3 of 4
3
3rd Annual - Everybody Draw Muhhammed Day
Posted: 20 May 2013 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04

For Everybody Draw Muhammed Day, I wanted to post a picture taken from an illustration in a manuscript by the great Muslim scholar of the 10th-11th century, Al Biruni.  But alas, I can’t figure out how to post a picture here. That picture doesn’t do him justice, anyway.  So check this out:


                                                                    .


I know it is tiny and you can’t make out the details.  And that it looks suspiciously like a period.  But use your imagination.  Picture a powerful yet exceedingly humble man, a man of extraordinary charisma and intelligence, a warrior-poet, a man capable of founding a new religion that would change the world…

Ok, it really is just a period.  I just wanted to give the kind of Muslim who would issue an insane fatwa, in this regard, something to think about.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2013 12:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 19 May 2013 12:12 PM

Also, Lois, when you reply to quotes, please be careful with the quotation references, so that in your reply, it doesn’t come out looking like you said something that I said, or vice versa.

As a matter of fact, I did write after the quote on my response to Captn Jack.  And I edited it to be sure my words followed the quote mark. But it came out wrong anyway.  There was nothing else I could do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2013 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  337
Joined  2008-09-10
TimB - 17 May 2013 12:13 PM
TimB - 17 May 2013 11:39 AM
ciceronianus - 17 May 2013 08:02 AM

I think I could draw his cat.  I wouldn’t try to draw him, though.

I never suspected that he owned a cat…  a dog, maybe.

Oops, I looked it up. There are rumors that he had a cat and the rumored cat even has a name: Muezza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muezza

Perhaps we should have an Everybody Draw Muezza Day.

I’m fond of cats, and like the stories about him and Muezza.  My understanding is the cat is honored in Islamic history and nations, while the dog is considered “unclean” in certain traditions.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2012-09-14

What makes you think we think there should be any limit on free speech except for the old canard about not shouting “fire” in a crowded theater?

Because there may be times where certain speech is harmful. Example, many European countries have made Holocaust denial speech a crime.

The reason is because

while all EU Member States have legislation outlawing hate speech, a majority of EU countries have long considered that the fundamental right to
freedom of expression inter alia precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se.

http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.pdf  page 2-3

As Thevillageatheist rightly puts it.

Briefly, it meant that any speech that presents a clear and present danger to the public is illegal.


However, this raises an issue. 
What constitutes hate speech.  While many people (such as myself) can see the logic in the anti-Holocaust Denials laws,  others may not.
So at the end of the day, where do we decide what limit is?

That is the ultimate question

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2012-09-14
Lois - 18 May 2013 12:20 AM


If you want anyone to accept your opinion about the History Channel, or any history, you’ll have to make a specific criticism of the history as it’s presented, and support it with documented facts. Such a broad, unsupported accusation makes you look completely ignorant.

Lois

True, my apologies for a bad over generalization.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2012-09-14
TimB - 19 May 2013 12:06 PM

I would be hard pressed to say which religion would take the prize for hypocrisy (within their own theology).  In terms of sheer amount, the Christians would probably take the cake.  In terms of extremity of hypocritical behavior (in today’s world) Muslims might have a shot at the prize.

 

I think you mean ‘religious groups.’  A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion.  Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have
preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this)


A famous Muslim comedia Baba Ali had documented this quite hilariously on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do_bBuTod1E  (first 5 minutes only)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5er_9Uax-Q&list=SPC9E6296531083FB7&index=2


Or for those who like a more academics presentation see Hamza Yusuf’s comment     (he is advisor to Stanford University‚Äôs Program in Islamic Studies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxiR27qmWw4  (time slice 2:00-3:00)

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 21 May 2013 01:28 PM

where do we decide what limit is?

That is the ultimate question

It can be an exceedingly complex and difficult question.  In our society, we have the Supreme Court to help determine some of the finer distinctions.  The Supreme Court Justices are supposedly bound to make their interpretations based on the Constitution.  They are appointed in accordance with the system defined by the Constitution.  It is not a perfect system, but it’s pretty good.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 21 May 2013 01:52 PM


I think you mean ‘religious groups.’  A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion.  Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have
preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this)...


)

I do have some level of respect for people who behave in accordance with their own espoused belief system, because I respect integrity. But as you say, “A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion.” Or, I would add, they act at odds with their own religious precepts.

In a larger sense, I generally do not respect the lack of intellectual integrity, that seems to me to be present, in holding most religious belief systems.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2013 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2243
Joined  2012-10-27
TimB - 21 May 2013 02:34 PM
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 21 May 2013 01:52 PM


I think you mean ‘religious groups.’  A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion.  Rather than doing scholarly research and consulting their theologians, they have
preconcieved notions of what their faith is. After that, it becomes to have a scholarly conversation with them (from personal experience, it seems like all religious groups are like this)...


)

I do have some level of respect for people who behave in accordance with their own espoused belief system, because I respect integrity. But as you say, “A good chunk of muslims and chrisitians dont know their religion.” Or, I would add, they act at odds with their own religious precepts.

In a larger sense, I generally do not respect the lack of intellectual integrity, that seems to me to be present, in holding most religious belief systems.

Indeed. Any belief system that says its members must believe in its tenets and never question them or suffer eternal damnation is not a religion to be respected—and all the Abrahamic religions do this.  I, too, cannot respect a lack of intellectual integrity.  It makes the followers look like ignorant sheep and, too often, they are led to engage in destructive, inhuman acts in the name of their religion.
Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2012-09-14
TimB - 21 May 2013 01:59 PM

It can be an exceedingly complex and difficult question.  In our society, we have the Supreme Court to help determine some of the finer distinctions.  The Supreme Court Justices are supposedly bound to make their interpretations based on the Constitution.  They are appointed in accordance with the system defined by the Constitution.  It is not a perfect system, but it’s pretty good.


Yet even in our country there is often a change of standards.  What would have been free speech 100 years ago might be hate speech today and vice versa.

To take one example (which kind of surprised me)

Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US.  (I am assuming the same is in this country after reading posts #17 and #20). Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100

It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

 

So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

[ Edited: 26 May 2013 05:45 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2012-09-14

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar

 

To give a better idea of what I am saying, lets compare with what the Founding Fathers believed with modern commentary of the Quran.  (I’ve color coded the passages to make comparison easier).


                                                          FOUNDING FATHERS

Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.

Crime and punishment in American history
By Lawrence Meir Friedman ,  Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law
page 100


with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes… it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being.

Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: .
By Phillip I. Blumberg ,  dean of law at the University of Connecticut
332-334

 

 

                                            QURAN COMMENTARY BY MUHHAMED SHAFI USMANI

 

according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it [blasphemy] means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problem and rulings remain exempt from its perview.


Maariful quran Commentary on 9:  12-16
http://www.islamicstudies.info/maarif/  page 321

[ Edited: 27 May 2013 02:53 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 26 May 2013 03:03 PM

Yet even in our country there is often a change of standards.  What would have been free speech 100 years ago might be hate speech today and vice versa.

To take one example (which kind of surprised me)

Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US.  (I am assuming the same is in this country after reading posts #17 and #20). Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time.


Blasphemy… had been a very serious offense in the colonial period…. Thomas Jefferson Chandler…was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this…was a crime against the public order.
...

...So, in the days of our Founding Fathers,  it was considered “against the public order”  (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy.  Now one may be able to
argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore.

But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be.  At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar


As I said, our Constitutional system for determining the limitations of rights is pretty good, but not perfect.  It wasn’t until the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the individual states (1866) that the states were “bound” by them.

And this statement ( “It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States)  did not come out of the US Supreme Court until 1952.  IMO, they eventually got it right.

While I agree with you that we are all better off if we apply common courtesy in our speech with others, if my brother chooses to pass out fliers on the streetcorner that say: “Mary was no virgin.  Jesus was a bastard.  Muhhamed was a fraud as are all of the world’s great religions.  Embrace atheism!”  then I want my brother to be able to do so, without having threats on his life.  And I want anyone who does threaten to kill him to be prosecuted.

And not only that, I want any and all who wish to verbally or artistically deride the belief system (on which the threat to my brother’s life was based) to be able to do so freely.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 06:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04

I don’t know what happened to the formatting, with the above post, going off the screen.  If I caused it I don’t know what I did.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
TimB - 26 May 2013 06:36 PM

I don’t know what happened to the formatting, with the above post, going off the screen.  If I caused it I don’t know what I did.

It’s the long lines of I.J. Abdul Hakeem:

———————- (but then much longer)

The forum software has ‘word-wrap’ functionality, but if a word, like ‘——- etc’ is is too long, it can’t wrap.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2777
Joined  2011-11-04

I.J., will you please edit down the long——————lines in your post #41, so that the posts will fit the screen?  That may fix the problem.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3
 
‹‹ Japanese Mayor Controversy      Cuba is gay ››