Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I had to re-read your posts as though I was reading them the first time. I think the mistake I made was to start from the middle. This thread started before I joined the forum. Instead of reading everything from the beginning, I just started with the latest post.

Nonetheless, I truly apologize. I think I am to be blamed fully for it was my duty to acquaint myself with the thread properly. It just goes to show that we always learn something new everyday.

[ozymandias]

I had to re-read your posts as though I was reading them the first time. I think the mistake I made was to start from the middle. This thread started before I joined the forum. Instead of reading everything from the beginning, I just started with the latest post.

Nonetheless, I truly apologize. I think I am to be blamed fully for it was my duty to acquaint myself with the thread properly. It just goes to show that we always learn something new everyday.

Admittedly, it is a long thread -- and I am a bit caustic at times ;-)

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Well, nice to meet you, I am Mo'min!

[akbarkhan]

From what I can tell, in the *VERY* few countries this is actually illegal in, it has to do with national shame, and an effort to repress a terrible part of their history, and avoid allowing people to keep old wounds open.

It is very interesting to note that the countries with these laws are all places that suffered int hat war the worst.

It is also important to note that investigating, nor questioning is not illegal in *ANY* of those countries -- it is illegal to claim they never happened -- and try to teach these claims, as well as it is illegal to express support for the crimes against humanity -- not quite the same as what you asked.

Furthermore, I am against these laws, as they violate free speech.



I was not aware that it was. The closest I was able to find in a google search was a (now repealed law) that made it illegal to deface British coins in 1936 -- which had a picture of the queen on them. A quick google search shows that it is commonly misunderstood that it was illegal due to the defacing the queen, but in reality it was illegal to deface the property of the government -- which all money technically is. This law was repealed.

If I found the wrong law, please correct me -- I am not up-to-date with obscure forgein laws that are not enforced -- it's only the archaic laws that are enforced that make the news -- like imprisoning someone for eating.

Once again, personally, I feel that this violates free speech, but under the argument that the coin is the property of the government, I would have to allow it, the same as I would say that my destroying your property is not covered by free speech.

I was not aware I asked you anything.

I know you haven't asked me directly, but this is an open forum and any questions or arguments that you pose here can be and will be addressed by members of this community.

Investigating the holocaust is shunned by all institutions, anyone who tries to investigate the holocaust is labeled an anti-semite and there are some precedents where those who have investigated the holocaust and attempted to present a different picture from the 'established picture' are sentenced under hate crimes charges.

Furthermore, you state that institutions and establishments shun investigating the holocaust in order to "avoid allowing people to keep old wounds open". My learned acquaintance, allow me to put this in comparative context. In World War 2 alone 60 million people were killed compared to 6 million figures of Holocaust, so why do the same institutions investigate WW2 extensively and "allowing people to keep old wounds open"? Were the 6 million people of the Holocaust more significant compared to the 60 million? We can discuss these double standards ad nauseum, but I am going to refrain from doing so because I dont have the liberty of time to do so.

Now I understand that you don't agree to such draconian laws and that you value and cherish civil rights specifically freedom of expression. But if you tear a picture of the Queen today, you will be taken to court and sentenced. But the same people who would sentence you for such an act don't object and infact encourage depicting a man held in high esteem amongst 1.8 billion people around the world.

You can not simply Google stuff up and expect to get all sides of the story. I too just like yourself value the right to express oneself freely, but we must not express ourselves in manners or tones that would offend fellow human beings who might have a different world view. There are limits to everything, there is a fine line between expressing oneself and intentionally offending others i.e it is illegal to call black person a ******, not because of the word itself but because it is offensive. Now you could argue that its a racist term, but the root cause of outlawing such terms are due to their offensive nature. Even Mills who has written extensively on civil liberties accepts this fact.

Why don't you exercise your right of freedom of expression by debating Islam, its ethics, its laws, its history and etc instead of depicting our Prophet. What benefit could a depiction of our Prophet make to the citizens of this world apart from offending 1.8 billion people?

Go to any shopping mall and start hurling abuse and make offensive remarks in the name of "freedom of expression". The security will escort you out and if you do it again you will get arrested for anti social behaviour or public disorder.

We hold Mohammad pbuh in high esteem, even according to the standards of the west he has been placed at number 1 out of the 100 most influentional men of all times. Islam teaches us not to mock other people's religions, their deities and what they hold sacred.

[ozymandias]

I know you haven't asked me directly, but this is an open forum and any questions or arguments that you pose here can be and will be addressed by members of this community.

Never hesitate to jump in on a forum!

Investigating the holocaust is shunned by all institutions, anyone who tries to investigate the holocaust is labeled an anti-semite and there are some precedents where those who have investigated the holocaust and attempted to present a different picture from the 'established picture' are sentenced under hate crimes charges.

I think you are misusing terms here. Not only is investigating the Holocaust *NOT* shunned, many places encourage it. There are several grad students at the college I work at that have emphases related to the Holocaust.

Studying and investigating the Holocaust is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. Denying the Holocaust, on the other hand, *is* shunned by any legitimate school, as are all non-intellectual 'studies'. Schools also do not encourage studying creationism, the theory that 'fairies did it', or 'how the moon landing was hoaxed'.

Schools tend to frown upon wasting research time and money, or teaching falsehoods.

How is that wrong?

Furthermore, you state that institutions and establishments shun investigating the holocaust in order to "avoid allowing people to keep old wounds open".

I do no such thing. I state that they prevent fraudulent 'education' or research into Holocaust Denial. Studying and researching the Holocaust is allowed, even in the countries with the strictest laws

My learned acquaintance, allow me to put this in comparative context. In World War 2 alone 60 million people were killed compared to 6 million figures of Holocaust, so why do the same institutions investigate WW2 extensively and "allowing people to keep old wounds open"?

The same reasons they allow research into the Holocaust. Please take a look at the actual laws -- it is not the studying or even the believeing that the Holocaust did not occur that is a crime, it is the teaching of Denial and open, public support of the crimes, such as trivializing or belittling them.

Were the 6 million people of the Holocaust more significant compared to the 60 million?

Nope.

We can discuss these double standards ad nauseum,

GOODY GOODY! when you find a double standard, please make sure you point it out -- otherwise I might miss it.

but I am going to refrain from doing so because I dont have the liberty of time to do so.

Now I understand that you don't agree to such draconian laws and that you value and cherish civil rights specifically freedom of expression. But if you tear a picture of the Queen today, you will be taken to court and sentenced.

Could you show me a link to this? As I already stated, I was unable to find any law like this, only misunderstanding.

But the same people who would sentence you for such an act don't object and infact encourage depicting a man held in high esteem amongst 1.8 billion people around the world.

As I already stated it is the law protecting that picture of the queen that is wrong, not the law protecting free speech.

You can not simply Google stuff up and expect to get all sides of the story. I too just like yourself value the right to express oneself freely, but we must not express ourselves in manners or tones that would offend fellow human beings who might have a different world view. There are limits to everything, there is a fine line between expressing oneself and intentionally offending others i.e it is illegal to call black person a ******,

Where at? And once again, even if you find a place with such a law, I disagree morally, ethically, and constitutionally with such a law.

not because of the word itself but because it is offensive.

You do not have a right not to be offended. The laws against 'hate speech' which are the laws most likely to apply in your example exist to minimize strife and violence, as hate speech is often a precursor to racist *ACTIONS* -- and again, I believe that even hate speech should be protected. Only outright, believable threats and criminal statements should be restricted.

Now you could argue that its a racist term, but the root cause of outlawing such terms are due to their offensive nature. Even Mills who has written extensively on civil liberties accepts this fact.

Why don't you exercise your right of freedom of expression by debating Islam, its ethics, its laws, its history and etc instead of depicting our Prophet.

You are confusing the issue, and the people. Some people do just that. Some people seek to *defend* free speech, and have no interest in what you believe in, as long as you respect their right to free speech. It is these people that draw Mohammad these days.

What benefit could a depiction of our Prophet make to the citizens of this world apart from offending 1.8 billion people?

3 words: Defend Free Speech.

Go to any shopping mall and start hurling abuse and make offensive remarks at people in the name of "freedom of expression". The security will escort you out

Malls are private property, and the management has the rights to make any rules they wish to enforce on their property.

and if you do it again you will get arrested for anti social behaviour or public disorder.

Actually, no -- it's trespassing you are arrested for, unless you violate an additional law, such as being drunk and disorderly.

[akbarkhan]

I think you are misusing terms here. Not only is investigating the Holocaust *NOT* shunned, many places encourage it. There are several grad students at the college I work at that have emphases related to the Holocaust.

Studying and investigating the Holocaust is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. Denying the Holocaust, on the other hand, *is* shunned by any legitimate school, as are all non-intellectual 'studies'. Schools also do not encourage studying creationism, the theory that 'fairies did it', or 'how the moon landing was hoaxed'.

Read Norman Finkelstein's books. Investigating the holocaust is allowed only when the results of the study are in accords with 'established facts' otherwise the researcher gets beaten up by Mossad agents or is sacked for being "anti-semite" or like David Irving is put behind bars.

"Irving, 67, arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust".

Irving didn't deny the holocaust altogether! His investigation/findings challenged the extent of the holocaust yet still he was imprisoned for "denial".

If the world is put in shackles, not allowed to challenge the extent of holocaust because a few million Jews are offended or irritated by such an action , then on what basis do you reserve the right to offend 1.8 billion people who believe that Mohammad pbuh is a Prophet and that his depiction is forbidden according to the teachings of a faith observed by 1.8 billion people?

If you argue that based on freedom of expression you can offend Muslims and that Muslims "do not have a right not to be offended" then the citizens of this planet too should equally have the right to offend the Jews by denying the holocaust entirely or challenge parts of it as they may and the Jews too shouldn't "have a right not to be offended", let alone prosecuting the deniers or researchers who challenge parts of the status quo based on empirical evidence!

Why are you folks blind to double standards?

On one hand your Jewish owned media machines promote secularism, on the other hand you occupy Palastinian land based on religious grounds (the promised land). On one hand you threaten countries who pursue nuclear arms with preempts , on the other you support countries who maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity. And you wonder why people revolt against police states!

I do no such thing. I state that they prevent fraudulent 'education' or research into Holocaust Denial. Studying and researching the Holocaust is allowed, even in the countries with the strictest laws

Lets not play semantics here, you said something in the lines of - allowing to deny the holocaust is opening old wounds. My argument is, why is it not a crime to deny WW2 or the fact that 60 million people were killed? Why is not a crime to deny the rwanda genocide? What makes these historic events different from holocaust?

GOODY GOODY! when you find a double standard, please make sure you point it out -- otherwise I might miss it.

How about this one? Baroness Jenny Tonge exercised her right to freely express herself and she got the sack.

Could you show me a link to this? As I already stated, I was unable to find any law like this, only misunderstanding.

Consult a British lawyer, Google doesn't index every act or legislation under the sun.

Where at? And once again, even if you find a place with such a law, I disagree morally, ethically, and constitutionally with such a law.

United Kingdom, you tell that to the members of the House of Lords and see what their response is.

You do not have a right not to be offended.

Really, next time you see a black person call them a Golliwogg or ****** and see what happens. Next time you see a person of Pakistani/Indian origins, call them a **** and see what happens. Also see what happens in court if it is proven that you have made those offensive remarks.

3 words: Defend Free Speech.

Mocking, offending and agitating 1.8 billion peopl is not freedom of speech. Seriously, some one needs to acquaint you with ethics and civil liberties. I suggest you begin with Mills on Liberty - A Defense.

Malls are private property, and the management has the rights to make any rules they wish to enforce on their property.
Actually, no -- it's trespassing you are arrested for, unless you violate an additional law, such as being drunk and disorderly.

The Summary Offence Act 1998 "provides penalties for behaving "in an offensive manner" in or near or within view or hearing from a public place or school and using Offensive Language in or near, or within hearing from a public place or school". "What is offensive is usually considered from the point of view of the reasonable person." You can get arrested under offence and public order act for making a racist comment in an altercation.

Private properties are subject to state law, they are not excluded. You can not argue that you physically abused your wife in your private home and not on a public road. You can not argue that you made racist remarks on private property and get away with it.

It is very well to talk about "freedom of speech" and "defend free speech" when you don't have any knowledge of state laws and the applications thereof.

To suggest that we abandon all ethics, ethical conduct, fair reasoning, and morality in the name of "freedom of expression" is ridiculous. Freedom of speech should be supported and upheld only if the outcome of such expression is of any benefit to citizen or mankind in general. Exploiting freedom of speech as tool to instigate hatred or to intentionally cause an offense with unbeneficial outcome is quite simply selfish, irresponsible, inhumane and above all immoral.

[ozymandias]

Read Norman Finkelstein's books. Investigating the holocaust is allowed only when the results of the study are in accords with 'established facts'

So you are stating you have a problem that scholars are mocked and ridiculed, and lose academic credibility when they ignore evidence and facts and come up with alternative theories?

Once again, people that ignore evidence and facts do *not* need to get respect in academia.

otherwise the researcher gets beaten up by Mossad agents or is sacked

Can you provide links? I would like to see some real evidence for this, and the details of the case.

for being "anti-semite" or like David Irving is put behind bars.

The law he was charged on has already been discussed -- Austria is one of those war-torn countries that has a problem with people glorifying and supporting the Nazi party. While I don't agree with the law, to say he was arrested for studying the Holocaust is trivializing the issue and being deliberately dishonest.

"Irving, 67, arrived in the court room handcuffed, wearing a blue suit, and carrying a copy of Hitler's War, one of many books he has written on the Nazis, and which challenges the extent of the Holocaust".

Irving didn't deny the holocaust altogether! His investigation/findings challenged the extent of the holocaust yet still he was imprisoned for "denial".

Actually, no, he was not. He was arrested under the Verbotsgesetz Act, which in 1988, the time of the trial did *NOT* cover Holocaust denial -- it only outlawed Nazism and the attempts to revive the Nazi party. It was not until 1992, four years after the trial that it was expanded to cover Holocaust Denial.

Lets not play semantics here, you said something in the lines of - allowing to deny the holocaust is opening old wounds. My argument is, why is it not a crime to deny WW2 or the fact that 60 million people were killed?

Once again, two wrongs do not make a right. One unjust law does not justify another.

Additionally, these 'Holocaust Denial' laws that you evidently never actually researched actually tend to prohibit minimization of the Nazis, or war crimes by the Nazis -- which include their actions in WWII -- not just the Holocaust.

You are redefining these laws to have the minimal possible scope, and then crying that the scope is too narrow.

Why is not a crime to deny the rwanda genocide? What makes these historic events different from holocaust?

Two wrongs do not make a right. I would hazard a guess that both the scope and I have never even *HEARD* of a Rwanda Denier -- what's the point of a law that prohibits nothing that is actually done?

How about this one? Baroness Jenny Tonge exercised her right to freely express herself and she got the sack.

She was fired for making an offensive statement her employers did not support. Where is the double standard? I support, and have supported any and everyone's rights to get offended and take civil action in response to that offense.

It's not like she was suicide bombed or anything!

Consult a British lawyer, Google doesn't index every act or legislation under the sun.

Agreed -- but a law as controversial as this should leave *SOME* evidence online -- especially if you seek to use is to prove a point of some sort. As I stated, the only evidence I can find is people explaining that this is a common *misconception*. I am simply asking you to provide evidence that your claim that this is not a misconception is true, and allow us to investigate.

United Kingdom, you tell that to the members of the House of Lords and see what their response is.

Once again, lets see the law. I have never even *heard* of having the right not to be offended, but I am not an expert in UK law.

Really, next time you see a black person call them a Golliwogg or ****** and see what happens. Next time you see a person of Pakistani/Indian origins, call them a **** and see what happens. Also see what happens in court if it is proven that you have made those offensive remarks.

Absolutely nothing. At all. I am in America, and I am allowed the right of free speech. At worst, if I make those comments at work, I lose my job. There are cases like this every year, and that is the worst that happens. No criminal charges, no legal repercussions.

Mocking, offending and agitating 1.8 billion peopl is not freedom of speech.

Wrong again. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Seriously, some one needs to acquaint you with ethics and civil liberties. I suggest you begin with Mills on Liberty - A Defense.

I think I can suggest that you look into the topic a little more as well -- you don't even seem to grasp the very basic civil liberty -- free speech.

Private properties are subject to state law, they are not excluded.

Yes -- this means that you can be charged with crimes while on private property. This does *NOT* mean that the owners of the property are unable to make additional rules that you must follow -- as long as those rules do not violate the laws.

Pools can require swim suits and deny glass bottles. Movie theaters can require you to stop talking and be quite when the show is going. It's a simple concept -- the owners can make any rules that you need to follow as long as said rules are illegal. If they decide that your actions are costing them business and disrupting their properties, they have every right to ask you to leave -- and you have to comply.

You can not argue that you physically abused your wife in your private home and not on a public road.

You are right -- spousal abuse is a violation of the law. As I already clarified, you can make laws in ADDITION to the law, but you cannot revoke the law.

You can not argue that you made racist remarks on private property and get away with it.

First of all, you can make racist comments on *PUBLIC* property and get away with it.

Second of all, you have the right to free speech up to the limits the land owner or representative grants you on private property.

It is very well to talk about "freedom of speech" and "defend free speech" when you don't have any knowledge of state laws and the applications thereof.

Indeed. I suggest you look into those laws in order to avoid looking even more foolish than you do now.

To suggest that we abandon all ethics, ethical conduct, fair reasoning, and morality in the name of "freedom of expression" is ridiculous. Freedom of speech should be support if the outcome of such expression is of any benefit to citizen or mankind in general. Exploiting freedom of speech as tool to instigate hatred or to intentionally cause an offense with unbeneficial outcome is quite simply irresponsible, inhumane and above all immoral.

First of all, this argument would be null and void, as you claim that it is irresponsible to exercise free speech with an 'unbeneficial outcome'. Fortunately the defense of free speech is a benefit.

That said, even if we ignore that slip of your 'tongue', no one is suggesting abandoning all ethics, or even a part of them. The same goes for ethical conduct. In fact, people are crying for more ethics and more ethical conduct -- the civil reaction to 'offensive' speech, as opposed to resorting to terrorism.

What is more moral than defending a universal human right from attack? It is immoral to *attack* free speech, not defend it. It's sad that you refuse to even attempt to understand the issues and instead resort to attacking those that are trying to do good -- and you end up resorting to defending terrorism.

[Muslimah]

going back to what was originally posted - I don't personally find anything offensive in the image. I heard what happened in the news, but now that I am seeing that image, I don't get why its so horrible?

The problem is, wherever there is controversy in the world (ie. the unknown world of Islam vs. the rest of the world), comedy is created. I mean, watch Jay Leno - his jokes are all based on some sort of controversy. Apparently it is seen as "comical" to make fun of a hard situation.

The other problem is, people in North America don't make fun of Christianity, because although they are christian, majority know nothing about their religion, nor do they want to. They also don't know the laws of Islam and that painting a picture of our beloved prophet (pbuh) is bad. I watched a documentary once and it had a cartoon of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (pbut) as an educational piece explaining the history of religion. I know it was made by a non-Muslim, and I let them know that this isnt something we support in a CALM way. If we as Muslims start sending death threats because someone doesn't know any better about our religion, then not only are we taking them away from learning about Islam by instilling fear into their lives, but we are also making ourselves look bad. We never saw our beloved prophet pbuh sending death threats to those who lack the required knowledge. He was always calm. We should model after him.

But, if these people are doing it to spite Muslims and know better and do it to cause problems - well that that is a different story. But I still don't think violence is the right solution.

[akbarkhan]

Can you provide links? I would like to see some real evidence for this, and the details of the case.

You should look up Robert Faurisson.

The law he was charged on has already been discussed -- Austria is one of those war-torn countries that has a problem with people glorifying and supporting the Nazi party. While I don't agree with the law, to say he was arrested for studying the Holocaust is trivializing the issue and being deliberately dishonest.

Actually, no, he was not. He was arrested under the Verbotsgesetz Act, which in 1988, the time of the trial did *NOT* cover Holocaust denial -- it only outlawed Nazism and the attempts to revive the Nazi party. It was not until 1992, four years after the trial that it was expanded to cover Holocaust Denial.

This should have been applied: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Two wrongs do not make a right. I would hazard a guess that both the scope and I have never even *HEARD* of a Rwanda Denier -- what's the point of a law that prohibits nothing that is actually done?

I have never stated that there is a thing such as "Rwanda Denier", my argument was what if someone denies the Rwanda genocide? Should (s)he be treated in a similar way as a holocaust denier?

She was fired for making an offensive statement her employers did not support. Where is the double standard? I support, and have supported any and everyone's rights to get offended and take civil action in response to that offense.

"Employer", what a stupid thing to say! She was a civil servant, getting paid by the public! She wasn't working for a private enterprise!

She wasn't making an offensive remark, she made an allegation. An allegation that had to be investigated and the outcome of which had to be made clear to the public!

Agreed -- but a law as controversial as this should leave *SOME* evidence online -- especially if you seek to use is to prove a point of some sort. As I stated, the only evidence I can find is people explaining that this is a common *misconception*. I am simply asking you to provide evidence that your claim that this is not a misconception is true, and allow us to investigate.

It is not a controversial law at all, and it is not your fault that you are not aware of it as you are not familiar with UK law.

Absolutely nothing. At all. I am in America, and I am allowed the right of free speech. At worst, if I make those comments at work, I lose my job. There are cases like this every year, and that is the worst that happens. No criminal charges, no legal repercussions.

Fine, the cartoonist and those who depict Mohammad pbuh should lose their jobs as well.

I think I can suggest that you look into the topic a little more as well -- you don't even seem to grasp the very basic civil liberty -- free speech.

Don't worry about me, I am but a layman however I am well acquainted with civil liberties and social contract from both prespectives, Islamic and secular. In this caravan you shall find folks well versed in Hobbes, Mills, Locke, Rouseau, Hume and Grotius!

Wrong again. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Don't quote UN to us, the same UN that allows Israel to operate under its own nose, not complying with over 138 resolutions.

What is more moral than defending a universal human right from attack? It is immoral to *attack* free speech, not defend it. It's sad that you refuse to even attempt to understand the issues and instead resort to attacking those that are trying to do good -- and you end up resorting to defending terrorism.

And this is coming from a land that has been in constant state of warfare since its inception! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...ary_operations

Try and fool adolescent with all this BS.

[ozymandias]

You should look up Robert Faurisson.




This should have been applied: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I agree, and that has been my point all along.

I have never stated that there is a thing such as "Rwanda Denier", my argument was what if someone denies the Rwanda genocide? Should (s)he be treated in a similar way as a holocaust denier?

Once again, I do not support the laws concerning minimizing the crimes against humanity in the Second World War, but they exist because some people felt the need to prevent people from trivializing those crimes. Since these same sorts of people do not appear to exist concerning Rwanda, why would people make the laws?

People tend to create laws in reaction to things, or to prevent things. People do not tend to make laws prohibiting actions that no one is doing *anyway*.

Finally, I would rather see the laws restricting free speech removed -- and not increased to include the genocide in Rwanda -- two wrongs *still* do not make a right.

"Employer", what a stupid thing to say! She was a civil servant, getting paid by the public! She wasn't working for a private enterprise!

She was fired from her role as the Liberal Democrat Party Health Spokesperson. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a non-elected position in the Liberal Democrat Party, and instead is a position filled by the party selecting the person that they feel can best present their interests and achieve their goals. I have been unable to find evidence that she was impeached or fired from an elected position.

This is an internal party decision, and is very comparable to private enterprise -- she was not what was best for the party, and was not elected by the public to that position. They have every right to fire non-elected officials, the same as a school can fire a principal if the principal goes against the best interests of the school.

Additionally, why would you think that she is paid from public funds, and not party funds for her role as a party spokeswoman -- not a government spokes person? Those finds are given to the party to use for the best interests of the party -- and they did what they felt was needed.

She wasn't making an offensive remark, she made an allegation. An allegation that had to be investigated and the outcome of which had to be made clear to the public!

Allegations can be groundless and offensive -- and not in the best interests of the party.

It is not a controversial law at all, and it is not your fault that you are not aware of it as you are not familiar with UK law.

Once again, I simply think that if it existed there would be more online than people explaining it does not exist. That's all. If it existed, someone might have mentioned that.

Fine, the cartoonist and those who depict Mohammad pbuh should lose their jobs as well.

If their employers had wanted to fire them, that is their right. There employer, a newspaper, gets to make conduct rules for their employees.

Don't worry about me, I am but a layman however I am well acquainted with civil liberties and social contract from both prespectives, Islamic and secular. In this caravan you shall find folks well versed in Hobbes, Mills, Locke, Rouseau, Hume and Grotius!

it is interesting that you would claim to be well versed -- but not know what free speech is.

Don't quote UN to us, the same UN that allows Israel to operate under its own nose, not complying with over 138 resolutions.

I feel like a parrot: "BRAAWWWWK two wrongs don't make a right BRAWWWK!"

And this is coming from a land that has been in constant state of warfare since its inception! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...ary_operations

What are you trying to claim here? That violence is only moral when done in the name of Islam?

I'm having a hard time understanding the jump here. We were discussing that it is immoral to let attacks on human rights to be undefended against, and you jump to... a timeline of US military actions? What do the two even have to do with each other?

Try and fool adolescent with all this BS.

I'd rather educate you than fool you.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

ozy,

Now that I understand your angle of approach better, I am seeing more clearer what it is that you are arguing. Keep it up!

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

How do you explain Islam being the fastest growing religion in many countries?

It is 'new'. Any idea that people have not seen before carries some advantage over those that they already know.

I would hazard a guess that they are able to see the flaws in their existing religion as they are familiar with it, and understand it, and do not have that luxury with Islam.

Furthermore it has a lot to do with the types of people in each religion -- part of why Islam is growing so fast is that many of the countries that are predominately Islamic have higher birth rates -- so more are born into the faith -- it's not that they are converting.

I would also like to point out that the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion is not backed by evidence:

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/

[ozymandias]

ozy,

Now that I understand you angle of approach better, I am seeing more clearer what it is that you are arguing. Keep it up!

I seem to be getting this a lot around here ;-)

Once people see what I am saying, it seems to click. In the meantime, it can be fun to let people continue their wrong preconceived notions about me.

[akbarkhan]

I agree, and that has been my point all along.

Once again, I do not support the laws concerning minimizing the crimes against humanity in the Second World War, but they exist because some people felt the need to prevent people from trivializing those crimes. Since these same sorts of people do not appear to exist concerning Rwanda, why would people make the laws?

People tend to create laws in reaction to things, or to prevent things. People do not tend to make laws prohibiting actions that no one is doing *anyway*.

Finally, I would rather see the laws restricting free speech removed -- and not increased to include the genocide in Rwanda -- two wrongs *still* do not make a right.

I am glad that you agree, so why not start your campaign of free speech from your own home? Why do you vote for a government run by AIPAC lobbyist and CFR who made and suppprt such laws?

You see I don't care if you draw a cartoon. What I see as despicable is the fact that you don't sort your act out but are ever ready lecturing us about free speech!

She was fired from her role as the Liberal Democrat Party Health Spokesperson. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a non-elected position in the Liberal Democrat Party, and instead is a position filled by the party selecting the person that they feel can best present their interests and achieve their goals. I have been unable to find evidence that she was impeached or fired from an elected position.

This is an internal party decision, and is very comparable to private enterprise -- she was not what was best for the party, and was not elected by the public to that position. They have every right to fire non-elected officials, the same as a school can fire a principal if the principal goes against the best interests of the school.

Additionally, why would you think that she is paid from public funds, and not party funds for her role as a party spokeswoman -- not a government spokes person? Those finds are given to the party to use for the best interests of the party -- and they did what they felt was needed.

Allegations can be groundless and offensive -- and not in the best interests of the party.

That is very absurd, parties should act in the best interest of the public not their own vested interests!

Funds are not given for the "best interest of the party", they are rather given from our taxes so that parties act in the best interest of tax payers. If a public servant makes such a claim, it is governments responsibility to investigate the matter, if the findings of the investigation indicate that the public servant has made false allegations only then they should be fired and fined in order to prevent future false allegations from party members.

I feel like a parrot: "BRAAWWWWK two wrongs don't make a right BRAWWWK!"

That is right, that is why I suggest that you should address your own policies first before you tell others what is right and what is wrong.

What are you trying to claim here? That violence is only moral when done in the name of Islam?

No.

I'm having a hard time understanding the jump here. We were discussing that it is immoral to let attacks on human rights to be undefended against, and you jump to... a timeline of US military actions? What do the two even have to do with each other?

There is no jump. Every human being has the right to live! America is stepping on this fundamental right by killing thousands of human beings. You should first worry about human beings and then their human rights.

Furthermore, imposing democracy by guns and B52s is against human rights and undemocratic. So if you are a champion of human rights, you would not worry about a cartoon but would worry about thousands of people who are tortured in Gitmo, Bagram and the Salt Pit.

Here is a recent article I published on my site http://www.afghanvoice.com/human-rig...-research.html

Allow me to summerize this for you.

I am against violence and I certainly don't support violent protests and i am all for freedom of speech. I don't support them because it is not the Sunnah of our Prophet. When the Quraish pelted Mohammad pbuh with stones and pebbles, the Muslims were patient they didn't resort to violence. When the women of Quraish threw garbage on Mohammad pbuh's from rooftops, the Muslims didn't resort to violence, they remained patient. So I uphold those principles.

My argument here is not about cartoons or anything like that . My argument is that you have no right to lecture us about freedom of speech and human rights when you don't adhere to those principles yourself. Start your campaign from your own home and work outward.

[ozymandias]

Those are propagandas, Islam is the fastest religion. Even in the American entertainment industry it is very visible.

Feel free to cite sources. A quick look around on my own showed that many religions claim that title, and depending on how you measure it, many are right.

That said, even if it *is* the fastest growing religion, it does not make it right.

Sir, I am confused with your stance, first people are running around campaigning people to leave Islam.

This happens to every religion, lifestyle, creed, or habit.

They insult our religion.

This happens to all religions -- and even non-religions. I think you need to realize that *NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO* someone is going to disagree with it. You just need to be an adult and not foster a persecution complex.

They call us terrorists.

Some of you are. Don't like people believing you are a terrorist? Be vocal and denounce the terrorists. Try to stop the terrorists. Protect the name of your faith. Work in *CIVILIZED* ways to correct problems you see.

We are demonized.

This happens to *any* group different than what people are familiar and comfortable with. All unfamiliar religions, or lifestyles get demonized by someone. Take a look on this forum. I have been demonized simply because I am from 'the west'. Jews are demonized for their religion, or ethnicity. It happens.

The single best way to stop demonization is through education. You open lines of dialog with your opponents and teach them about your ways and beliefs and show them the rumors and misunderstandings are wrong.

The single worst thing you can do? Play into those demonizations. Islam may be 'demonized' as supporting terrorists -- the worst thing that can happen is a Muslim committing terrorism in response. At that point you lose *ALL LEGITIMACY* when you cry about 'demonization' because that portrayal was just proven true.

A common, exagerated demonization against atheists is that the 'eat babies'. It's a common hyperbole that pops up fairly often -- but the second atheists start opening and publicly eating babies -- and other atheists start supporting them, we no longer have the right to complain that people 'demonize' us that way. You are under an obligation to distance yourselves from those that do the actions you detest that you are accused of.

We give you green tea and treat you with hospitality.

You are painting with broad brush strokes here -- but only when it suits you. Some of 'you' might be hospitable to some of 'us', but some of 'us' are hospitable to some of 'you'. It is just convienient for you to ignore the inhospitablity of your fellow Muslims and focus on the negatives done against you. In effect, you are demonizing others yourself.

Just as some people 'in the west' focus on the negatives in Islam, you are focusing on the negatives 'in the west'.

even though you have came to ruin our country we Pashtuns still serve you with hospitality, but then you go and say our prophet is this and that and you pull the free speech card? it makes no sense ozymandias.

What does not make sense is how you are confused by free speech still. If it is a political, religious, or ideological opinion that a speaker wishes to express IT IS FREE SPEECH. The content does not matter. The history does not matter. The offense it may or may not cause DOES NOT MATTER.

It makes perfect sense once you calmly and rationally look at the defintion of free speech.