and the East. People do right to question intentions and remain sceptical.

Europe is no more "Christian" than the US is "Christian." Both the US and EU (some individual member states are not though) are secular institutions.

[ozymandias]

Threatening peoples lives is also freedom of speech.

No it is not. freedom of speech does *not* cover speech made that is the commission of a crime. Realistic, believable threats of harm, damage, or death are not covered by free speech, as that would violate someone's right to safety and physical security.

Only an imbecile would not know that making fun of a holy figure will put their lives in danger.

They knew *exactly* what was going to happen -- that was sort of the point. They described Islam as a community of terrorists, and their claim has justified by the fact that Islamic terrorists stepped forward and threatened them. Had terrorists not stepped forward, they would have looked like bigoted jerks attacking a peaceful religion.

Not everyone is immoral like those people who have no self-respect. So they want to treat others with no respect also. Well too bad. You do something then be man enough to suffer the consequences.

It goes both ways. If you are going to support terrorism, like you are doing, then deal with the consequences when people describe you, and people like you as terrorists and terrorist supporters.

Anyways the bigotry is apparent.

Yes.

All these nations and people bragging about freedom are limiting it themselves.

Not at all. Please back up your claim showing how the USA has *less* personal freedom than a country without freedom of speech, and I will show you a country violating basic human rights.

You should not have laws than if you want to have freedom. because freedom means to do as what one wants. And you cannot do that.

Wow. I thought that 'master' khan was going to take the cake for the most stupid comment -- but you beat him. Congratulations.

Anarchy only provides freedom for the wealthy and powerful -- not everyone. The point of universal human rights is that everyone has the right. The powerful and rich are not the only ones that should be free -- even minorities and the weak have the right, and should be protected so that they are allowed to practice them.

[/quote]

Bigots.[/QUOTE]

Who? The terrorists that deem all ideas other than their own worthy of *DEATH*? Or the people trying to protect everyone's rights?

[ozymandias]

This matter is about the Western concept of liberalization of society, where freedom of expression/speech is elevated above all other values systems, including upholding and enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong. What Westerners don't want to admit is that liberalization is NOT a means to measure right and wrong. Rather, its AMORAL. The one who propagates evil has just as much right than the one who propagates Right. Hitler came to power in a liberalized, secular democracy in Germany. The Indian riots and their perpetrators' immunity occurred in liberalized India. And then Westerners are surprised when evil prevails, like Bush's War on Terror, or the Financial crisis, or the spread of drug culture, the spread of promiscuity, and on and on.
And one of the primary causes for liberalization is for increased trade and commerce- profit.

False.

The fewer barriers and limitations on human relations, the more profit a few groups of people can benefit, but the more evil and corruption that is spread.

False.

Glen Beck and FOX news with their lies and slander are rich and powerful in a liberalized society. To no surprise, this same concept rises throughout human history, where the greed of a few powerful people leads to the corruption of all society.

Might want to look towards the Middle East -- I would say that the corruption is at least as bad in places where basic human rights are violated in the name of a religious theocracy.

The South Park people, Stone and PArker, are admittedly libertarians. They admit they don't recognize any value or moral standard and thus their work is full of bigotry, stereotypes, denigration, ecspecially towards racial and ethnic minorities.

Way to ignore all the positive messages the show spreads.

Islam does not accept liberalization and denigration of humanity. Evil cannot be granted power.

Then do not support terrorism. Terrorism is evil -- do not support, protect, or justify it. If you do, all claims that Islam does not accept denigration of humanity are null and void, and you lose all grounds to make that claim on, as you are proven wrong before you even start.

Nor is profit and greed justification for the license for evil and immorality. Moreover, the West is currently engaging in a world war against Islam. It uses military forces to invade, occupy, overthrow, assasinate, and rebuild Muslim lands for its own interests. Western powers manipulate and control Muslim trade and business, seeking to harness resources and commerce for their own interests. This is evident in the economies of most Muslim countries. They are dominated by Western economies and Muslim wealth is invested and kept in Western banks. Western law is elevated to determine relations and constitutions in the Muslim world and between the West and the Muslim world. Western culture is propagated through proxies that produce liberalized and secularized cultures to propagate to Muslims (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, etc). This ongoing war is the reality in which the Muslim people try to hold onto Islam. This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims.

Wow. Do you really believe all that, or are you just trolling?

[imb706]

Damn Ozy, you nailed the idiots to the wall. I think one of the main issues is none of these people have ever been in the US, not long enough to understand its laws. They've just been in Europe and the Middle East, so they think "hate speech laws" and such are just a part of every society.

[ozymandias]

Also, there is no such thing as complete freedom. If people allow freedoms without limits, then despite the attempt at conciliation, boundaries will be crossed and others freedoms disrupted.

No, but you can place realistic limits that prohibit one person from preventing the exercise of another person's rights, thus insuring the maximum access to exercise free rights world-wide. If you place minor limits, such as you do not have the right to infringe on other's rights, you give up a *little* freedom, but the rest of society gains *a lot* of freedom.

And since this is the actual characteristic of freedom - that it does not satisfy nor does it fulfill what it sets out to do (ie: establish peace and justice) - its existence is contradictory and ultimately leads to adapting limits and laws restricting it for the sake of the highest possible sense of peace and justice within a community.

Well, of course, if you claim that the goal of freedom is something completely different than what it really is, you can pretend it fails.

(sarcasm)
I mean, clearly the goal of freedom is to allow us to fly to moon with jetpacks.
(/sarcasm)

The goal of freedom is to be free. Period. Once people acknowledge that other people have rights, people will not have to fight to protect their rights, and freedom is a by-product. Justice is a result of a legal system, which is ultimately derived from the protection of rights. It is not a goal of freedom, but a toll used to protect it.

[ozymandias]

And I highly advise Muslims not to allow yourself to be put onto the platforms of impure people. Everything should be looked through the spectacles of Islam. Whether the promiscuous people accept Allah's [swt] commandments, shouldn't be our concern. The judge, jury and executioner is the Islamic Shari'ah and not human made international law that itself testifies to its obscurity.

I agree with this. Stop trying to enforce your religious ways and rules on non-believers, and all the problems would fade away.

[*Mahzala*]

I haven't read the entire thread and I don't have time to read close to 330 replies, however, I am responding because two members requested that I voice my opinion here. And so I will respond with a focus on the media's role in all of this.

So I begin with 'attempting' to define free speech. What is free speech? Does it have a straightfoward answer? I don't think so. Defining free speech is a difficult task mainly because the history of free speech is in part a struggle in itself. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of communication are some of the expressions used, sometimes synonymously, to describe freedom, although the natural and ordinary meaning of 'speech' is the act of speaking. For the purpose of discussions about free speech, 'speech' covers more than just speech. It may include symbols, sounds, shapes, gestures and pictures, lifting a flag in battle, raising a hand against advancing tanks, wearing symbols of dissent, participating in a public prayer or meditation et cetraaa. And you get my drift. Personally, I like to think that freedom of speech is an impossibility because the condition of speech being free in the first place is unrealisable. And I say this because there are things like ideological pressures that influence speech such as politics. Free speech is just the name we give to verbal behaviour that serves the agendas we wish to advance. There is no such thing as totally FREE speech.

Having said that, freedom of speech also has numerous rationales. You can use this to your advantage as a path to attain truth, the right to self-determination, exercising democracy and the stimulus to tolerance. But then, that's not to say there are no negatives of free speech. Free speech may result in physical harm, the dissemination of error, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy, incitement of hatred, causing offence and breaches of all kinds. And these rationales have been recognised by the Canadian, American, English and European courts. Moving on ...

That's not all I have to say about free speech though. Bear with me. So, there are two approaches to go about free speech - the absolutist and the balancing approach. The former demands that there should be NO constraints on free speech whatever, while the latter requires a weighing up of competing public interests. So, respectively, you're able to freely promote ideas for shoplifting, bomb-making, freedom to describe terrorists as good people. A balancing approach takes into account whether more good or harm would result from the expression of ideas for which free speech protection is sought, when considered against another legitimate interest for which protection is also sought. And I will be nice and frank with you on this, despite the fact that people may or may not know about this approach, the former is in practice, everywhere. I am not saying there isn't protection, there is - BUT, this approach is relatively more in practice - as is apparent from this cartoon.

Moving on ...

According to my knowledge of media law, this is clearly a case of broadcasting offensive material, which in turn incites hatred against or vilifies any person or group on the basis of race or religion (I am being specific with examples that relate only to this cartoon, there are obviously many more). Again, according to my understanding, this is an offence of blasphemy, which is bound to incite violence. And all of these are offences under law (free speech or not), which may be considered serious breaches of the broadcasting acts or laws. The media play a large part in shaping attitudes, beliefs and ideas, and reflecting on such issues in a culturally diverse society is vital for all. At the end of the day, I like to think it is all deliberate.

... I wonder if some people believe in prevention, rather than cure ...

[ozymandias]

The South Park people knew knew very well beforehand what feedback they will receive as said in the interview by Xeni Jardin. It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and target a certain community.

You seem to be very good at ignoring half of any issue you address. Yes, they knew exactly what reaction they would get. That was the point of the episode. Watch it -- and the second part. It might surprise you -- the whole message is that Islam demands special treatment and resorts to terrorism when they are do not get it. Not only did South Park treat Islam *far* better than it treated other religions, they *STILL* got terrorist threats for not giving Islam special *enough* treatment. Just being treated better was not enough -- Islam demands to be treated much much better, or will respond with terrorism.


I would like to see you refute South Parks' claim, in the light of the terrorist threats they received.

[ozymandias]

And I remind everyone once again the ruling on those who disrespect any of the Prophets of Allah [swt].

Imam Ibn Hazm [rah] said

[Ibn Hazm 'al-Muhalla' vol 10, 2308]

The dust will never settle

And I would like to remind you of a few things:

Your religious rules only apply to those that follow your religion through free will.

This is *EXACTLY* why the western world describes your religion as violent and rejects the label 'religion of peace'.

[imb706]

There is no such thing as totally FREE speech.

Well, yeah, in Saudi Arabia.

Again, according to my understanding, this is an offence of blasphemy

Islam defines blasphemy as questioning the authorship of the Qu'ran. That's every non-muslim. I certainly don't think it was written by some muhammad or allah. Plus laws against blasphemy are unconstitutional.

Free speech may result in physical harm, the dissemination of error, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy, incitement of hatred, causing offence and breaches of all kinds. And these rationales have been recognised by the Canadian, American, English and European courts.

Making threats, which isn't speech but a call to action, has been recognized as being sometimes bad, but not drawing a cartoon. Deal with it, criticism of religion ain't going away.

So, respectively, you're able to freely promote ideas for shoplifting, bomb-making, freedom to describe terrorists as good people.

Well, muslims certainly do. XD. But yes you can legally, ever hear of bad idea forums?

[ozymandias]

I think this just about sums it up. Cartoons/No cartoons. That is just a tiny part of it. Ultimately it is about Western designs for global economic superiority - the current tactic is to create and then "repair" the havoc.

Christian Europe has been depiciting Islam and Muslims in their textbooks for years as bogeymen from the South and the East. People do right to question intentions and remain sceptical.

As long as violence does not enter into the equation, you are right -- about the skeptical part.

As to the 'west' being about economic superiority and not about insuring freedoms -- that is debatable.

[ozymandias]

Ahahahahaha, I guess that "islamic mercy" flew out the window. Europe is no more "Christian" than the US is "Christian." Both the US and EU (some individual member states are not though) are secular institutions.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli, signed and ratified by the entire US Senate -- the third recorded unanimous vote by the Senate. The US is not a Christian nation, nor has it ever been one.