On Insulting Muslims

[Cloakedvessel]

The only one who is looking stupid is you.... more like a thick one with a complete lack of comprehension.

Did you just insult the Muslim apologists who are dragging the whole Holocaust thing into this matter? You shouldn't be doing that, you know? That's the whole basis of their argument..... Insulting the prophet should be punishable according to them, because you don't agree with their version.....

No one is equating the rejection of holocaust

Then you haven't paid any attention lately. Or during the Denmark cartoon controversy.

and spewing insults at all. Insults are actually orders of magnitude worse.

Yet, they are perfectly legal in the United states. So is the clip which was made there.

Saying that holocaust did not happen or that the dead figure is much less than the quoted 6 million is an opinion.

Well, if it's an opinion it is a pretty lousy one, especially if not backed up with facts. It is also not illegal to question the death toll of the Holocaust in the US, nor deny the Holocaust. Now, we don't see American Jews jumping up and down to curb the freedom of speech in the US, every time a KKK member is sprouting such nonsense, are we?

Stating an opinion is not an offence at all.

No, an opinion can be insulting too. Try denying the Holocaust in front of a Holocaust survivor of whom the whole family has been exterminated, and ask him if he felt offended.

If a Christian says I don't believe Hz.Muhammed was a prophet or that Quran is not divine revelation, these are statement of opinions. No one will get angry with that. Similarly nor when somebody says Jesus is a prophet, just a mere man not son of god nor god. He can neither benefit someone nor harm him. He has no decree above mankind...

But saying insults like Jesus's mom was such an such, prophet Muhammed is such and such is a different matter.

People cannot protect their religion or religious figures from criticism simply, because such criticism offends them. Freedom of speech includes freedom to criticize or even mock. Maybe not in that part of the world where Islam is the dominant religion, but in the West and certainly in the country that is now being attacked, the US, every religion or religious belief can be scrutinized or criticized, even it's insulting.

If you're so hung up with avoiding religious sentiments you should consider the following scenario’s by the way.

When a Muslim says Jesus is not the son of God, this can be very offensive to a Christian. Now, are you willing to censur this because this can be perceived as on offence against a Christian?

I think not.

You eating beef can be very offensive to a Hindu. Are 1 billion Muslims willing to give that up to avoid hurting religious sentiments among Hindu's?

I don't think so.

Do you see the slippery slope?

Probably not.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

These are the same authorities who defended the Mohammad cartoons as freedom of speech.

So, it was yet another conspiracy.... Ok.

No. You miss the point entirely.

The issue is not about the Holocaust at all; that example is given because it is the most glaring example of European inconsistency.

The issue is to highlight that certain sensibilities are protected be (European) laws but others aren't, so all this talk of "freedom of speech" is bogus.

Bans on Holocaust Denial may be wrong, but it’s not the same as banning blasphemy, offensive insults, or material which is 'insulting' to a religion. Holocaust Denial isn't even criticism of a religion, so it's not in the same category of speech.

But none of this really matters, since the US do not even have a Holocaust denial law, which forms the crux for not offending the 'sensibilities' of Muslims according to Muslim apologists. And subsequently accusing the West of double standards , while the 'crime' in question took place in the United States, makes the comparison even more absurd.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Not many people would have the required free time or the patience to read the ramblings of some ignorant or virulently anti Islamic non Muslims in this forum. In general, we can say for certainty, there is no justification whatsoever for insulting Islam and/or Muslims as a group. This should be common knowledge and common sense at the same time, I would guess.

 

[Developereo]

So, it was yet another conspiracy.... Ok.

What conspiracy? Do you have trouble with English or just like throwing random words around when facts fail you?

Bans on Holocaust Denial may be wrong, but it’s not the same as banning blasphemy, offensive insults, or material which is 'insulting' to a religion. Holocaust Denial isn't even criticism of a religion, so it's not in the same category of speech.

Ah yes, the sophistry begins...

We now have different "categories" of free speech to justify selective restrictions.

But none of this really matters, since the US do not even have a Holocaust denial law, which forms the crux for not offending the 'sensibilities' of Muslims according to Muslim apologists. And subsequently accusing the West of double standards , while the 'crime' in question took place in the United States, makes the comparison even more absurd.

No, what makes it absurd is your attempt to act naive. The issue is the double standards in the West. Just because this latest flareup occurred in the US does not restrict the debate to that particular incident.

Note that we are not defending the protesters actions, but the issue of hypocrisy that they raise is a valid one. Rather than throwing labels around, perhaps you can focus on the facts instead?

 

[Developereo]

hey bro come in india and see how they mullah openly abuse non-muslims(specially hindus) in india

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong whoever does it.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

What conspiracy? Do you have trouble with English or just like throwing random words around when facts fail you?

You already forgot what you just claimed?

You claimed:

but that wasn't the point. The authorities probably knew the charge was bogus, but the point is that they wanted to harass the Arabs to send a message to any other would-be "offenders".

Now show me some proof where you can deduce these 'facts'. Otherwise I will just call it as it can only be perceived, a loony conspiracy theory.

Undoubtedly, you will probably fail in providing the 'facts'.

Ah yes, the sophistry begins...

We now have different "categories" of free speech to justify selective restrictions.

Yep, there is a huge difference between denying an event and criticizing a religion. Holocaust Denial is criminalized not because it’s 'offensive', but because it’s part of a Nazi ideology some European countries are trying to keep out of their political systems. Restricting material that criticizes Islam or any other religion for that matter can not conceivably be done for any remotely similar goal.
But all this is actually not relevant for the current debate that has enraged the Muslim World, because the US do not even have Holocaust denial laws. So this argument, if valid which is not as explained, doesn't even matter.

No, what makes it absurd is your attempt to act naive. The issue is the double standards in the West. Just because this latest flareup occurred in the US does not restrict the debate to that particular incident.

Note that we are not defending the protesters actions, but the issue of hypocrisy that they raise is a valid one. Rather than throwing labels around, perhaps you can focus on the facts instead?

No double standards at play here, you can criticize Moses and Jesus as much as you like. This comparison would even make sense as they are the founders of Judaism and Christianity as Muhammad is of Islam. But none of the Christians or Jews have demanded to restrict the freedom of speech by rioting, or killed people because their religious figures have been criticized in plays, movies and cartoons.

 

[Developereo]

You already forgot what you just claimed?

You claimed:



Now show me some proof where you can deduce these 'facts'. Otherwise I will just call it as it can only be perceived, a loony conspiracy theory.

Undoubtedly, you will probably fail in providing the 'facts'.

No, you fail once again in English comprehension.

The authorities know their own laws very well, and normally assess the chances for a successful conviction before pursuing any case. Given that the charges didn't stick and were dismissed fairly quickly, all they ended up doing was harassing the Arabs. That sent a message to everyone else that they would have to suspend their job/school/business and spend time in courts to defend themselves against phony charges.

Mission accomplished by the authorities.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, the Western mechanism is to censure anyone who offends certain sensibilities. That censure alone deters future troublemakers, so there is less need for explicit censorship.

Yep, there is a huge difference between denying an event and criticizing a religion. Holocaust Denial is criminalized not because it’s 'offensive', but because it’s part of a Nazi ideology some European countries are trying to keep out of their political systems. Restricting material that criticizes Islam or any other religion for that matter can not conceivably be done for any remotely similar goal.

There is a difference because you artificially make up a distinction. The anti-Islam rhetoric is part of an Islamophobic ideology which is comparable to Nazi ideology in that it stigmatizes and demonizes a particular group of people with intent to (forcibly) remove them from Europe.

This is not my fabrication, but an observation that has been made by Holocaust survivors themselves.

But all this is actually not relevant for the current debate that has enraged the Muslim World, because the US do not even have Holocaust denial laws. So this argument, if valid which is not as explained, doesn't even matter.

I already explained that the bigger debate is about double standards -- the US example is just one data point.

No double standards at play here, you can criticize Moses and Jesus as much as you like.

Can you show me an example where someone has vilified Moses and then been celebrated as a champion of free speech in Europe?

We know we can provide similar example for Mohammed.

 

[Bang Galore]

Lastly what happend when Taliban distroyed the sacred statues of Budha , did you see this type of riots all over the world

Insulting Muslims is no big deal. You can insult Muslims all day long. No one will care,

Insulting our Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is a big deal.

If a movie made by individuals can excite the reaction it has, how exactly should the Buddhists have reacted when the Bamiyan statues were blown up on religious grounds by order of religious figures?

What's good for the goose must be good for the gander too.

 

[Solomon2]

Denying the Holocaust gets you jailed..... but abusing our Prophet is freedom of speech?

1) It's both gruesome and fascinating to see this equivalence made over and over by Muslims. Although the Holocaust isn't part of my religion, clearly Holocaust Denial is part of the religion of many Muslims, along with denying that Al Qaeda was responsible for carrying out 9/11, or denying that OBL was in Abbottabad, etc.

2) Perhaps Muslims world-wide should have a care that they don't decay from being Muslims - holding Allah as holy - into mere Mohammedans - elevating their prophet from a man into a reverenced god. Values are, after all, what one fights for.

 

[Fekay]

1) It's both gruesome and fascinating to see this equivalence made over and over by Muslims. Although the Holocaust isn't part of my religion, clearly Holocaust Denial is part of the religion of many Muslims, along with denying that Al Qaeda was responsible for carrying out 9/11, or denying that OBL was in Abbottabad, etc.
.

It's equally interesting to note how you've taken the initiative to teach the Muslims to take moral high-ground in the face of such predicaments, but in the same breath you have the audacity to make such observations and further express grue over them. Like somehow, ones holier then the other...

Maybe take a little of what you offer to others?

2) Perhaps Muslims world-wide should have a care that they don't decay from being Muslims - holding Allah as holy - into mere Mohammedans - elevating their prophet from a man into a reverenced god. Values are, after all, what one fights for

You should stop applying the benchmarks and remain on your own side of the court...

 

[Solomon2]

It's equally interesting to note how you've taken the initiative to teach the Muslims to take moral high-ground in the face of such predicaments, but in the same breath you have the audacity to make such observations and further express grue over them. Like somehow, ones holier then the other...

Yeah, I don't like doing that, but you guys don't seem to be able to figure this out yourselves, even as you ask the West for all sorts of help lifting Pakistan out of its morass. I think too much modesty on the part of Westerners blinds Pakistanis to the possibilities of moral elevation. Do you think every child in class merits an "A" grade? So it is in life with peoples.

 

[Solomon2]

You should stop applying the benchmarks and remain on your own side of the court...

You mean you think I'm right but that Pakistanis like yourself don't want Westerners to notice this.

 

[PacificBeach]

Did you just insult the Muslim apologists who are dragging the whole Holocaust thing into this matter? You shouldn't be doing that, you know? That's the whole basis of their argument..... Insulting the prophet should be punishable according to them, because you don't agree with their version.....

No, that statement was only for you. Are you really that illiterate to understand whom I have used that word for?

I have given examples to clearly distinguish insults and opinions. Human are usually are intelligent creatures and can judge what is an insult or what is said as an insult and what is an opinion and idea even if we don't like that idea or opinion.

With the cheating statistics, the divorce statistics, the early loss of virginity, high promiscuousness of German society, if I make a few specific statements speculating about German mothers then you would immediately realize which of those words are meant to be an insult and which aren't. Even the statistics making those likely to be true will not prevent them from being flat out insults. In this case that becomes a clear personal attack.

As for your incoherent arguments:
The logical fallacy in examples is that judging an action solely by the reaction or reactions of others. Not by the action itself, the intention of the action and the result of the action. Nobody is advocating to ban everything that made someone feel offended, agitated, angry etc.

I eat cow meat so an Hindu gets offended. The action of eating cow has nothing to do with a Hindu. It is not an attack in any sense against an Hindu nor there is intention to attack. But If I mock or insult an Indian about this by saying staff like "How stupid are you guys to hold a cow a sacred?" "You know what I just did, I ate your god", etc then it becomes an attack.

This is the definition of "insult" in dictionary.com:
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
3. Archaic to attack; assault.

Finally, the main point made was about the hypocrisy of west. Criminalizing rejection of Holocaust under law, which is merely statement of one's belief and opinion about what happened in history, but allowing much more severe offenses such as insults, mockery about people's religion, hate speech under free speech pretense is the blatant hypocrisy. Period.

If they had not outlawed Holocaust rejection then at least they would have been consistent and not hypocritical. In that case we could have another discussion about free speech. Should free speech have boundaries or not at all? But that was not the essence of the discussion here.

 

[Fekay]

Yeah, I don't like doing that, but you guys don't seem to be able to figure this out yourselves, even as you ask the West for all sorts of help lifting Pakistan out of its morass. I think too much modesty on the part of Westerners blinds Pakistanis to the possibilities of moral elevation. Do you think every child in class merits an "A" grade? So it is in life with peoples.

There's nothing to figure.
Portraying moral to others to enhance your own convenience, only the shows the level of substance on your side;which is none.

The point is NOT of moral elevation on anyone. It's when you attempt to sell the insults through double speech.

You mean you think I'm right but that Pakistanis like yourself don't want Westerners to notice this.

No. what I mean is: if you have no limits or don't observe any; then don't attempt at setting them for others...
if you can't keep yourselves in-order, then finger pointing is pretty much pointless. Just like tit for tat.

 

[Developereo]

Values are, after all, what one fights for.

So you accept that values are worth fighting for, figuratively speaking?

Would you also accept that a universally valid value is that of equality, one that should be a fundamental right of every individual?

How, then, can you justify a system where some sensibilities are protected by law while others are not? Where do we draw the line and who decides where these lines should be?

Is it not the fundamental right of citizens of any democratic society to lobby peacefully for their cause?

Remember, we are not debating the tactics of the protesters, which are admittedly wrong, but the issues they raise about double standards in free speech.