Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Free Speech Fundamentalists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

I'm not a huge fan of Mahdi Hassan, but that wasn't bad. It might not go down too well with his lefty liberal friends though.

 

I dont agree with everything he comes out with, but he has offended his liberal friends many times with his defense of religion, anti-abortion and his openness refusal to embrace homosexuality as acceptable (whilst arguing against discrimination)

Edited by .InshAllah.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The killing of the French cartoonists was maybe not meant as an attack on freedom of speech. I reality thou, it was. Without freedom of speech, democratic nations had not existed. Democracy, the most successful governing form yet invented, is unfortunately vulnerable. It is easy to anonymous threaten to harm someone, his wife or children. Very scaring and effective, but if we give in to such threats, democracies soon will be replaced by states governed by bandits, mafias and religious fanatics.

I agree we all have different limits about what is morally OK to say in public. It is also up to each country to decide its own limits of free speech.  The same cartoon can be allowed in one country but forbidden in another. Even if offended, it is better try to live with this than start shooting. Arguing is also a good option, if allowed.

 

I am not familiar with Mahdi Hassan, but arguing against homosexuals and also against discrimination seems contradictoryand stupid to me. I am not offended thou.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^One cannot attack something that does not exist. Charlie died as a hypocrite representing hypocrisy. He fired a cartoonist for making fun of Jews and it was nowhere near serious. The theatrical march and everyone who shouted "Je suis Charlie" was defending hypocrisy, incompetence and corruption of their own government. Many in the front row represented it well. The terrorists and ultimately Islam, were nothing but a scapegoat to divert the real issues. These same terrorists had a free ticket to Syria along with another thousand "jihadists". But it was okay back then because France (Europe) would gain something with the fall of Assad. They thought 1) Jihadists would reinforce and bring down Assad  2) They die, good riddance. Their noses weren't long enough to notice option 3) Backfire. I bet Assad is laughing now when he told them about option 3. How were they able to plan such an attack when they were under surveillance?

 

Nobody is to be blamed except the short insight and stupidity of France/EU. Take full responsibility for your actions instead of pointing fingers to others like a little crying kid.

 

democracies soon will be replaced by states governed by bandits, mafias and religious fanatics.

 

 

Where do you live? Because every race in EU is complaining about their corrupt government and calling them Mafia/thieves/liars.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Where do you live? Because every race in EU is complaining about their corrupt government and calling them Mafia/thieves/liars.

You did not quote me so well. I said:

"if we give in to such threats, democracies soon will be replaced by states governed by bandits, mafias and religious fanatics."

Is this not obvious?

I live in Sweden and I do not at all recognise your statement (quoted above) Where did you get this info from, and where do you live?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yes, I quoted the relevant part because "soon" has been a reality in many EU countries already. I was born and live in Belgium, everyone's complaining about past and current politicians making a huge mess. Whether their skin color is white, black, brown, yellow or green. I noticed this in the Netherlands too, but it's not as bad. Italy and Spain are a disaster, the list is long (hello France). A part of the right wingers are trying to play the messiah now by blaming everything on politicians in power and "those who came and lowered our quality of life" aka immigrants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

" Freedom Of Speech "

 

1917133049_why-call-me-charlie.png

The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo are in my opinion fundamentalist so the headline of this thread is a realistic headline. But I do not think we shall meet fundamentalists with violence as long as they are not violent themselves. Is this alaso the point of this drawing? Or is it the opposite?

(salam)

 

In addition to the "I want to go to Gehenna/Jehenna" murder of 12 people, the only thing this attack on Charlie Hed-Bobo accomplished was to make martyrs out of Islam's enemies.

 

:shaytan:

They have caused a lot of (free) debate. Who besides ISIS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaida regard these murderers as martyres?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yes, I quoted the relevant part because "soon" has been a reality in many EU countries already. I was born and live in Belgium, everyone's complaining about past and current politicians making a huge mess. Whether their skin color is white, black, brown, yellow or green. I noticed this in the Netherlands too, but it's not as bad. Italy and Spain are a disaster, the list is long (hello France). A part of the right wingers are trying to play the messiah now by blaming everything on politicians in power and "those who came and lowered our quality of life" aka immigrants. 

So what looks like a quote from me is actually your opinion! An unorthodox method I must say. Well, I dont agree with the "quote". It is easy to threaten someone to silence and naturally this will occur in all nations. But. If we stop fighting this methods, democrasy will die. Italy is known for having problems with mafias but Italy is making progress in fighting them. A free press and free speach is vital in a democrasy and I believe you also have got these conditions in Belgium. Would Belgium not be an awful place to live, if you were not allowed to blaim your leaders when you think they made a bad descision?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^You described the consequence if we gave in to "censoring" in a dramatical way, but guess what? We already have these censorings for other minorities. Why will the apocalypse occur if we add Islam? I think you missed the point and/or simply don't want to see the double standards. Most of us in the west are ok with freedom of speech and even support it, me included. But we are against cherry picking and hypocrisy. If you enforce freedom of speech, apply it to everyone equally. 

 

What I'd suggest is everyone can say/publish whatever they want on whoever they want(Jews, Muslims, homosexuals etc), but when it crosses a line and the perpetrator is beind sued, they can be charged for it and end up paying a fine, which has the potential to increase with every new case. I'm not suggesting something out of thin air, we already have these laws for other minorities. The problem is, everything's freedom of speech when it comes to Islam and everything's antisemitic when it comes to Jews ( example). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm not suggesting something out of thin air, we already have these laws for other minorities. The problem is, everything's freedom of speech when it comes to Islam and everything's antisemitic when it comes to Jews ( example).

In Sweden we have not got different blasphemy laws for each religion. If this however is the case in another country I agree this is not fair.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo are in my opinion fundamentalist so the headline of this thread is a realistic headline. But I do not think we shall meet fundamentalists with violence as long as they are not violent themselves. Is this alaso the point of this drawing? Or is it the opposite?

 

This will clear your doubt for drawing ........

 

1610645583_dont-call-me-charlie.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sorry, no I dont get it. Europeans do not always understand why muslims react so strongly, and muslims do not always understand how important freedom of speach is to western democrasies. There is some cultural difference between arabs and europeans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Sorry, no I dont get it. Europeans do not always understand why muslims react so strongly, and muslims do not always understand how important freedom of speach is to western democrasies. There is some cultural difference between arabs and europeans.

Many Europeans may not understand, because they have little notion of the sacred, but religious Europeans (like the Pope) understand, as well as those who worship at the altar of the state. Did you know that in France it was a crime to boo the national anthem or to insult the flag? How's that for freedom of expression?!

It is now a criminal offence to insult the French flag or national anthem. Booing the Marseillaise now carries the risk of a fine of 7,500 euros and six months in prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2759823.stm
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

Something l noticed Saturday that has gotten overlooked by the media:

 

The subtitle of Charlie Hedbo is "journal irresponsible".

 

Triva: As l wrote this, on DW's "PopX" music show, they are reporting on a rap group's new song "inspired by neo-Nazi terrorist ______" --some girl's name.

 

I figure this is "irresponsible" also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Many Europeans may not understand, because they have little notion of the sacred, but religious Europeans (like the Pope) understand, as well as those who worship at the altar of the state. Did you know that in France it was a crime to boo the national anthem or to insult the flag? How's that for freedom of expression?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2759823.stm

I have never been to France and did not know it was forbidden to insult the french flag. Countries make their own laws, and if I break this law when in France, the french authorities will punish me, which is OK, even if I find the law silly. That an insulted french nationalist would attac me with a machingun seems very unlikely.

 

Charles Hebdo make disgusting drawings against all religions, also offending all French Christians. Europeans do know what blasphemy is, but few understand why the reaction from the Muslim world is so violent. There clearly is a difference in mentality. Could the reason why be that Europeans live under a democratic system

with freedom of speach? Or because of differences between the Quran and the Bible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I have never been to France and did not know it was forbidden to insult the french flag. Countries make their own laws, and if I break this law when in France, the french authorities will punish me, which is OK, even if I find the law silly. That an insulted french nationalist would attac me with a machingun seems very unlikely.

Imagine you are in some conservative rural part of America and you burn the American flag and the Bible in public. How safe do you think you would be? There are many examples like this that could be given, where exercising your right to free speech could put you in danger, especially when dealing with uneducated people on the fringes of society (as these men were).

Angry Muslims also don't have recourse to the power of the state, as an insulted French nationalist would have in the example you cited.

Charles Hebdo make disgusting drawings against all religions, also offending all French Christians. Europeans do know what blasphemy is, but few understand why the reaction from the Muslim world is so violent. There clearly is a difference in mentality. Could the reason why be that Europeans live under a democratic system

with freedom of speach? Or because of differences between the Quran and the Bible?

The difference in mentality stems partly from the dominance of secularism in the West, and partly from the fact that the West is constantly interfering in Muslims affairs. These aren't things you can ignore, because they are directly relevant. However, I find it interesting that when individuals decide to use violence to achieve their objectives, then this is seen as unforgivable terrorism (unless of course these people are 'vindicated' by history), but it is perfectly acceptable for a state to use violence in order to further its national interests. Why the double standards? What was the Vietnam war, expect an act of terrorism in order to achieve political objectives (halting the spread of communism)?

Normal Muslims are more consistent that the Western secularist here, because they would condemn both the actions of the machine gun-wielding individuals in France, and the Western countries that seem to think they have a right to indiscriminately bomb any country they feel like just because it furthers their own national interests. Meanwhile, those in the West demonstrate for a few lives lost at home, but are silent about the hundreds of thousands of lives their governments are responsible for shedding in their name. Where are all the Westerners apologising on behalf of their governments (that they elected!), as Muslims are required to do of a few lone lunatics that have nothing to do with them?

As for differences between the Quran, and the Bible, then please don't make me laugh. I doubt anyone who insulted Jesus back in the days when the Church could do anything about it would have come out of it too well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

Could the reason why be that Europeans live under a democratic system with freedom of speach? Or because of differences between the Quran and the Bible?

 

Do remember that it was countries with democratic systems and freedom of speech which enforced regime change in Libya and Iraq and are trying to do the same in Syria; with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, but obviously that level of violence is less than what happened in Paris.

 

Unfortunately, these acts of Western charity facilitated the training and movements of jihadis.

 

It's an ungrateful world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Do remember that it was countries with democratic systems and freedom of speech which enforced regime change in Libya and Iraq and are trying to do the same in Syria; with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, but obviously that level of violence is less than what happened in Paris.

 

Unfortunately, these acts of Western charity facilitated the training and movements of jihadis.

 

It's an ungrateful world.

I agree, with the exception of Syria that is more an internal Islamic affair, Europe and Turkey are of course affected by the of millions of refugees. I think one reason that internationla forces have not intervened in that drama is, (besides it costs a lot of money) ,because we have seen the actions were not successful. It actually (in my and many others view) made things worse. Like you said, it has faciliated terrorist movements. I do not believe this is what causes the cultural differences  between christians and Muslims thou. In Iran Ayatollah Khomeinyi uttered a fatwa against Rushdie. He was to be killed no matter where in the world he was found. The Pope could never have ordered such illegal acts. In the dark middelage, yes, but not today in a country with a free press. These are persons that set a standard and that has great influence on peoples beliefs, morals and culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It's an ungrateful world.

Sad but true. Ungrateful and unjust.

In Russia, a guy was arrested for seven days because he held up a "Je suis Charlie" sign in public. An elderly man had to pay around 265 Euro (20,000 Rubel) for something similar. They even prohibit the publication of deragotary cartoons such as Charlie Hebdo did: "The publication of such caricatures in the Russian media is against the ethical and moral norms which have been worked out over centuries," says the board Roskomnadsor. "The spread of caricatures about religious subjects in the media could be seen as insulting and degrading for the representatives of religious confessions and groups and could be classified as incitement of ethnical and religious hatred." And these are not the only cases. (Taken out from a German article...)

Well, since Russia isn't the most popular state in Europe, anyway, that probably will be cause for more attacks on them - because they are so "intolerant". Not that I'm a big fan of them but still... It's irritating how someone, if they do not agree with certain Western 'norms', are classified as 'intolerant'.

Wa salam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Imagine you are in some conservative rural part of America and you burn the American flag and the Bible in public. How safe do you think you would be? There are many examples like this that could be given, where exercising your right to free speech could put you in danger, especially when dealing with uneducated people on the fringes of society (as these men were).

Angry Muslims also don't have recourse to the power of the state, as an insulted French nationalist would have in the example you cited.

 

Dont know abouf America, I was speaking about Europe. Danes have seen their flag and embassy burn because of offended Muslims, but I have heard no reports of danish nationalists revenging this with machinguns. I know the brothers were uneducated, known criminals, easy for terrorist groups to use.

As for differences between the Quran, and the Bible, then please don't make me laugh. I doubt anyone who insulted Jesus back in the days when the Church could do anything about it would have come out of it too well.

Yes, the conclusions that the Pope today make based on the Bible differs quite alot from the Popes in old days. Religious leaders, like political ones, behave better when they can be critisised. This is what fredom of speach is good for.

 However, I find it interesting that when individuals decide to use violence to achieve their objectives, then this is seen as unforgivable terrorism (unless of course these people are 'vindicated' by history), but it is perfectly acceptable for a state to use violence in order to further its national interests. Why the double standards? What was the Vietnam war, expect an act of terrorism in order to achieve political objectives (halting the spread of communism)?

 

I agree

The difference in mentality stems partly from the dominance of secularism in the West, and partly from the fact that the West is constantly interfering in Muslims affairs.

 

I bet there are also many secular Muslims. But why declare yoursef an atheist if you are not allowed to argue against religion?   Democrasy, freedom of speach and a free press is what has made the democratic nations successful. It has also changed the mentality of many Christian and a few Muslim countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

I agree, with the exception of Syria that is more an internal Islamic affair, Europe and Turkey are of course affected by the of millions of refugees. 

 

Remember Israel has bombed arms supplies bound for Syria even when they have been as far away as Africa. So the flow of arms from other countries into Syra just could not happen without the West's (and Israel's) agreement. Regime change does not have to involve direct Western intervention, it can be done by proxies. 

 

Secondly, the jihadis are going into Syria via Turkey, which is a member of NATO. The movement has had tacit Turkish approval and again with the knowledge of its partners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

I do not believe this is what causes the cultural differences  between christians and Muslims thou. In Iran Ayatollah Khomeinyi uttered a fatwa against Rushdie. He was to be killed no matter where in the world he was found. The Pope could never have ordered such illegal acts. In the dark middelage, yes, but not today in a country with a free press. These are persons that set a standard and that has great influence on peoples beliefs, morals and culture.

 

All countries undertake assassinations, abductions, kidnappings in other countries in the context of national security. Clearly, the activity itself is not beyond the pale. The difference then, is the reason that is given as justification. Some people may believe that the defence of religion is morally superior to more material and base reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Remember Israel has bombed arms supplies bound for Syria even when they have been as far away as Africa. So the flow of arms from other countries into Syra just could not happen without the West's (and Israel's) agreement. Regime change does not have to involve direct Western intervention, it can be done by proxies.

Secondly, the jihadis are going into Syria via Turkey, which is a member of NATO. The movement has had tacit Turkish approval and again with the knowledge of its partners.

Christian countries are not fighting in Syria.

Turkey is a Muslim country, but is not fighting in Syria.

Israel is not a Europesn country, not christian either, I have not heard they are active in the Syrian civil war.

All countries undertake assassinations, abductions, kidnappings in other countries in the context of national security.

How can you be so certain that my country Sweden does. I have never heard this accusation before. Have you? What about Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

@andres- in sweden there are regular mosque attacks-once every two weeks, especially in Malmo.

Furthermore havent you head of the nazi movement in Sweden. Then theres Sweden Democrat party.

As for ""tolerance"" in western countries and usa, theres a law in 17 countries where you can go to jail for insulting the holocaust. But you can insult religious figures. The Holocaust, Elie Weasel, Anne Frank are more holy/important than Jesus? Thats youre freedom of speech? People can insult muslims butcant insult jews? Why?

Lastly, have you heard of "Ku Klax Klan" and the White Nationalist movements in Europe and America?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...