Once again "freedom of speech".

[Black]

LONDON (Reuters) - British National Party leader Nick Griffin told supporters Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" that was turning the country into "a multi-racial hell-hole", a court heard on Friday.

In a 2004 speech in Keighley, West Yorkshire -- being secretly filmed by the BBC -- he urged a crowd to vote for his far-right party to help stop what he described as a campaign by Asian Muslims to take over the country.

The 46-year-old BNP chairman and fellow activist Mark Collett, 26, are charged with using words or behaviour intended to incite racial hatred. Both deny the charges.

Griffin, a Cambridge University graduate from mid-Wales and Collett, from Leicestershire, were charged in April 2005 after the BBC screened its covertly filmed documentary "The Secret Agent" in July 2004.

Prosecutor Rodney Jameson showed the jury at Leeds Crown Court tapes from the programme of speeches made by the two men at a series of meetings in West Yorkshire.

Referring to Islam, Griffin said: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago, to it now sweeping country after country before it, all over the world.

The speeches also included allegations of violence and rape by Asian Muslims against whites.

Griffin said Muslim community leaders failed to stop it because "it is part of a plan to conquer the world" and that they would take over the whole of the UK "as the last whites try and find their way to the sea.

At another meeting, Collett accused Asians of "planned aggression against white British people".

"They hate us and are trying to wipe us out," he said, calling them "cockroaches".

Jameson said Griffin and Collett repeatedly aimed to encourage fear and resentment of Asian people, creating a nightmare vision of crimes against whites.

The trial was adjourned till Monday.

The BNP, which took over as the country's most prominent far-right party after breaking from the National Front in 1982, has won 54 local authority seats, mainly in poorer areas with large multi-ethnic populations.

Should the freedom of speech let religious and ethnic hatred to grow? If "NO" what is the limit of freedom speech? Your opinion.

[SAMARKANDI!]

aka toymadizmi freedom of Mr Reaperpunkhead ni speechidan:) uni jinisi chiqib yotibdi anu threada:lol:

[Black]

Man faqat freedom of speech ni limitini bilmoqchi edim holos. Ana u maqolada kelgan BNP (nationalist) ga kelsak, bu bir siz aytgan threaddagi intolerance bir turi holos. O'zlari democracy, freedom, balo battar deb baqirishadiyu, o'zlarida tolerance yetishmaydi.

[Abdug'ofur]

Democracy should be stopped when it comes to the freedom of others. You can say anything by the name of democracy, but there must be certain limits which include the freedom of others.
In the case mentioned above too, this stupid people have no right to offend other faiths and religions.
if you remember that a professor who denied the holocaust was sentenced to life-imprisonment last year. Does not he also have the freedom of speech like others who offended the prophet Muhammad (saw) in cartoons by the name of that freedom???

[Black]

Democracy should be stopped when it comes to the freedom of others. You can say anything by the name of democracy, but there must be certain limits which include the freedom of others.
In the case mentioned above too, this stupid people have no right to offend other faiths and religions.
if you remember that a professor who denied the holocaust was sentenced to life-imprisonment last year. Does not he also have the freedom of speech like others who offended the prophet Muhammad (saw) in cartoons by the name of that freedom???

Buni double standard deyishadi birodar. Forumda ham etibor bersangiz bunaqa double standardlilar tiqilib yotibdi, ikkiyuzlamachi munofiqlar.

[Abdug'ofur]

Buni double standard deyishadi birodar. Forumda ham etibor bersangiz bunaqa double standardlilar tiqilib yotibdi, ikkiyuzlamachi munofiqlar.


Forumda??? Ikki yuzlamachi munofiqlar???

[Black]

Forumda??? Ikki yuzlamachi munofiqlar???

Man diniy ma'nodagi munofiqlarni emas, umumiy ma'nodagi munofiqlarni ko'zda tutgandim. Masalan, demokratiya deb jar solishadiyu, lekin musulmonlar demokratiyadan foydalanib birorta ishni o'zlari uchun foydali qilib hal qilishmoqchi bo'lishsa darrov demokratik principlarga qarshi fikr bildirishadi. O'zlarini demokratiya uchun jon kuydirayotgan bo'lib ko'rsatishadiyu, lekin aslida o'zlariga demokratiya kerak emas. Bundaylar forumda anchagina, kuzatsangiz ilg'ab olish qiyin emas.

[Gareeb]

Man diniy ma'nodagi munofiqlarni emas, umumiy ma'nodagi munofiqlarni ko'zda tutgandim. Masalan, demokratiya deb jar solishadiyu, lekin musulmonlar demokratiyadan foydalanib birorta ishni o'zlari uchun foydali qilib hal qilishmoqchi bo'lishsa darrov demokratik principlarga qarshi fikr bildirishadi. O'zlarini demokratiya uchun jon kuydirayotgan bo'lib ko'rsatishadiyu, lekin aslida o'zlariga demokratiya kerak emas. Bundaylar forumda anchagina, kuzatsangiz ilg'ab olish qiyin emas.

Ikkizyuzlamachi democratparastlar to'lib yotipti.Democratiya,inson huquqlari, tenglik wa hokazo so'zlarni eshitsam ensam qotadi.

Xuddi Quraysh mushriklari ertalab xurmodan ilohlar yasab, qorni ochsa o'sha ilohlarni eb yurganidek, G'arb dawlatlari ham demokratiya, inson huquqlari kabi tushunchalarni to'qib chiqarib endi o'zining manfaatiga zid kelib do'ppi tor kelganda unday qadriyatlarni yo'q qilishga kirishdi.

[WebMonster]

Should the freedom of speech let religious and ethnic hatred to grow? If "NO" what is the limit of freedom speech? Your opinion.
I remember someone said "Your freedom ends where my freedom begins."

[kipchak]

...
if you remember that a professor who denied the holocaust was sentenced to life-imprisonment last year. Does not he also have the freedom of speech like others who offended the prophet Muhammad (saw) in cartoons by the name of that freedom???

Мне кажется тут небольшая неточность.
Исторический ревизионизм - есть альтернативный взгляд на исторические события, основанный на документах и так далее. Профессор, Давид Ирвинг (если я не ошибаюсь) занимался именно этим, он никого не оскорблял, он докапывался до истины. И он дошел до нее, вот поэтому и его посадили, тут все просто.

А карикатуры ничего общего с ревизионизмом не имеют, это очередной выпад рассчитанный на эмоциональность приверженцев ислама касательно защиты своей религии в предверии войны с Ираном, если я не ошибаюсь, но не все страны Евросоюза клюнули на это. Тут это и есть плевок на уклад жизни миллиарда людей.

СРавнивать эти два примера в рамках свободы слова - думаю что немного неточно.

Мир вам.

[Delf]

Should the freedom of speech let religious and ethnic hatred to grow? If "NO" what is the limit of freedom speech? Your opinion.

I think anyone should be free to critisize and offend, except the following cases and these cases ONLY:

1. One calls to harm certain people (killing or physical violence)
2. One calls to destroy certain people's property.
3. One calls to limit rights of certain people.

As for offending someones beleif or dignity or status - there should not be any limits unless it is a libel.

Also, I think No 3 is very important.

You don't want to live in a society where critisizing those in power will be considered offensive and you will end up in prison for that.


Delf.

[Black]

I think anyone should be free to critisize and offend, except the following cases and these cases ONLY:

1. One calls to harm certain people (killing or physical violence)
2. One calls to destroy certain people's property.
3. One calls to limit rights of certain people.

As for offending someones beleif or dignity or status - there should not be any limits unless it is a libel.

Also, I think No 3 is very important.

You don't want to live in a society where critisizing those in power will be considered offensive and you will end up in prison for that.


Delf.

You really think offending someone's belief is OK? No offence, but you somehow sick.
Belief is personal thing and no one have a right to offend anyone for his belief (if that belief does not cause harm to others or does not call for destructions etc.). People should be sick to offend someone'e belief, or to think that it is ok to offend. I think, according to the rule "You freedom ends where others freedom starts", those who offend other's should be prosecuted and put on court for (if) unbased insults of other's belief.
I think this is the clear example of the flaws of the democracy. When exercising someone's right hurts other's right. Like "I am right to limit your rights". No clear definitions. That is why democracy fails everywhere in the world.

[SAMARKANDI!]

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allaah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allaah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you avoid justice; and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allaah is Ever Well‑Acquainted with what you do”

[al-Nisa’ 4:135]


According to the above mentioned surah, even it causes harm or displeases the muslims or non-muslims (hurts their beliefs), one has to speak the truth, no matter what is the situation. That is the freedom of speech in Islam.


Concerning those alligations against muslims Allah said the following


3. And We indeed tested those who were before them. And Allaah will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are true, and will certainly make (it) known (the falsehood of) those who are liars, (although Allaah knows all that before putting them to test)”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:2]

[infolife]

Should the freedom of speech let religious and ethnic hatred to grow? If "NO" what is the limit of freedom speech? Your opinion.

That doesnt suprise me at all,especially him being from BNP. It is a nascist party unfortunately gaining lots of love from white people now cos of Islamophobia.

Freedom of speech is totally rubbish. You can slander, backbite, offend, harm, you name it...and call it freedom of speech.

As to the West, the terms like freedom of speech, democrasy, equality, blah-blah when it is in their interest. NO democrasy in Iraq, go into the war, cos it is in west's interest. No democrasy in 2/3 of the rest of the world, including countries Central African Republic, Egypt, Guinea, Uganda, Malawi(list goes on for ages), western goverments dont give a damn. Guess what, there is no oil, no gas, no resources left in those countries. so just leave them. No democrasy in Uzb, don't make war just be a friend-cos there is more benefit in being a friend. When the time comes that there is more benefit by going into the war than being a friend, then they will start a war.

So, dont be full by the use of those terms. It only works when it is in the goverment's interest. And dont be suprised by how they at times contradict themselves with their democratic ideas and totally opposite actions.

[infolife]

I think anyone should be free to critisize and offend, except the following cases and these cases ONLY:

1. One calls to harm certain people (killing or physical violence)
2. One calls to destroy certain people's property.
3. One calls to limit rights of certain people.

As for offending someones beleif or dignity or status - there should not be any limits unless it is a libel.

Also, I think No 3 is very important.

You don't want to live in a society where critisizing those in power will be considered offensive and you will end up in prison for that.


Delf.


1. I'm not calling anyone to harm you
2. I'm not calling anyone to destroy your property
3. I'm not calling anyone to limit your rights

I think you are dumb and sick.:(

ps: you have stated that anyone should be free to criticise or offend unless those cases occur.but i honestly apologise if that has offended you. cos i dun beleive that's right.

[SAMARKANDI!]

I think anyone should be free to critisize and offend, except the following cases and these cases ONLY:

1. One calls to harm certain people (killing or physical violence)
2. One calls to destroy certain people's property.
3. One calls to limit rights of certain people.

As for offending someones beleif or dignity or status - there should not be any limits unless it is a libel.

Also, I think No 3 is very important.

You don't want to live in a society where critisizing those in power will be considered offensive and you will end up in prison for that.


Delf.


Ok, let me say this u pathetic Delf, u law class, godless stupid creature, ur belief is nothing more than plain fabrication and bs. U r cursed, u r laughed, u r rediculed, cuz u got nothing but pis of self imaginary retarded brain that has nothing but moron thoughts. And stop writing moron here, we dont know moron langauge.

If u are ok with my above expression pls fight for my rights dont let this post to be removed.

p.s. i am not ok with ur views so pls dont offend or insult my dignity. peace!

[Abu Hurayra]

Its useless to argue with one without belief...just waste of time...;)..
If you have already noticed those parties take into account only material matters, at the same time they prefer "double standards" when the justice-truth speaks against their benifits...

PS: ...aslo bo'lmas odamiy!(boshini o'zlariz eslab olinglar) A. Navoi

[Black]

Pls guys don't make the thread battleground (it is not yet, but it is just about to start).
AS for the Delf's reply, though I do not agree with him, I thank him giving his opinion. Although he thinks different from me, we could somehow negotiate if we were the decision makers in real life. But, at the moment we are not, so we can only share with our ideas and opinions.
The problem is that there is no clear definition of freedom of speach and human rights. Everyone interprets it according to his whims and desires, and pretends that it is the truth.

[SAMARKANDI!]

Pls guys don't make the thread battleground (it is not yet, but it is just about to start).
AS for the Delf's reply, though I do not agree with him, I thank him giving his opinion. Although he thinks different from me, we could somehow negotiate if we were the decision makers in real life. But, at the moment we are not, so we can only share with our ideas and opinions.
The problem is that there is no clear definition of freedom of speach and human rights. Everyone interprets it according to his whims and desires, and pretends that it is the truth.


i would better hate than thank the one who makes fun of the religion. end of discussion for me. peace

[Black]

i would better hate than thank the one who makes fun of the religion. end of discussion for me. peace

I did not say "I love him" yet.

[infolife]

I have always thought Delf was a female:shock: :shock: :shock:

[Delf]

You really think offending someone's belief is OK? No offence, but you somehow sick.
Belief is personal thing and no one have a right to offend anyone for his belief (if that belief does not cause harm to others or does not call for destructions etc.). People should be sick to offend someone'e belief, or to think that it is ok to offend. I think, according to the rule "You freedom ends where others freedom starts", those who offend other's should be prosecuted and put on court for (if) unbased insults of other's belief.
I think this is the clear example of the flaws of the democracy. When exercising someone's right hurts other's right. Like "I am right to limit your rights". No clear definitions. That is why democracy fails everywhere in the world.

Religious beleifs of Creationists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) state that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Saying that it is 5 billions year old offends their religious beleifs. Do you think I should be fined or go to jail for saying that Earth is 5 billion years old?

Also, I think I should have right to critisize Koran, Bible, Torah and other "sacred" religious books, although doing so will severely offend religious beleifs of certain people. Or do you think I should go to jail for saying that those books are bad because they approve slavery?

Religious devouts may find many things offensive, but that does not mean I should be prohibited from saying them.

I beleive those 3 rules are the best approach to freedom of speech. Anything else will either severely limit the freedom of speech (someone is going to get offended by what one says) or will make inciting violence unpunished (calling to kill and burn certain people).


Delf.

[vatansevar]

Hi everybody,
double standards in exercising freedom of speech exist, and they exist everywhere, even in the most democratic states. I have been reading all your interesting posts and I have one question as to Delf's view and position on the issue. Is it OK to insult a person? Or let me put it this way - is it OK to insult person's most sacred values? This does not have to be only religion. It could be your family, your Motherland, your friends and the like.
Because if it is OK to do that, than I have a problem with that freedom of speech. There are certain things that you cannot just say and then protect your point of view by exercising your freedom of speech.

[Delf]

Is it OK to insult a person? Or let me put it this way - is it OK to insult person's most sacred values?

Here we are talking what should be legal what shouldn't. Whether it is OK or not OK is another question. (Ex: Should it be legal to buy alchohol vs Is it OK to be alchoholic?)

I belive those 3 rules are the best approach with the exception for libel. One should be able to sue someone for libelous statements. But the one being sued should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, because once he is proved guilty he faces fines and maybe even time in jail (I think there should not be any jail time, only fines).

Delf.

[Black]

Religious beleifs of Creationists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) state that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Saying that it is 5 billions year old offends their religious beleifs. Do you think I should be fined or go to jail for saying that Earth is 5 billion years old?

Also, I think I should have right to critisize Koran, Bible, Torah and other "sacred" religious books, although doing so will severely offend religious beleifs of certain people. Or do you think I should go to jail for saying that those books are bad because they approve slavery?

Religious devouts may find many things offensive, but that does not mean I should be prohibited from saying them.

I beleive those 3 rules are the best approach to freedom of speech. Anything else will either severely limit the freedom of speech (someone is going to get offended by what one says) or will make inciting violence unpunished (calling to kill and burn certain people).


Delf.

Now you are playing with words. There are definite lines between offending=insulting someone's belief and criticising or scientifically discussing the issues of belief. Just take examples from real life. There are so many inconsistent things with muslim belief are said/written in everyday life. For example, you say that "the Earth was not created by God, but it came into being itself" or "humans evolved from monkey not created by God as muslims claim", or you may say "I do not agree what Qur'an says, it says a man can marry 4 wives, it is not correct according to so and so" and etc., things. This in no way offends me, even though it is not consistent with my belief. That is what you belief, and I do not care about it. Such things happen every day, and muslims do not pay much attention to it. But in case like Danish cartoons publication or the case mentioned of the first post of the thread, the offenders should be punished. Because these actions, although labelled as freedom of speach, are nothing but baseless insults towards muslim faith. Those offenders, firstly, have no knowledge of Islam in first place, second, have no willingness to understand, to clearify the points of the people they are offending, and finally driven by sheer hate towards them. Such people should be punished.
There was a case, once upon a time the rector of my university gathered girls and said to them "only ugly girls wear a hijab". There were some girls with hijab. Well this is what he believes. According to you he has a right to offend those girls? According to me he had to be punished for his words.

[Delf]

1. Black, do you think that Australian Mufti should face fines or jail from government for his words about "meat"?
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked. The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added.

2. I fully understand that there are certain things different religions do not agree upon with each other, and I think we both agree that there should not be any limit on freedom of speech in this area.

3. Now comes the hard part: when something is intentionally insulting to others. Be that prophet Muhammad with bomb-turban, children-salying Ariel Sharon, or a cartoon of Bush with preciou$$ oil (all links removed due to request).

Black, before you make certain conclusion, ask yourself: do you want all of those cartoons banned or do you want all of them allowed. Because if you ban any one of them, you have to ban all of them. Also, if you allow any of those cartoons, you have to allow all of them.

Personally , I think that all those cartoons should be allowed, because I would rather let someone do something that I do not like than having government telling me every time that I am not allowed to do this and that.

Also, personally, I find cartoon about Muhammad not funny, cartoon about Sharon too bloody and cartoon about Bush somewhat entertaining.

Also, remember that if someone will be publishing stupid untasteful stuff over and over he will gain reputation appropriate to his insults and as a result he will lose his credibility and popularity.

As for rector: certainly he is an a##hole, and certainly he should not be a rector, but I also think that he should not go to jail or face fines for his insults, just like in the case with Australian Mufti (should resign, but no government-imposed fines or jail).


Delf.

[vatansevar]

Delf,
let me ask you something. Is it legal to curse at someone in public? In the US? I googled a little bit to find the answer, but too bad no success. So, just in case it is punishable by law, how does this situation fall under your criteria of freedom of speech?

[referee]

3. Now comes the hard part: when something is intentionally insulting to others. Be that prophet Muhammad with bomb-turban (http://prezkennedy.org/modules/myalbum/photos/thumbs/2084.jpg), children-salying Ariel Sharon (http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/arab_news_041002a.gif), or a cartoon of Bush with preciou$$ oil (http://www.bookscape.co.uk/images/bush_precious.jpg).

Delf.

Delf, could you please remove the link to the cartoon mocking the Prophet pbuh! There is not need to provide links to offensive sites and images. Most people have an idea of what you refer to without giving a graphic image of that nature. Thanks

[Black]

1. Black, do you think that Australian Mufti should face fines or jail from government for his words about "meat"?


2. I fully understand that there are certain things different religions do not agree upon with each other, and I think we both agree that there should not be any limit on freedom of speech in this area.

3. Now comes the hard part: when something is intentionally insulting to others. Be that prophet Muhammad with bomb-turban, children-salying Ariel Sharon, or a cartoon of Bush with preciou$$ oil.

Black, before you make certain conclusion, ask yourself: do you want all of those cartoons banned or do you want all of them allowed. Because if you ban any one of them, you have to ban all of them. Also, if you allow any of those cartoons, you have to allow all of them.

Personally , I think that all those cartoons should be allowed, because I would rather let someone do something that I do not like than having government telling me every time that I am not allowed to do this and that.

Also, personally, I find cartoon about Muhammad not funny, cartoon about Sharon too bloody and cartoon about Bush somewhat entertaining.

Also, remember that if someone will be publishing stupid untasteful stuff over and over he will gain reputation appropriate to his insults and as a result he will lose his credibility and popularity.

As for rector: certainly he is an a##hole, and certainly he should not be a rector, but I also think that he should not go to jail or face fines for his insults, just like in the case with Australian Mufti (should resign, but no government-imposed fines or jail).


Delf.
1. As for the mufti's words, from what you quoted, I do not see anything offending here, he is just comparing the situations, he did not mean that women without hijad is meat, he just means that women without hijab attract men like meat left outside attracts cats, that is what he wants to say (I think), unless there is other parts of his words, where he compared uncovered meat with women without hijab. Someone has to try hard to find equotation of women to meat in this statement, unless he has certain prejeduices.
Another thing to mention, no one gets fines or jail from government. Because government is executive body, while fines and jails are imposed by legislative bodies. In this case, if the mufti indeed said women without hijab equal to uncovered meat, he should get punishment according to laws issued by legislative bodies. I never supported punishments imposed by government.

2. I did not understand you, make it more clear.
Different religions have different views. There is no problem each of them preaching what they want. And there is no problem any of them does not agree with others' point of view. And I do not see anything wrong religions "showing" or "explaining" other religions "mistakes" or "wrongness", unless this does not include riduculing, inciting hate, mocking and other insulting actions. For example, muslims scholars say that it is meanningless that a child born with sins of which he did not commit. They can explain why it is not right. Or, Hindu or pagans can bring their arguments why Monotheism can not be accepted, and what is "wrong" with believing to One God, and etc., and etc., No one, so far, afaik, did not protest against it. Or I am not against some athiest publishing a book or an article, disagreeing with religions, "proving" that "there is no God" or etc. Unless it does not include rediculing or insulting others.
I think you can understand the difference of the following two statements.
1. The doctrine of Trinity is wrong according to this and that verses and that and this logical/philosofical concepts.
2. The cristinity is wicked faith, and its followers and dumbass, brainless zombies who follow the flawed doctrine of trinity.
While I am not against first type of statements (which, I think, is the freedom of speach), I am totally against to the second type of statements.

As I said, I might understand you wrong, make it more clear if I get you arong.

3. Delf, we are talking about BELIEF not POLITICS. I do not give a damn about what people say about political figures. Let them mock, ridicule the King of Saudia, the PM of Malasia, the President of the USA and etc., and etc. None of them has a value of religious leader and none of them are part of someone's belief. Do you think muslims are doing to demonstrate or be offended when the Danish or American paper makes cartoons of Saudian King? I think most of the muslims do not even pay an attention to it, like most americans do not pay attention of riduculing foreign papers of their president. So you have to distinguish the difference between Belief and Politics.

[referee]

The problem is that there is no clear definition of freedom of speach and human rights. Everyone interprets it according to his whims and desires, and pretends that it is the truth.

Brother, you said it here your self what the problem is. Freedom of speech and respect for their dignity is usually guaranteed for the powerful group of the society and society's majority. Minorities have to always to negotiate their freedoms and human rights, especially in the West where racism still prevails. It took centuries for black people in US to claim their humanity and rights. Muslims will are going through the same stage, they are fighting to prove that their rights and dignity are on the equal foot with other, white citizens, of the West. The debate is not about freedom of speech (that's what racists want us to talk about), but about equal rights and equal interpretation and respect of human dignity.

[vatansevar]

Yes, Delf, please remove the links. Personal request.

[referee]

I belive those 3 rules are the best approach with the exception for libel. One should be able to sue someone for libelous statements. But the one being sued should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, because once he is proved guilty he faces fines and maybe even time in jail (I think there should not be any jail time, only fines).
Delf.

You forgot to mention a key factor for defining what's libelleous and what is not - 'interest of the public". Judges normally place their judgmenet on libel cases if the statement or publication was in the interest of the public. Most journalist get away with publishing secret info or personal information on that ground. In cases when publication were made to insult or incite violence, there is no interest to the public, quite the opposite it's bad for the public and for the social order and cohesion. That's why it is defamation of the group of people, which is unfortunately curbed when it is done to the Jewish people, rather than to all minority groups!

[Black]

Brother, you said it here your self what the problem is. Freedom of speech and respect for their dignity is usually guaranteed for the powerful group of the society and society's majority. Minorities have to always to negotiate their freedoms and human rights, especially in the West where racism still prevails. It took centuries for black people in US to claim their humanity and rights. Muslims will are going through the same stage, they are fighting to prove that their rights and dignity are on the equal foot with other, white citizens, of the West. The debate is not about freedom of speech (that's what racists want us to talk about), but about equal rights and equal interpretation and respect of human dignity.

I do agree with you brother. Personally I do not have a faith to the thing called democracy. But what wonders me the double standards of people who promote it (dem-cy). Democracy is incapable to protect minorities rights. In fact it only guarantees ruling elites well-being. The only way to achieve respect us (i.e. muslims) and our rights is to force them to do it (respect us and our right). I don't think negotiations help much in this case. Like they had to respect Ottomans (at least they had to take into account their wishes).

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Assalam alikum and Jum'a Mubarak for those who have submitted in Islaam.

IMHO.

1.) We, muslims, should not be playing the game that's not ours and especially not according to the rules set by the unjust people. Those are the rules, that have set up for themselves.

2.) Many of us who are in the West, should realise that the very freedom of speech that we are criticizing more or less was available to all of us to a more relative freedom than most developing nations including the Muslim lands. We cannot just enjoy something we had been given and criticize it at the end of the day, without providing viable solutions to the problems and dilemmas at hand.

3.) Who cares about what they say, think, or talk about us. They are playing on our nerves, because they can do so...it would be a sign of weakness to ask them or demand from them to SHOW respect towards Muslims. We gotta earn that Respect in front of Allah subhanahu wa tala, by worshipping Him alone without associating any partners. We gotta make the religion for His sake only, not for show off. We gotta do our uttmost so that the banner of "La Ilaha Il Allah Muhammadan Rasul'Allah" is raised over all false ideologies and beliefs.

4.) The day we set the rules of the games, and earn to have that right, shall we only stop whining, and will they stop insulting our beliefs!!! Have you ever seen bullies bullying people who are stronger than them?! Never have I seen that, if any does that, for sure he would get beaten up! The izza given to Muslims by Allah subhana wa ta'ala will shut up these kuffars (polytheists, atheists, agnostics and other than them)

5.) I advise myself and my brothers/sisters in Islaam to leave off the rhetoric. Do something beneficial that will benefit us on the day of judgement. I encourage my muslim brothers and sisters to master the religious and worldly knowledge, so that kuffar stop insulting us out of sheer admiration and natural respect...Here is a small example how we could achieve that...Dr. Rabeeah, with the Permission of Allah, separates the Polish Conjoined Twins. (http://www.conjoinedtwins.med.sa/previous/Polish/english/report.html) You may also view the videos there...These types of Muslims, I doubt, will ever get insulted for their religion.

[referee]

1.) We, muslims, should not be playing the game that's not ours and especially not according to the rules set by the unjust people. Those are the rules, that have set up for themselves.

It's not about playing "games" but defending your rights as equal citizens - there is nothing wrong with that, following the laws of the land is quite Islamic. People are not suggesting to do things contrary to Islam, but to do those things that are not prohibited and yet can secure a better condition for Muslims to live and follow their religion, wherever they are.

2.) Many of us who are in the West, should realise that the very freedom of speech that we are criticizing more or less was available to all of us to a more relative freedom than most developing nations including the Muslim lands. We cannot just enjoy something we had been given and criticize it at the end of the day, without providing viable solutions to the problems and dilemmas at hand.

This point contradicts the point 1, where you criticise "the rules of the unjust". As for me, I agree that freedoms and rights in the West are good for the protection of minorities such as Muslims. BUT what I am concerned about is that those freedoms no longer apply to or are being limited for Muslims. So what Muslims should argue for a true balance of respect for equal human rights and a universal right to be respected as other groups of the society.

3.) Who cares about what they say, think, or talk about us. They are playing on our nerves, because they can do so...it would be a sign of weakness to ask them or demand from them to SHOW respect towards Muslims.

Who cares? Playing on our nerves? Sign of weakness? - Well, should we start caring when it will be too late when Muslims will be seen as sub-humans that could be "exterminated" as Nazis tried with Jews and Gypsies? Would you then also say that they are just playing? Defamation of a people is done on purpose so that to harm that people can be possible without shedding any tears or mention in the papers. Palestinians are a good example here! It is a sign of weakness to suggest that people can disrespect our values, beliefs and people. If an American tourist (just an example) disrespects your sister or mother, would you also do nothing because doing anything would be a sign of weakness? that's not a logic I follow personally!

4.) The day we set the rules of the games, and earn to have that right, shall we only stop whining, and will they stop insulting our beliefs!!!

Inshallah. But meanwhile we should not only do our salaat and put our hopes with Allah without exerting our effort ourselves! The Prophet pbuh said to tie your camle and then pray for Allah's help to secure the camel.

5.) I advise myself and my brothers/sisters in Islaam to leave off the rhetoric. Do something beneficial that will benefit us on the day of judgement. I encourage my muslim brothers and sisters to master the religious and worldly knowledge, so that kuffar stop insulting us out of sheer admiration and natural respect.

No doubt you are right iman is important, because in it is our strength. But our worldly behaviour and actions are also important. If you hide in the mosque from the brutal realities of life, and do little for the benefit of your community then there's an imbalance. After all, Islam got its respect, admiration, and spread in the hearts of Asians not only through its natural beauty but also through admirable behaviour of the companions who have gone to the great extent in helping the community...

[Akhee-Abdullah]

It's not about playing "games" but defending your rights as equal citizens - there is nothing wrong with that, following the laws of the land is quite Islamic. People are not suggesting to do things contrary to Islam, but to do those things that are not prohibited and yet can secure a better condition for Muslims to live and follow their religion, wherever they are.



This point contradicts the point 1, where you criticise "the rules of the unjust". As for me, I agree that freedoms and rights in the West are good for the protection of minorities such as Muslims. BUT what I am concerned about is that those freedoms no longer apply to or are being limited for Muslims. So what Muslims should argue for a true balance of respect for equal human rights and a universal right to be respected as other groups of the society.



Who cares? Playing on our nerves? Sign of weakness? - Well, should we start caring when it will be too late when Muslims will be seen as sub-humans that could be "exterminated" as Nazis tried with Jews and Gypsies? Would you then also say that they are just playing? Defamation of a people is done on purpose so that to harm that people can be possible without shedding any tears or mention in the papers. Palestinians are a good example here! It is a sign of weakness to suggest that people can disrespect our values, beliefs and people. If an American tourist (just an example) disrespects your sister or mother, would you also do nothing because doing anything would be a sign of weakness? that's not a logic I follow personally!



Inshallah. But meanwhile we should not only do our salaat and put our hopes with Allah without exerting our effort ourselves! The Prophet pbuh said to tie your camle and then pray for Allah's help to secure the camel.



No doubt you are right iman is important, because in it is our strength. But our worldly behaviour and actions are also important. If you hide in the mosque from the brutal realities of life, and do little for the benefit of your community then there's an imbalance. After all, Islam got its respect, admiration, and spread in the hearts of Asians not only through its natural beauty but also through admirable behaviour of the companions who have gone to the great extent in helping the community...

Assalam alaikum.

Wake up brother, wat u takin' about?! U aint an equal citizen, u r a chip labor, fresh of de bout, immigrant, paki, rice eater, dat's wat u r, in their eyes! A good muslim is a bad muslim!

Pak ur stuff n get outta there, @ ur first opportunity, unless u r a student of knowledge with several yurs of instruction under the mashaikh of Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaah...and can call people to the light of Islaam

If u wanna know why I am saying what I am saying....read this...it is unbelievable the way freedom of speech is going, their insulting Muslims and getting away with it, COURT is clearing them, what does it tell you?!!! Unbelievable!!! It is their game, they set the rules...be quiet, u donot like it, get outta here, u wanna be mozlem, go back to yur country, this is the attitude brother....I am being sarcastic here, please do not be offended...I am trying to get my points across so that you realize the reality that you are living in...

A jury decided speeches by Mr Griffin and party activist Mark Collett in 2004 had not incited racial hatred.

Mr Collett, 26 and from Leicestershire, was cleared of four similar charges.

The pair were charged in 2005 in the wake of the secretly filmed BBC documentary The Secret Agent, which had been broadcast a year earlier.

The Leeds Crown Court jury heard extracts from a speech Mr Griffin made in the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley, West Yorkshire, on 19 January 2004, in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".

Mr Collett addressed the audience by saying: "Let's show these ethnics the door in 2004."

A Home Office spokesman said Mr Reid would "think carefully and take time to study and reflect on this [court] judgement and its implications, including taking soundings from his ministerial colleagues". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6137722.stm

[referee]

Assalam alaikum.
Wake up brother, wat u takin' about?! U aint an equal citizen, u r a chip labor, fresh of de bout, immigrant, paki, rice eater, dat's wat u r, in their eyes! A good muslim is a bad muslim!

Pak ur stuff n get outta there, @ ur first opportunity, unless u r a student of knowledge with several yurs of instruction under the mashaikh of Ahlis-Sunnah wal Jamaah...and can call people to the light of Islaam

I am trying to get my points across so that you realize the reality that you are living in...


Valeikum Assalam.

The reality is not static, and it also depends on you. If people see you as fresh of de bout, do you start behaving that way, and follow their instructions and pack your stuff? That's surrendering! I prefer to walk tall and head high, being proud I am a Muslim and prove to sensible people that Muslims are dignified people.

You forget a lot of Muslims in Europe are citizens here, they were born here and have the same rights. The Prophet pbuh was a minority himself and struggled on for Muslims' rights untill it got too dangerous. And he succeeded in defending Muslim umma's rights when our people were allowed to pray in the Kabaa. What happened to that kind of courage? Are we all now to surrender and run to Saudi Arabia, just because a group of racists wants us to? "The whole of the earth is our home and our mosque'! 'Calling people to light' is more realistic when you are physically in that country, rather than dawaa broadcasts through satellites from far away like Saudi Arabia!

In my view, your suggestions are contradictory - you say we must be steadfast and strong in our iman, but then you want Muslims to pack up and leave countries where it's becoming hard for Muslims to live. The time has not come yet when Muslims have to flee Europe for their lives (as during Spanish reconquesta), so the task is to prevent that from happening and ensure Muslims and Islam stays in Europe. So no need to tell us what the reality is - we all know it - but think about how to address the reality!

[Delf]

Let me sum up our discussion.

First of all, everybody agrees that person should have maximum possible freedom of speech.

Secondly, everybody agrees that there should be limitations on freedom of speech when it has a purpose to intentionally harm certain people.

Thirdly, many people beleive that there should be protection against intentional insult - be that against a person's public image or against a person's religious beleif.

So, the following is punishable by law:
1. One calls to harm certain people (killing or physical violence)
2. One calls to destroy certain people's property.
3. One calls to limit rights of certain people.
4. One intentionally destroys public image of a certain person with false information (libel).

No 1, 2 and 3 are quite straightforward, I think everybody agrees on that. No 4 is extensively covered in UK and US laws and I think these laws work pretty well. You don't see people insulting each other all the time, while everybody is free to critisize. So, I presume that a law similar to those of US will handle this case quite well.

So far so good, I beleive.

Now comes the hard part No 5:

5. One intentionally insults certain people's faith or sacred values.

This is a case of blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy).

It is well understood that many people are very sensitive about their religious beleifs and any insult or making fun of their sacred values is taken quite seriously. But the problem in this case is that it is not possible to measure the tangible harm inflicted on that person, be that physical or emotional suffering. Also, when there are clear-cut cases (Muhammad with bomb-turban or gay Jesus) that are obviously insulting to certain religious people, there are also thousands of other cases that are not so obvious. What if, for example, one says that Bible or Koran or Tora is a source of evil (or just inaccurate or just self-contradicting) and goes on to argue about that in a long article. Should that be punishable or not?

In the west, for the most part, there is no punishment for that, it is considered a freedom of speech. In muslims countries, however, one can be sentenced to death for critisizing Koran.

The major problem I see with No 5 is that if you try to protect religious values through laws, you may quickly end up in a censorship by religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_organized_religion). And censorship by religion sucks big time. It oppresses free thought and questioning, it punishes everybody who questions and critisizes religious dogma. It is well known throughout the history of human kind.

So, while everybody here agrees on rules 1-4, I think most of the people here are divided to various degrees by rule 5.

I personally think that government should not punish for blasphemy. So there should be no rule 5.

I also think that many people here beleive that there definitely should be rule 5. My question then is how do you determine rule 5 then? Contact religious authorities to provide a list of punishable insults? How do you prevent from sliding into censorship by religious authorities? Or is it OK for you to have censorship by religious authorities?


Delf.

[vatansevar]

Good summary, way to go
As for part 5, it is similar to part 4, and I don't see any difference in between. If one intentionally insults, humilates relgion or relgious beliefs, that should be as punishable as insulting somebody personally. But when it comes to open and free discussion and arguments not aimed at humiliating and insulting the other party, I personally support and approve that. If somebody sees anything contradictory or difficult to understand in the Holy Books, like in the example that you are trying to pull, no problem. The solution is right there - there are a lot of places and ways to clarify that, to get extra knowledge if you will and etc. You see, if a person with a sound mind is doubtful about something in the the Book, it is not necessary to express his/her doubt publicly knowing that it will definitely have a counter reaction. If you you are dountful, go ahead argue and dispute, but do not state publicly.
This is the way I approach this issue. IMHO