Till I find eagerness to write a proper post about the latest events of the Danish contest for caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad "may God's peace and blessings be upon him", I am asking everybody to read this excellent post on “A”’s blog.. with the title “Freedom of speech, is it?”
and the other one on /borked blog "Homosapiens Suck!!" *I am not fully with this one, but its one of the best things I read as well* and also "Not-So-Hidden Inconsistincies in the Danish Cartoons Story" on Omar's Blog.. so wisely said, really how so very true!
and the other one on /borked blog "Homosapiens Suck!!" *I am not fully with this one, but its one of the best things I read as well* and also "Not-So-Hidden Inconsistincies in the Danish Cartoons Story" on Omar's Blog.. so wisely said, really how so very true!
And till then I want to tell the anonymous who commented on my last post (No4Denmark? No for this sick blog!)
Ok! No for my sick blog and No for You.. You are not welcomed here if YOU are not to respect my “right of free speech” !!
Thank U for the un-welcomed visit!
Updates will be soon isA..
But for now a Short break till I cool down..
6 comments:
I'll reply to A's post here since he doesn't allow comments by non blogspot.com bloggers (gaaah :-(
A makes two fundemental mistakes.
he misses the fact that jesus is mocked very regularly in western media, and that kind of speech is very much protected by law there, last christmas Mohammed Sameer (foolab.org) linked to a vedio making fun of Jesus that was published on hundreds of blogs, films, magazines, cartoons everything mocks jesus and other religious figures fairly regularly.
so when he says since when is this free speech, well since a long time ago cause that's what the law says.
now he begins by making a correct comparison, equating mocking the prophet with mocking jesus, but then when he moves the argument to judaism he flips it and equates it with pulishing something against eh jewish people themselves. the comparison would make sense if he talked about moses, be he talked about the jews not the jew's prophet.
publishing something that says all muslims are pigs and monkeys and should be fought to death is allowed in many countries and disallowed in many countries in the west, the same countries that criminalize it don't allow saying jews are monkeys and pigs and should be fought to death.
now maybe in practice there is a bias, but the law applies the same.
I don't know of any western country on the other hand that does not allow you to publish mockeries of any religious figure or symbol.
in the us the law allows you to say and publish anything, it is difficult but not impossible to publish anti jewish speech, it is much much easier to publish anti islamic speech, but in both cases it is possible. in both cases it is free speech.
if your goal is to make it difficult to publish insults against islam, then boycotts are a very good method, if the goal is to redefine free speech and criminalize insults against islam then that's a totally different story.
but legally it is free speech in denmark and it is common speech too.
the thing is in our countries you are allowed to saw the jews are pigs but you are not allowed to say moses is a pig, in the west it's either you are allowed to say both or it's the opposite.
Oh holy shit, the caricatures were published by a Danish journal, not by the Danish govt. You should know that the media and the journals are not controlled by the govt. in the west, so if muslims want retaliate against the caricatures they must protest against the journal alone and not against the state in which the journal is produced.
This isn't an anti-muslim conspiration, in the west also the christian religion is mocked (for example with the cinema film "Da Vinci Code").
And everyday from the muslim worlds come out insult of every kind against Israel and Usa (above all the holocaust deny). Following your rationale, why the muslim countries never apologized for this?
I wrote something but then decided it better not too.
he misses the fact that jesus is mocked very regularly in western media, and that kind of speech is very much protected by law there
A law that allows the citizens to offend any human being is rediculous and not civilized in any way, IMHO.
but then when he moves the argument to judaism he flips it and equates it with pulishing something against eh jewish people themselves.
And wouldn't offending someone that you look up to, respect, love, and follow be considered an offence to you? It is the same story, offending Moses - peace be upon him - means offending the Jews (and the Muslims) and offending Muhammad - peace be upon him - means offending Muslims.
now maybe in practice there is a bias, but the law applies the same.
A law is not a law if it is biased.
if your goal is to make it difficult to publish insults against islam, then boycotts are a very good method, if the goal is to redefine free speech and criminalize insults against islam then that's a totally different story.
Not against Islam but against anyone. In other words, I'm against irresponsible freedom of speech that causes hatred and offends others.
I don't know of any western country on the other hand that does not allow you to publish mockeries of any religious figure or symbol.
I've been told that Canada has "hate speech" laws that restrict free speech in some cases.
Oh holy shit, the caricatures were published by a Danish journal, not by the Danish govt. You should know that the media and the journals are not controlled by the govt.
You may see a difference. But our cultures don't. And I think you and I both know that the media plays an exceptional role in driving the public opinion. Many won't even bother checking whether what was published is correct or fake. They'll just take it as it is. Which in many cases, like this one, could ignite hatred and even unintentionally lead to wars.
Excerpt from Amr Khaled's article
"There exists a cultural vagueness in the West. This vagueness results from the presence of two different concepts. The first is a great Western concept that we respect, appraise, and need. That concept is freedom of speech. This is a great humane and civilized concept. On the other hand, there is the great Islamic concept of dignifying Allah’s Messenger (SAWS). The problem arises due to the lack of understanding of the Islamic Civilization and the Western Civilization regarding these two concepts. The non-Muslims cannot value the rank of dignifying the Prophet (SAWS). On the other hand, due to the below-average quality of practical application of freedom of speech, Muslims have a vague understanding of the concept of respecting freedom of speech.
Accordingly, what is required now? We do not want to refuse the concept of freedom of speech, absolutely not. However, the West should alter the freedom of speech so that it does not collide with the very important Islamic value of dignifying the Prophet (SAWS). Here lies the vagueness and ambiguity. The West understands very well the freedom of speech (which we appreciate) but it does not understand Islamic values, such as dignifying the Prophet (SAWS) and other Islamic sanctities. This is where the Western cultural vagueness lies."
The rest of the article can be found here
Post a Comment