Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[*Mahzala*]

The offender is wrong. Period.

Pick up any law book and you find that in incitement offences, the offender is not the one who commits th act that directly causes physical or other harm, but rather the one who conveys messages tat encourage or incite others to engage in such actions.

Our views will differ, quite obviously. But what I mean is, when I point out laws, I am talking from an Australian perspective, which are clearly very different to that of the US and European countries.

[imb706]

I find it offensive you would portray Mormon's in an offensive manner and call them violent. I am going to burn down your house -- and *YOU* are the one that broke the law -- I mean, I got upset over something *YOU* said -- so you incited me to violence.

No, I have Brigham Young on my side :p

Pick up any law book and you find that in incitement offences, the offender is not the one who commits th act that directly causes physical or other harm, but rather the one who conveys messages tat encourage or incite others to engage in such actions.

Well, in the US, for example if some girl incited some guy to rape her by wearing a skirt (that's an argument some conservatives give) she's not punished, the rapist is. I think in muslim societies, the women in punished though. I have no idea how Australia views blasphemy and views insults towards Islam though.

[*Mahzala*]

I find it offensive you would portray Mormon's in an offensive manner and call them violent. I am going to burn down your house -- and *YOU* are the one that broke the law -- I mean, I got upset over something *YOU* said -- so you incited me to violence.

*SNORT*

I don't understand how that argument is supposed to work -- it even *SOUNDS* like obvious garbage.

Sounds like garbage to you, but it has already made its mark quite a LOT. If we're going down this line, then I will ask how familiar you are with broadcasting laws or law for that matter. I am not underestimating your knowledge.

[ozymandias]

Pick up any law book and you find that in incitement offences, the offender is not the one who commits th act that directly causes physical or other harm, but rather the one who conveys messages tat encourage or incite others to engage in such actions.

I think you either misunderstand those law books, or are pretending to do so. The laws you are referencing cover people saying things like imams saying 'it is Allah's will that you burn down that house' or people paying for violence, or encouraging riots -- not the people that are the *VICTIMS* of those acts.

There is a difference between publishing a cartoon and being the victim of terrorism, and someone encouraging another to engage in terrorism.

One is not incitement (in the legal sense), and the other is.

If the former was incitement, the news would be incitement, or any victim of repressive violence over free speech would be guilty of this mythical law you propose.

Our views will differ, quite obviously. But what I mean is, when I point out laws, I am talking from an Australian perspective, which are clearly very different to that of the US and European countries.

Clearly. I do not know Australian laws -- but this law of yours simply does not make any logical sense. Under this law you describe, I could come attack you and then claim that your attacks on free speech incited me -- and you would be found *guilty*? Where is the logic -- or free speech -- in that?

[*Mahzala*]

I think in muslim societies, the women in punished though. I have no idea how Australia views blasphemy and views insults towards Islam though.

Yet another baseless statement. Disgusting!

How Australia views blasphemy, I have already commented on. That is the Australian (media) law perspective, not mine.

[imb706]

No, it's not. Look at Saudi Arabia. The rapist is the punished and the rapee (so to say) isn't viewed as badly. They lashed a woman for speaking about rape in fact. They think the women caused it and deserved it. It's terrible. It seems it varies in Australia. Fair enough.

[*Mahzala*]

I think you either misunderstand those law books, or are pretending to do so.

You don't even have the basic courtesy of not jumping to conclusions about people. Assuming things about someone's understanding, beliefs or knowledge ... gosh.

The laws you are referencing cover people saying things like imams saying 'it is Allah's will that you burn down that house' or people paying for violence, or encouraging riots -- not the people that are the *VICTIMS* of those acts.

No it does not. You may have not read properly. Might want to scroll up. And to clarify, I do not back or support people who say it is Allah's will to do such and such or do wrong in the name of Islam. Study the religion, not the Muslim if you're looking for the truth and authenticity of it (this is not an instruction to you).

There is a difference between publishing a cartoon and being the victim of terrorism, and someone encouraging another to engage in terrorism.

But the content of that publication MATTERS!

[imb706]

But the religion isn't some invention of a god, all we have is muslims actions. Judge a religion by the members actions, not by some imaginary standard some evoke.

[*Mahzala*]

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

I just saw this EDIT of yours now.

You know what Jameson, there are faults in everyone, every people, every country, every government. But some people only like to look for faults in others. Leave Islam aside for a minute. Let's go to "Great" Britain. Did you know, that the British Defence Ministry had made a step-by-step guide on how to build an atomic bomb which was published in various newspapers worldwide? Did you also know that a step-by-step guide on how to shoplift was published in a univeristy newspaper - known as the Rabelais Case? This is incitement. I can give you example after example.

"Muslims certainly do," my foot!

[ozymandias]

You don't even have the basic courtesy of not jumping to conclusions about people. Assuming things about someone's understanding, beliefs or knowledge ... gosh.

It's not an assumption -- it's an analysis based on the postings you have made. An assumption would have been to say 'well you are posting on a Muslim forum, and thus have no clue about laws in free countries' it is more than an assumption to look at what you have actually posted and post direct commentary and reactions based on those statements. Besides, by your 'logic', it's your fault for inciting me to make 'assumptions'.

No it does not. You may have not read properly. Might want to scroll up. And to clarify, I do not back or support people who say it is Allah's will to do such and such or do wrong in the name of Islam.

The second you lay blame on the victims, that is exactly what you are doing.

Study the religion, not the Muslim if you're looking for the truth and authenticity of it (this is not an instruction to you).

I am not looking for the truth or authenticity -- I am simply discussing human rights, and people that associate by free will with terrorists.

But the content of that publication MATTERS!

Nope. It's free speech no matter what it says, so in reality, it doesn't matter *to this discussion*. The content could have been about how pretty butterflies are, and not a single argument on my end would change.

[*Mahzala*]

No, it's not. Look at Saudi Arabia. The rapist is the punished and the rapee (so to say) isn't viewed as badly. They lashed a woman for speaking about rape in fact. They think the women caused it and deserved it. It's terrible. It seems it varies in Australia. Fair enough.

That is wrong. That is not Islamic Law. That is weak mental constitution where ancient cultural traditions have blinded people. Islam emphasises justice, human dignity and truth.

[ozymandias]

I just saw this EDIT of yours now.

You know what Jameson, there are faults in everyone, every people, every country, every government. But some people only like to look for faults in others. Leave Islam aside for a minute. Let's go to "Great" Britain. Did you know, that the British Defence Ministry had made a step-by-step guide on how to build an atomic bomb which was published in various newspapers worldwide? Did you also know that a step-by-step guide on how to shoplift was published in a univeristy newspaper - known as the Rabelais Case? This is incitement. I can give you example after example.

"Muslims certainly do," my foot!

... No, incitement would be "here is how to make a bomb, now go make one and bomb those enemies of the newspaper".

Publishing scientific knowledge would not constitute incitement. Incitement would require not just information, but encouragement.

[ozymandias]

Further example: the phonebook is not inciting violence if it publishes someone's address, but a terrorist giving a speech giving out that same address with the encouragement 'now you know where he lives, go convince him he is wrong' *could* be cited for incitement.

[ozymandias]

That is wrong. That is not Islamic Law. That is weak mental constitution where ancient cultural traditions have blinded people. Islam emphasises justice, human dignity and

But under your 'logic' the rapee incited the rape.

truth.

Debatable.

[imb706]

You know what Jameson, there are faults in everyone, every people, every country, every government.

I'm well aware.

But some people only like to look for faults in others.

Not me. However, I don't believe in criticizing just your own culture and society. All societies and cultures, all groups deserve criticism and scrutiny.

Let's go to "Great" Britain.

I take it you don't like Britain much.

Did you know, that the British Defence Ministry had made a step-by-step guide on how to build an atomic bomb which was published in various newspapers worldwide? Did you also know that a step-by-step guide on how to shoplift was published in a univeristy newspaper - known as the Rabelais Case? This is incitement. I can give you example after example.

I don't have a problem with those though. Again, ever hear of bad idea forums?

"Muslims certainly do," my foot!

Um, muslims bomb people all the time, oftentimes by blowing themselves up, that's what I mean. I've yet to hear of non muslim british terrorist, that is in recent times.

That is wrong. That is not Islamic Law. That is weak mental constitution where ancient cultural traditions have blinded people. Islam emphasises justice, human dignity and truth.

Well, the Saudis would disagree with you there. Islam means to submit, there's no dignity in that.