"Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/muslims-warn-antiterror-laws-could-prevent-teaching-from-koran-20141008-1137lj.html

“We are therefore concerned that the proposal has serious implications on free speech and will have a chilling effect on legitimate religious and political debate,” the council – representing 250 imams – said in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

If certain lines within the Koran can be viewed as an incitement to violence, should they not be banned and removed from all UK editions of the book?

does David Ike have a financial interest in perpetuating this never ending cycle of doubt and paranoia?

Yes he absolutely does, he makes a lot of money from book/DVD sales, ticket sales, advertising sales.

There’s a lot of money in telling stories to gullible people.

Dunno,

Yes you do.

But quick, change the subject !!

does he have shares in the arms industry, (or private military contractors, security etc)

That’s better.

Which, by your logic, means the Koran should be outlawed.

I think the point was that nutters interpret the written word poorly as you so eloquently demonstrated

The organisation is hosting a lecture in Lakemba on Friday to denounce “the politics and plots of the American-led intervention in Iraq and Syria” and Mr Abbott has conceded that the current legal framework is not sufficient to shut the event down.The imams council said a cleric could fall foul of the new law even if he simply “advocated the duty of a Muslim to defend his land”.

“We are therefore concerned that the proposal has serious implications on free speech and will have a chilling effect on legitimate religious and political debate,” the council – representing 250 imams – said in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Appearing in front of the committee on Wednesday, members of the Muslim Legal Network said the laws, introduced by Attorney-General George Brandis, should target the extreme fringe, not mainstream Muslims.

They said any religious community could face being charged with a terror-related offence “if they refer back to stories in the Quran, Bible and Torah in their sermons”.

It is documented the al-Qaeda handlers of the 9/11 suicide pilots had urged them to dwell on passages in the Koran in which God promises to “cast terror into the hearts of those who are bent on denying the truth; strike, then, their necks!”

But some scholars have pointed out that the Old Testament is just as violent in its imagery, including Psalm 137 which threatens Babylonians that “blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks”.

In its submission, the Islamic Council of Victoria said the new law would incriminate Muslims who support “legitimate forms of armed struggle”, including resistance to the Assad regime in Syria and the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

“The broad definition of ‘terrorism’ and the way in which it is sometimes selectively applied to such groups is problematic … [and] the power of the Attorney-General to list terrorist organisations without oversight and consistency exacerbates this problem,” it said.

“Broadening this definition to include ‘foreign incursions’ and ‘treason’ when Australia already has laws which deal with these further muddies the water on the issue of what can be considered terrorism and what should be considered legitimate resistance to oppression.

“Criminalising the act of ‘advocating terrorism’ adds another layer of complexity to this issue. The scope of what constitutes ‘advocating terrorism’ is unclear.”

The council identified what it says is a double standard in Muslims wanting to go to Syria and Iraq to provide aid having their passports cancelled “while ignoring the travel of Zionist Jews wishing to travel to Israel – a state which illegally occupies Palestinian territory with intention of fighting in a war against Gazans and has been accused of war crimes”.

MLEH to your selective quoting

I think the point was that nutters interpret the written word poorly as you so eloquently demonstrated

Grums message throughout this thread has been, “these images shouldn’t be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred”. How is this different than verses in the Koran that can be construed as an incitement to violence/hatred?

Personally, I think some of the passages in the Koran are a lot more cut and dry than the messages portrayed by Charlie Hebdo. So, why should images like the ones that were produced by Charlie Hebdo be banned – but not certain verses from the Koran? If we ban them, isn’t that going to offend one quarter of the worlds population? But Grum doesn’t want to offend one quarter of the worlds population.

I really, really want to know how Grum has managed to end up with this logically flawed view – doesn’t compute.

It’s pretty hilarious for you to talk about my logically flawed view and then come out with what you’ve just said.

Grums message throughout this thread has been, “these images shouldn’t be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred”.

I’ve never said that – in fact I’ve specifically said that I don’t think they should be banned. Yet another straw man/troll from you. I’ve said they shouldn’t be applauded/supported.

Following on from the very poor straw man, we have some classic whataboutery:

Personally, I think some of the passages in the Koran are a lot more cut and dry than the messages portrayed by Charlie Hebdo.

I’ve never read the Koran, but if it’s used to justify violence then I don’t support that, as well as not supporting racism/bigotry in CH. Yet again, the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

I also don’t support people selectively quoting things they know very little about, out of context, to support their own bias/prejudice.

I’ve never said that – in fact I’ve specifically said that I don’t think they should be banned.

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

eg

This is patently bollocks. There’s a large grey area between acceptable criticism and harassment, bullying, inciting racial hatred etc.

To use gonzys school analogy – if large numbers of kids in a school were all consistently picking on your kid, insulting him and ridiculing him all the time – you’re saying that would be fine with you? Bollocks it would.

its the same with islam and the text of the quran…its interpreted in many ways hence why there are so many nutjobs running around preaching the wrong message and causing havoc

If the doctrine of abrogation, which is mentioned a few times in the Koran, is taken on board then there is no confusion in the interpretation of the text.

Any contradictions that appear are easy to sort out.

Although that would also mean that the nutjobs have the “right” message, which is when it starts to look a bit scarier

Meanwhile in Saudi

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-fatwa-banning-snowmen-triggers-heated-debate-1.1439821

“these images shouldn’t be allowed because some people interpret them in a way that is an incitement to hatred”. How is this different than verses in the Koran that can be construed as an incitement to violence/hatred?

Grum has covered it but there is a fine line between being a contrarian being a troll and talking nonsense
I suggest you look for the line

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

We all support free speech, we all agree it has limits we are just debating where the line is drawn
I cannot take you seriously on this thread and I decline to engage with this gibberish or this which is another poor Straw man

I must have missed that, as you and a few others have spent the past 10 pages arguing against freedom of speech.

eg

Can you find me a quote where I’ve suggested banning anything?

He doesn’t actually believe you’ve suggested banning anything, he’s just arguing from the point of view of someone who may hold that view, because, you know, attention.

I’d certainly like to be able to ban some people’s free speech. 😉

We all support free speech, we all agree it has limits we are just debating where the line is drawn
I cannot take you seriously on this thread and I decline to engage with this gibberish or this which is another poor Straw man

Okay, I managed to find Grums post where he states CH’s drawings shouldn’t be banned.

If there are limits to freedom of speech though, do you feel religious texts are exempt from this Junkyard?

Not sure if previously linked to on here, but a German paper which reprinted three Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed over the weekend: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/german-newspaper-hamburger-morgenpost-arson-attacked-over-20151117135939826.html

This at the same time as the German politicians are condemning Pegida marches.

Not going to bother responding to any of your posts any more Tom_W1987 – it’s just tedious if intelligent people aren’t going to debate in a grown-up way.

It’s mind boggling to me that in 2015, with all the scientific advances we’ve made, and how much we know about the world and universe around us, that any sane adult chooses to believe and live their life according to a story book written a couple of thousand years ago.

Not going to bother responding to any of your posts any more Tom_W1987 – it’s just tedious if intelligent people aren’t going to debate in a grown-up way.

I’ll just consider that the cat’s got your tongue then.

“To think out a problem is not unlike drawing a caricature. You have to exaggerate the salient point and leave out that which is not typical.” – E. Hoffer.

it all boils down to having a bit of moral decency and respect and telling yourself “i can go there but i wont”.
…
its about having the right to be able to freely express yourself and balancing that with the equal right to be able to challenge it if you think it wrong.
…
Both are legal, both would be considered unacceptable by some/many people – under your black and white ‘only the law can decide’ ethos, both then should be considered fine.

There’s a fundamental point here which I think some folk are missing.

Borrowing the wedding example above and “is it freedon of speech or personal abuse” whataboutery aside, this gate crasher is absolutely within his right to say what he likes so long as he remains within the law. However, critically, he is an arsehole.

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a special book to help them). Some don’t, of course. But what are we proposing as the alternative here, Anti Arsehole Act 2015 legislation?

And one of the beauties of this freedom of speech is, it works both ways. This is the other thing some folk seem to be either ignoring or misunderstanding. There have been a few posts along the lines of “someone insults me and that’s ok then, is it?” That’s not what we’re saying. Someone insults you, you’re free to insult them right back. Or ask them to leave your private function. Or tell their parents that, actually, little Johnny is being a dick and would you mind awfully asking him to behave? You can absolutely challenge people if you believe that their behaviour is out of order; good, isn’t it?

Freedom if speech isn’t about rolling over and taking abuse, rather it’s the primary tenant that allows us to even be having this discussion.

“To think out a problem is not unlike drawing a caricature. You have to exaggerate the salient point and leave out that which is not typical.”

You do this a lot on here Tom. And then you’ll start shouting at someone for not interpreting the data you’ve posted. Either be one or the other. You might want to open your eyes a bit and see how your tone comes across.

Tom – what the nutjobs are very clever at is taking certain lines of text from the Quran and then interpreting them in the way they see fit so that it fits in with their agenda. what you fail to see is that these lines of text they use are taken from much larger scriptures and therefore what they say are removed from the context in which they were originally written.

Lalazar hits the nail on the head with this from page 11

Edukator looking at those verse numbers their quite easy to identify as their always the ones thrown about on the net. The Quran is not a book that came about in one go.It was revealed and compiled over a course of 23 years. Many of its verses are relevant to specific events that took place.

So your first verse ;
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

This was revealed in relation to Muslims seeking sanctuary in Medina after 13 years of tyranny and oppression in Mecca. Some escaped and others were expelled leaving behind all they had. Muslims then reestablished themselves in Medina which became the first Muslim city. The Meccans however weren’t content and took their armies to destroy Medina. Up until this point the Muslims had no authorituy to fight hence this verse was revealed giving them permission to fight those who fought them and expel those who expelled them.

Taken out of context you can take that verse and make what you want of it . Get the real background and you’ll see it for what it is.

Tom – what the nutjobs are very clever at is taking certain lines of text from the Quran and then interpreting them in the way they see fit so that it fits in with their agenda. what you fail to see is that these lines of text they use are taken from much larger scriptures and therefore what they say are removed from the context in which they were originally written.

If the BNP issued a story to it’s membership that involved advocating the killing of Jews, but was potentially open to interpretation because actually it was an unclear allegory – that would be banned.

P.S I’ve read that that line was revealed after Muslims overthrew those who subjected them in Medina?

This week edition of CH will feature the prophet cartoons.

Going back a bit,

you might find that the vast majority of muslims can tolerate cartoons etc that question,criticise or mock their faith but there are certain things that are strictly off limits.

There are certain things which are off limits according to their religion and / or belief system, which is fair enough. Here’s the thing. The other three quarters of the planet don’t recognise their book as an authority. Ergo, they don’t get to make demands. Sorry. Maybe they should consider asking nicely instead?

Because that’s were we’re going with this, as I was alluding to in my previous post. If I were a CH cartoonist and had been told, “look, we don’t mind being the butt of a few jokes, but this prophet thing is a really big deal and really upsetting a lot of folk, can we draw the line there please?” then I’d apologise, not do it again, and probably feel quite guilty about the whole thing. If instead someone rocked up to my office with assault rifles telling me what I could and couldn’t do based on their own ideology, I’d want to be out the back door with a cartoon of the prophet in a compromising position with a pig and off to the nearest Algerian embassy with an Imax projector.

I think this is what’s grinding my gears the most about this debate, it’s the “special privilege” argument again. In the link about 30 pages back, that gobshite Choudry was banging on about how the law of god trumps the law of man and he doesn’t recognise our legal system, or some such. Thing is, a country’s laws are not optional. You can add to them for your own guidance, sure, and if you’ve got your Bumper Book Of Being Nice To People then all the better, but if you fundamentally disagree with the laws of your country then you’re in the wrong country. If I went over to Saudi with a bottle of Jack and a wife in a bikini and said “oh, I follow a different set of laws to yours,” do you reckon they’d go “fair enough matey skip, carry on then”?

but that does not mean to say that “we take the piss out of our religion so should be able to do it with others”

It really rather does I’m afraid. Arguably we shouldn’t, perhaps, because it’s not a nice thing to do when you’ve been told it’s upsetting people. But we can if we want. And that’s a really, really important thing. As someone (Binners?) said earlier, “the rule of law is tolerated above everything, including religion, as that is the cornerstone of any free democratic society.”

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

Anyone here able to explain to me how this incitement to violence against women, is actually an allegory/out of context?

surely Allah is High

That’s your answer, I think.

On the occasions when I used to dip into the Qu’aran I was amazed at how there seemed to be some brutality or other on every page. The danger with people ‘being offended’ is that they then want to call the tune on what is censored, a very slippery slope. The other typical response is to excuse your own violence because’ you were provoked’, thereby making it someone else’s responsibility.
Should we refer to a ‘Jewish’ supermarket instead of a ‘kosher’ one when the employee who saved 15 lives in the fridge was a Muslim. Going by much in the mass media there’s a bit of victimhood being claimed here for political reasons. Who has measured, for example, this ‘flood of Jews’ leaving France for Israel? They would have to be pretty fleet of foot.

You can absolutely challenge people if you believe that their behaviour is out of order; good, isn’t it?

It is but some out of order behaviour is so out of order we ban [ hammer] it

Freedom if speech isn’t about rolling over and taking abuse, rather it’s the primary tenant that allows us to even be having this discussion.

Well that and some rules and someone to enforce them.
Not a dig at a mod [ you are bright enough to get it he fawned] but we need all of it. The balance act is the debate it is not and cannot be all or one. It is not either complete free speech on one hand and North Korea or China on the other. The debate is about where the line is drawn not about whether we draw one.

I do not think anyone here is suggesting we remove free speech tbh.

Should we refer to a ‘Jewish’ supermarket instead of a ‘kosher’ one when the employee who saved 15 lives in the fridge was a Muslim.

Normally we just call them “supermarkets” I’d hazard.

Quite so, apart from the fact that the shop sold beans or whatever that had the blessing of a rabbi.

Rocking up at someone’s wedding and hurling abuse wouldn’t be protected as freedom of speech, it would likely lead to arrest for breach of the peace (or something similar). Where as drawing a picture of a bride with the face of a pig to express your view of marriage would be and is unlikely to get any legal or shooty type attention (unless the militant wing of mumsnet felt compelled to get all murdery).

Borrowing the wedding example above and “is it freedon of speech or personal abuse” whataboutery aside, this gate crasher is absolutely within his right to say what he likes so long as he remains within the law. However, critically, he is an arsehole.

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a special book to help them). Some don’t, of course. But what are we proposing as the alternative here, Anti Arsehole Act 2015 legislation?

No, we are suggesting that people don’t be arseholes (or applaud others being arseholes), just because they can. Pretty simple really.

You might want to open your eyes a bit and see how your tone comes across.

Made me laugh.

I think half the dominant members on this thread could follow your little suggestion. In fact over half the users of this forum could probably take a step back and attempt realise how they come across. Me included when I can be arsed to comment…

Now, most people have moral codes which tell them not to be arseholes (some even have a special book to help them).

What book are ‘we’ referring to and what’s special about it?

What book are ‘we’ referring to and what’s special about it?

I believe there are several different ones – all of which must be special as they’ve sold more copies than anything by J K Rowling.

Is it too simplistic to say words/pictures don’t offend people – people do?

No, we are suggesting that people don’t be arseholes (or applaud others being arseholes), just because they can. Pretty simple really.

Then why were so many of you arguing about there being limits to freedom of speech eg incitement etc, when what you really think is simply –

What was the point? Where was it all going? You basically now agree with Binners, you were both arguing over nothing.

It is but some out of order behaviour is so out of order we ban [ hammer] it

… which is what I said two paragraphs earlier, “so long as he remains within the law.”

The debate is about where the line is drawn not about whether we draw one.

The line is pretty clear, I thought. Unless you’re talking about a change to English law, of course?

I do not think anyone here is suggesting we remove free speech tbh.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting removing free speech completely, but there’s certainly a suggestion that “free speech is fine apart from the bits I don’t like.” And much as “slippery slope” is often a logical fallacy, if we were to afford special protection in law to ban the drawing of an image this would surely lead a) to Islam wanting other things protecting and b) every other religion wanting their own religious trappings protecting as well. The Daily Mail and their red-topped friends would explode about creeping Sharia Law and the Islamification of Britain, and UKIP would think all their non-denominative winter festivals had come at once. No good can come of this, it’s a prophet and loss situation.

Quite so, apart from the fact that the shop sold beans or whatever that had the blessing of a rabbi.

What part did those beans play in the saving of 15 people’s lives? I must’ve missed that bit.

What book are ‘we’ referring to and what’s special about it?

There’s a few different ones which are enjoyed by various different people, I believe. I’m surprised you’ve not come across this before, it’s quite common.

As for what’s special about them, I never quite worked that out I’m afraid. You’d probably be better off asking those who think they are.

digga – Member

Not sure if previously linked to on here, but a German paper which reprinted three Charlie Hebdo cartoons was firebombed over the weekend: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/german-newspaper-hamburger-morgenpost-arson-attacked-over-20151117135939826.html

Which is a reaction most people would find not too unreasonable. Bit of a demonstration, break a few windows etc, but the step change to slaughtering the jounalists and police in cold blood is something I just can’t get my head around.

Call me old fashioned, but I’m not sure that I’d agree that a spot of light firebombing is a reasonable response to a newspaper reprinting a couple of cartoons.

Further violence this afternoon.. this time in Dublin[/url]