Rusty wrote:There may be freedom of speech, but there is freedom of religion too. Also, there is free speech and hate speech. The papers should know when to draw the line.
Well, “Islam” is a concept, not a agent. Thus it’s not “Islam” that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it’s not the “depiction of the religion’s founder Muhammad” that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God’s creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet - be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc.
Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like “slander” or “hate crime”, but actually be seen as “kufr”, i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.
“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “It’s falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”
Korzic wrote:I disagree entirely. As some of the blogs point outWell, “Islam” is a concept, not a agent. Thus it’s not “Islam” that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it’s not the “depiction of the religion’s founder Muhammad” that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God’s creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet - be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc.
Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like “slander” or “hate crime”, but actually be seen as “kufr”, i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.
and“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “It’s falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”
I ask why we are you defending them? They who would fly planes into buildings, they who would without a 2nd thought, blow your families sky high. It is these people who are the ones getting upset, those who would do violence upon us for our beliefs and way of life. Because its prefectly ok for them to denigrate us but not the other way around?
Korzic wrote:“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress. “It’s falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”
"If you're wearing a short skirt that does not necessarily mean you invite everybody to have sex with you"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours • PHPBB Powered
Serving Our Lady Peace fans since 2002. Oskar Twitch thanks you for tasting the monkey brains.