> Split Discussion on Freedom of Thought, Speech and Action

[TheBoxer]

Interestingly enough, I think you and I both approach this topic from a conservative angle, although my foundation is Christianity and the U.S. Constitution and yours is Islam and the Qur'an.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offense. However, a strange phenomena is taking place in Europe and elsewhere that it is becoming a crime to offend certain minority groups. This is a result of liberalism which basically states that all cultures, religions, and sexual orientations are equal in morality and value.

I can't speak for Europe or Canada (since I think they're both going down the toilet anyway), but in America you may be labeled a "homophobe" by some of the general population for preaching against homosexual behavior, but you won't be arrested for it. You may also have noticed the abuse of the label "Islamophobe," which gets tossed at any person preaching against Islam. Another commonly abused label is "racist," which is being used against people who preach against Islam (which is not a race) or people who consider themselves HBD'ers (human biodiversity).

Regarding "freedom of thought", I think some of the hate crimes bills being passed in the U.S. legislature border on "thought crimes," but it is impossible to prosecute someone for their thoughts alone (unless you hook up EEG monitors and measure brain wave patterns as the person is exposed to various images--Oh good grief, that's a freaky thought!) Thoughts are implied by words and actions.

Regarding marijuana, I think it should legalized but heavily regulated more so than alcohol and tobacco. For example, you could purchase and use it but you cannot then receive government aid like food stamps and welfare. Also, an employer would have the right to fire you for testing positive for it. (But that's just my humble opinion.) The amount of money the government could rake in on a marijuana tax would help my country get out of debt and legalizing the drug would put a lot of dealers out of business.

Regarding treason in America: a person is not put to death for advocating certain political ideologies. People are put to death for betraying their country to enemies.

There are plenty of vocal anarchists, Marxists, etc. in the United States, not to mention vocal imams rooting for shari'a. None of them are put to death for treason.

Americans move to other countries all the time and live there, choosing to become members of new societies. Americans convert to Islam, change their name, study abroad in Islamic countries, and then come back to the United States preaching Islam and shari'a...and they are not put to death for it.

You obviously know nothing about U.S. treason laws. A U.S. citizen plotting with Iran to blow up the Pentagon by giving top-secret information to the Iranian government would be treasonous. A U.S. citizen converting to Islam and promoting shari'a is not treasonous EVEN THOUGH such views contradict the U.S. Constitution and American democratic values.

PLEASE do not compare Islamic law regarding blasphemy laws and apostasy with the U.S. Constitution's stance on freedom of speech and treason.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Interestingly enough, I think you and I both approach this topic from a conservative angle, although my foundation is Christianity and the U.S. Constitution and yours is Islam and the Qur'an.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offense.

So why the hell has your system created an entire fabrication called anti-semitism, and why have 14 european countries legally made it a crime to speak about people's own thoughts on the holocaust if it does not match the alleged information accepted by conventional wisdom. More importantly, if what the heell you said is right, then why the hell does your law punish with the crime of treason for the mere act of burning the flag.

This is how stupid and low you people are willing to go that your even willing to make yourself look like a fool.

No, freedom of speech is not that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says. Freedom of speech is not the right to offend others who inherently do not have the right to offend you.

Freedom of speech entails that in the event that some nutjob basket case speaks venom against islam, then when people collaborate together to "protect" this fagots right to "free speech", then that same process is extended to the one who can speak venom against fagots and their homosexual desires.

Freedom of speech is not that when such a basket case islamaphobe comes to attack Islam for whatever reasons worth less than the excrement of my cat, then when people like you come to his aid in defense of his "right" to free speech, then all is well, but when speech is uttered at as an expose to the reality of a fagot or the tyranny of jews, such people are stripped of that same right given to the fagot because those 'issues" are taboo and are beyond the scope of free lance views outside of the established viewpoint.

However, a strange phenomena is taking place in Europe and elsewhere that it is becoming a crime to offend certain minority groups.

you have something similar. it is called 'hate speech", and while these are not crimes yet, I don't think we are all too far off with this extreme socialist in the office.

This is a result of liberalism which basically states that all cultures, religions, and sexual orientations are equal in morality and value.

ah ha
Got ya

So you do admit that not everything is "equal". I am going to exploit this oppurtunity now to ask you that since you have just admitted that not all things are equal, then what is your criterion or constitution that formats how you determine the extent of a culture, religion's, or sexualorientation's value.

I can't speak for Europe or Canada (since I think they're both going down the toilet anyway),

Well, seeing that todays conservative was yesturday's liberal, all three are going down in the toilet, albeit,different toilets, but all excrement has to go down the drain.

but in America you may be labeled a "homophobe" by some of the general population for preaching against homosexual behavior, but you won't be arrested for it

We don;t care about being arrested. That is just the "legal" extent of what can happen onthe articulation of certain speech hypocritically within countries that are openly and secularly "free".

If there is not a legal ramification, there is certainly a social ramification. Look at what happened to Al Sharpton, the dimwit who wants to argue with the other dimwit, for his racists remarks.


.

You may also have noticed the abuse of the label "Islamophobe," which gets tossed at any person preaching against Islam. Another commonly abused label is "racist," which is being used against people who preach against Islam (which is not a race) or people who consider themselves HBD'ers (human biodiversity).

unlike your philosophy which is based on people having to submit to other people's wishes when they do not desire to do so, Our philosophy is based on "for every action there is a reaction". Every action has a consequence. The way that today's "freedom of speech" laws are formatted is that it is directed at protecting individuals from the repurcussions of what they say. The reason why christians have not come up with a name silmilar to "Islamaphobe"for their side is simply because they are not demonized by the mass world wide media. Im sure had they been, we would have suffered legal inquisitions from the side of christians that would surpass anything jews or any other minority groups ever advocated.

Regarding marijuana, I think it should legalized but heavily regulated more so than alcohol and tobacco. For example, you could purchase and use it but you cannot then receive government aid like food stamps and welfare. Also, an employer would have the right to fire you for testing positive for it. (But that's just my humble opinion.) The amount of money the government could rake in on a marijuana tax would help my country get out of debt and legalizing the drug would put a lot of dealers out of business

You are living in disney land. Im might have to nick name you "theBoxed"

firstly, the reason why your country is in debt to begin with is multi-faceted, that being
1. the allowance of interest based monetary systems thus creating the common clause "the illusion of wealth" i.e. wealth that is not there
2. the mass and exponential transport of virtually all civil industry to China in the mid 70s and onward which shifted the wealth from the western hemisphere and pumped it into the eastern hemisphere
3. lastly, but not leaslty, in light of the above historical monetary fact, the invention of the credit based system exploded in the late 70s and earlyon in the 80thusexpanding the vacum of "the illusion of wealth" to astronomical proportions thatno drug thatis taxed is going to be able to lift you out of.

these are just facts regarding the monestary aspect alone.

Secondly, this idealistic approach of yours is what lands me to claim your living in disney land is this is mostly true as I witness among amercians who claim themselves to be "conservative". I discussed this ignorance as a syndrome of American political culture which can be seen here The Four Syndromes that Result in Western Ignorance

allow me to break you in on some things

1. the american government does not think in terms of "what is best for the country" but more in terms of "what is best for the cause". In terms of money, they are benefiting more of these drugs being illegal rather than legal. It is not an issue of trying to help the country more than it is about how to acquire more money. To make it legal would entail
a. the migration of that wealth from the hands of who are criminals on the basis of the drug bring illegal (meaning once the drug is legal, they are no longer criminal) and its transfer to pharmeceutical industry. You see, with weed being illegal (and for that matter all other drugs), it benefits the government from the top on down to local governments.

I forgot the second point I was gonna make. oh well

secondly, Those dealers would mertely switch fromweed to cocaine.

Regarding treason in America: a person is not put to death for advocating certain political ideologies. People are put to death for betraying their country to enemies.

Again, your living in Disney Land. Thats because it has another name. They are called "political prisoners"

If you don't know what a political prisoner is, it is any man or women who have been incarcerated for their views and actions.

There are plenty of vocal anarchists, Marxists, etc. in the United States, not to mention vocal imams rooting for shari'a. None of them are put to death for treason.

My guess is your unaware of a certain FBI program COINTELPRO. why don't learn before you speak.

Americans move to other countries all the time and live there, choosing to become members of new societies. Americans convert to Islam, change their name, study abroad in Islamic countries, and then come back to the United States preaching Islam and shari'a...and they are not put to death for it.

Thats because those actions arn't called treason in American Political theory.

You obviously know nothing about U.S. treason laws. A U.S. citizen plotting with Iran to blow up the Pentagon by giving top-secret information to the Iranian government would be treasonous. A U.S. citizen converting to Islam and promoting shari'a is not treasonous EVEN THOUGH such views contradict the U.S. Constitution and American democratic values.

not really. I found after some research that many of the political founders had roots from their ancestors who were affected by Islamic thought. many of the ideals within it inherently were from a borrowed version of Islam. Its just that once your country went down the path of military industrial complex thereby adopting a hegemonic foreign policy, it reformatted and re-shapped the original intent of the founders inspite of the fact that everyone of the founding "fathers" of your country were in complete disarray with regards to forming the constitution as each group were advocating their own philosophy to be the central theme of the american diaspora and experience.

PLEASE do not compare Islamic law regarding blasphemy laws and apostasy with the U.S. Constitution's stance on freedom of speech and treason.

thats your ultimate problem. The issue is not one of "comparing" it is one of "deciphering"

It is blasphemy for someone to sell out the country to its enemies, whether one calls it blasphemy or not, its still what it is.

the fact that you failed to grasp the context of the thread not only reveals volumes regarding the extent of your intellect, but demonstrates how this intellectual ineptitude prevents you from seeing what is before your eyes.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

So why the hell has your system created an entire fabrication called anti-semitism, and why have 14 european countries legally made it a crime to speak about people's own thoughts on the holocaust if it does not match the alleged information accepted by conventional wisdom. More importantly, if what the heell you said is right, then why the hell does your law punish with the crime of treason for the mere act of burning the flag.

This is how stupid and low you people are willing to go that your even willing to make yourself look like a fool.

No, freedom of speech is not that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says. Freedom of speech is not the right to offend others who inherently do not have the right to offend you.

I assume you mean that some states have a law against holocaust denial and of course this is true. In don't agree with such a law but I do understand the anger some people feel when the holocaust is denied and to me such denial is a stupid as denying that gravity exists.

You say 'alleged information' and I was not sure what you meant; are you saying the holocaust information is not solid beyond question? Do you doubt the holocaust data?

Countries can make more or less what laws they like and I assume you are not denying that right. In Saudi Arabia it would be a capital offence to say burn a Qu'ran but it is not in London so what point are you making?

Free speech cannot mean we can say anything at all and that is why countries have laws about libel and slander for example - in simple terms you cannot tell lies about living people and get away with it.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

boxer and silver, let us keep in mind that the purpose of this thread is not to start a on-going discussion with kuffaar on this topic rather the prupose of this thread is to gather some arguments and responses to help Muslims in their discussions with non-Muslims to prove the fact that the big words you speak of have no absolute definition and implication even by your own standards. thank you

akhee Qatada, jazak Allah khayr for starting this thread - the kuffaar's whole ideology and methodology is based upon this whole concept. it would be also better if you link to few other threads we had on this subject.

Well if that is what you want then no better way to do it that hear what kuffars have to say. If the arguments will not stand up here they will not anywhere else either. I agree of course that most of the concepts we might speak of such as freedom, democracy, open mindedness, doubt have no absolute definition and I for one would not want such absolute definitions as that is just another way for some to exercise power over people though I would have no objection to people from time to time finding agreement if only to make things work.

Most of these ideas are not simple and that is why I would say the more open a discussion on them the better but for that to happen one must at least accept that you or me might be wrong, we might have our views changed or we might decide to throw the idea away as no longer of any practical value - do you agree?

PS why do you use the word Kaffar as in my visits to the Middle East my Arab friends never use the word and they tell me that in Arabic it is regard more like an insult that a description?

[salman]

^then a start a new topic and call it "discussion on freedom of thought, speech and action" and discuss the arguments brought here in that topic and keep in mind to not to break the rules. We just want to organize the whole thing better and keep it clean and easy for Muslims. Secondly, we have already gone over these issues with you in the past and we are aware of the end result.

thirdly, if your friends are hesitant or do not call you kaffir (disbeliever) then they are not hujjah to me or any other Muslim. You are a disbeliever and we are going to call you what you are. How is calling you a kaffir, speaking the truth, an insult!? Where do you get the logic? When your bible called the Jews heretics or when you call us disbelievers, are you insulting us or do you hear Jews or Muslims complaining!? Seriously!!

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by salman

^then a start a new topic and call it "discussion on freedom of thought, speech and action" and discuss the arguments brought here in that topic and keep in mind to not to break the rules. We just want to organize the whole thing better and keep it clean and easy for Muslims. Secondly, we have already gone over these issues with you in the past and we are aware of the end result.

thirdly, if your friends are hesitant or do not call you kaffir (disbeliever) then they are not hujjah to me or any other Muslim. You are a disbeliever and we are going to call you what you are. How is calling you a kaffir, speaking the truth, an insult!? Where do you get the logic? When your bible called the Jews heretics or when you call us disbelievers, are you insulting us or do you hear Jews or Muslims complaining!? Seriously!!

Fine I will do that later this week. I think you misunderstand what I said about Kaffir - you can call me what you like all I was saying was that in Arabic I am told it is like an insult and that they rarely use the word and almost never in company - there is no logic I am just telling you what Arabs tell me.

PS. Just by the way speaking the truth can of course be an insult. You might describe someone as a bald, fat non-entity and it might be true but it would nevertheless be an insult to that person. (I am not describing myself - well I am not (entirely) bald or fat though not sure about the non-entity bit!)

[salman]

^I do not want to continue this off-topic discussion but they are wrong. Islamically it is never meant to be an insult because linguistically the word is used to differentiate between those who believe in Islam and those who do not. whoever perceives or understands otherwise is wrong; one of the reasons why some people understand it as an insult is because the christian missionaries from Arab presented it as such in the form of 'infidels' and then it was spread like that in the west and in the Arab world.

let us drop this subject here and continue on the topic

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

I assume you mean that some states have a law against holocaust denial and of course this is true. In don't agree with such a law but I do understand the anger some people feel when the holocaust is denied and to me such denial is a stupid as denying that gravity exists.

If you indeed understand the anger that they feel, how on earth do you not understand the anger and outrage that muslims feel when you desecrate the honor of something much more offensive than a mere denial of a historical event, like mocking the prophet.

You say 'alleged information' and I was not sure what you meant; are you saying the holocaust information is not solid beyond question? Do you doubt the holocaust data?

Of course there are alledged information, but I was talking about the fact that of all information that exist, portions of this data are being blocked and only a few are selected for mass endoctrination of a specific view. For example, Hitler didn;t just "single out" jews, he had a puritanical creed of his race that encompassed many peoples, and for the west to promote that his tyranny was only towards Jews is nothing less than Historical malpractice. Likewise, what is not being advocated at all is that he had jews working for him as well, which highlights how distorted jewish slanted teachings on the western conveyance of history almost puts a speel on the western audience which is politically designed to market an idea that validates political theories and actions particularly in the Muslim world. But it may be that what Im telling you may be way over your head.

Countries can make more or less what laws they like and I assume you are not denying that right.

I am denying that right because no bbody has the right to legislate except Allah in the fundamentals of human interactions between each other, himself, and his Lord.

In Saudi Arabia it would be a capital offence to say burn a Qu'ran but it is not in London so what point are you making?

youll see the point in the next comment

Free speech cannot mean we can say anything at all and that is why countries have laws about libel and slander for example - in simple terms you cannot tell lies about living people and get away with it.

And that is the crux of the matter and the hypocrisy of what Im refering to. Your entire western world does not have the authentic right to claim "free speech" if certain speech is unlawful. You cannot claim free speech in light of banning certain speech. It is the same with "freedom". You cannot rightfully claim "freedom" when you have laws that restrict freedoms of various kinds, from business, to commerce, to whatever.

WHY, because free speech is taken by the advocates of democracy, particularly in the realm of ideological polemics and they bash "non democratically" inclined people with the slogan "our pride is in our free speech" and many slogans one can hear on radio and elsewhere, as if or with the connotation that there is nothing in their law that hinders any type of speech.

I hope Im driving my point across

regards

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalam alaikum
Do we even have freedom of thought? To simply dislike homosexuality makes you a homophobe. If someone detests this, they are not granted visa to a country, like the UK. In Germany, people are shown videos of homosexual couples, and they have to keep watching them in order to be fit enough for a Visa there.

Now, this means you can't get into a country (or stay there permanently) - unless your mindset fits with their designed paradigm for you. If you don't accept that mindset, they won't let you in their 'free' country.

Is this really freedom of thought which the west is aspring to? Or is this dictating and forcing your beliefs on others?

Much of what you say has value but are you or would Islam be even handed about it? I might have a mindset that thinks that Islam is backward and repressive so would I be welcome in Saudi Arabia for example?

Is this really freedom of thought which the East is aspiring to? Or is this dictating and forcing your beliefs on others?

[al-boriqee]

It's similar to the dictation and enforcement of democracy and secularism in the Muslim world were if governments don't subscribe to the stated requisite of western ideals, then you will be the recipient of economic sanctions and any other totalitarian enforcement imposed on those who don't agree with your ideals

is that the forcing of your beleifs on others that your talking about.