March for Free Expression

The next phase

Friday, March 24, 2006

Endorsement from Elfyn Llwyd, MP

We are delighted to have received the following message of support:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to support the rally in support of freedom of expression in London on the 25th March. I'm delighted to endorse the statement of principle.

"Free speech is the jewel in the crown of a civilized society and we curtail the right to freedom of expression at our peril. The common denominator of every totalitarian state is the suppression of free speech."

Best wishes for a successful rally.
Yours truly,

Elfyn Llwyd MP
Plaid Cymru Parliamentary Leader

56 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

where does Ayaan Hirshi stand on your 'free speech' rally?

2:09 pm  
Anonymous Steve said...

Why no Tory MPs yet?

2:12 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does it matter why there are no Tory MPs?

2:35 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Where does he stand on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4827294.stm

If he thinks that Gair Rhydd were "well out of order" he doesn't deserve a platform at a March for Free Expression Rally.

2:52 pm  
Anonymous Steve said...

Well given that they sell themselves as the party of individual liberty, yes, it does matter. It's a disgrace that they are sitting on their hands.

2:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have to agree. Press him on the Gair Rhydd issue.

2:53 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I hope you guys will be protesting to the police for imprisoning those Muslim demonstrators who were also exercising their freedom of expression against the Danish Cartoons. If you don’t do that then you are being hypocritical - One law for you and another for the rest. The signs of a society that is going for a decline !

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ali the Muslim

3:09 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody was imprisoned for only exercising their freedom of speech. The arrests were made for public order offences - i.e. incitement to violence.

Learn to understand the difference.

Or shut up, either would be fine.

3:11 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've got to partially agree with Ali, because although most people have forgotten, at least two people were arrested during the demos outside the Danish Embassy in London: for demonstrating in favor of free speech. They were eventually released after police made sure they couldn't demonstrate anymore that day.

3:27 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mr Anonymous of 3:11 PM

Both acts are acts of expression. But one has become labeled 'public order offence', and the other is still freedom of expression. Why not label them the other way round? Who decides which is labeled what? Can you guess?

Yes, it is an impartial and biased entity (aka Da Goverment).

I advise you to think deeper than the labels. This way you see things for what they are. Both are acts of expression. One becomes allowed and the other disallowed. Even though both cause offence.

Ali The Muslim

3:57 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

Both are acts of expression. One is a cartoon of someone, the other is an explicit statement urging people to commit murder. That is why the latter is a public order offence and not the former. Yes, both are offensive to people, but the latter goes much further. Publicly imploring people to murder others is not the same as publicly walking around with a cartoon that causes offence.

Publicansdecoy the impartialist.

4:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali,

An insult is freedom of expression.

A threat is a public order offence.

For example, if I said 'Ali, you are an idiot', that would be the former.

If I said 'Ali, you are an idiot and for that I will behead you', you could quite rightly have me arrested.

Hope that clears things up. I've tried to make it simple enough for you to understand.

4:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To PublicansDecoy

Thankyou for your comment. It is revealing.

1)You admit that there is no FREEDOM of expression. Because as you have correctly deduced, even incitement is a form of expression.

2)I do not believe the protestors incited. Otherwise the police who were with them would not have allowed them to hold the placards or would have arrested them there and then. To me they were giving a warning only. As simple as that. Eg they said 'Europe remember 911 or 77' for instance. This is very different from 'Attack Europe'. One is cautioning and one is inciting. The aim of the protest in my view was to prevent Europe from continuing to offend a section of humanity. And they did this by sending a message of warning.

Again my advice is to look deeply so that we dont get mislead.

Ali the Muslim

4:16 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali,

You're citing one of the most inoffensive ones.

What about 'Get ready for the real holocaust' or 'behead those who insult Islam'?

They are the ones that can be said to be incitement, rather than just an expression.

You big fool. Even you can see that, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

4:20 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

Hey ho here goes.

1) A banner that calls for people who insult a religion to be beheaded is precisely AGAINST freedom of expression, as it is effectively saying "criticise my beliefs and I kill you". It would not be logically consistent for me to say: (i) "I believe in freedom of expression"; and (ii) "I support your right to kill me for not agreeing with your religion". Those two statements directly contradict each other and cannot exist together. I believe in statement (i). What about you?

2) I think the police should, indeed, have made arrests right away. I still don;t really buy their reasons for waiting so long before making arrests, but at least something was finally done. Waving around a placard saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT X" is *precisely* an incitement to murder. I don't know how many ways to make this point. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word incitement. It acted as a cautioning as well as acting as an incitement. Do you think the cautioning was justified then? What if I carried around a placard saying "Stop being a Muslim or else I'll behead you"? Would you want me arrested for incitement to murder (certainly, I would hope and expect to be), or would you claim that I should be left free, because I was only cautioning?

4:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mr anonymous of 4:15 PM

Is a threat a form of expression or not?

To me it is. But it is a form of expression that is outlawed in this country.

Lets look at your example. You said:
'Ali, you are an idiot and for that I will behead you'

In these words you have EXPRESSED a threat. Correct or Wrong????

A threat is one form of human expression.

My point is that those who want to protest FOR freedom of expression should realise that such freedom doesnt exist. If it did life would be anarchy. Because then theoretically we could all threaten each other to death but not actaully execute our threats. Do you understand Mr Anonymous ???

So you cant actually protest for freedom of expression and at the same time uphold a law that curtails it. Its self contradictory.

You can though protest that insulting other people is ok. And this is infact what this organisation is protesting for. The right to abuse and insult humanity because we feel like it. These are signs of degenerate people , not signs of civilised people. So which type of people do those that support this organisation belong to?

My advice to people is to leave such organisations and give them time to reconsider their thoughts and actions.

Ali the Muslim

4:38 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

No, because the law on incitement to murder helps guard against incursions to free expression, it does not seek to prevent free expression itself. There is no inconsistency in supporting FE and also backing the decision to arrest those who incite murder on the grounds of religious belief. Quite the opposite, in fact.

4:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To PublicansDecoy:

Ok , you are saying that in order to have freedom you must curtail it. Do you agree with this statement?

If so then you are saying there is no Freedom of Expression.

And if so then YOU cannot protest For Freedom of Expression.

Only a person who believes no curtailment to freedom should exist, whether through state laws or otherwise can protest for FE. And this person would be living in complete anarchy.

So if you are against incitement then you are against Freedom of E. So decide where you want to be first and then choose your protest type.

You cant have it both ways. Thats hypocracy. Or it shows that you do not posses a deep understanding of reality.

To give you an example: People have rights to do what they want (not just expression, but actions also) as long as they dont impinge on other people's rights for freedom. As a result of this requirment laws are setup to RESTRICT freedom. So in a civilised state no Absolute freedom exists. So one cannot protest for Absolute Freedom becuase it would be detrimental to society as a whole. What is required is a 'CORRECT BALANCE'.

A correct balance is required also in feedom of expression. Thats why laws against verbal threats exist.

I hope I have explained why protesting for freedom of expression is silly. You should protest for the correct balance of freedom of expression. There is no absolute.

I hope this is clear.

regards

Ali the Muslim

Quran [chapter 16: verse 125] '... and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

5:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Endorsement from Elfyn Llwyd, MP"

WOW weeeeeee Not

5:38 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

Ali,

No. I shall say it yet again. In order to have freedom of expression you must curtail any attempts that try to derail it. Therefore arresting those who seek to incite murder on religious grounds is precisely an act of defending free expression, not of curtailing it.

I am in favour of freedom of expression and therefore it logically follows that I am not in favour of attempts to curtail that freedom of expression. In that sense I think you are right that FE can't be absolute, because believeing in the right to FE also carries the responsibility of defending it against attacks, particualrly attacks which masquerade under the FE banner. Such attacks have been seen from both Global Civility and the BNP.

I suspect we won't agree with each other on this, and we've pretty much resorted to stating our own positions in as many different ways as possible. It's nice though, that we can disagree quite fundamentally with each other, and yet neither of is telling the other person they have no right to their views, or threatening a beheading :)

5:42 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Well I'm convinced by Ali the Muslim's arguments - very well put - I'll be going to discuss/debate the right to free expression with a balance so we don't have racism, incitement to hatred and Islamaphobia. This campaign has always been about non violence.

I'm glad Elfyn Llwyd is standing behind this because him and his supporters won't have any of this waving cartoons about to indimidate muslims stuff. The cartoons have become an incitement to racial hatred. That's very clear from this blog. Noone is interested in their "intellectual" discussion at all.

If I and my friends don't go - the march will just turn into a BNP rally. I support the campaign's main line and command its change of stance that the cartoons are seen as an incitement to violence against muslims - as this is how they are being used by the BNP. So it's why any muslim walking into Danish flags and cartoons will feel like they're walking into the middle of a BNP rally.

Let's not allow ourselves to be played like monkeys by the far right or any other kind of militant agenda.

5:54 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thankyou PublicansDecoy, for your nice reply.

I think one more post maybe helpful. You have nearly got to my viewpoint. Question: What happens when the threat to FE comes from FE itself?

This is the crux of the problem. In this case you cant allow absolute FE and you cant ban FE. So you have to resort to subjective curtailment. This is what exists today.

Subjective curtailment means:
1)There is no Absolute Freedom.
2)People will disagree on it because it is subjective.

You said " defending it against attacks, particualrly attacks which masquerade under the FE banner"

You need i think to ponder this point. Did the Muslim protesters holding up placards masquerade under FE or where they actually practicing FE?

If they were masquerading then are you saying issueing a threat is not a form of expression? If not then what is your definition of expression. In my defintion anything that contains words is expression.

And if they were practicing FE then you cannot campaign for FE.

thanks

Ali

6:00 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"In order to have freedom of expression you must curtail any attempts that try to derail it. Therefore arresting those who seek to incite murder on religious grounds is precisely an act of defending free expression, not of curtailing it."

Agreed - well the BNP are trying to incite murder of muslims on religious grounds by using the cartoons as swarstikas against muslims - at this rally. They have issued death threats to the organiser and to any muslim wishing to participate and they are using the cartoons as an intimidation tactic in two ways:

1) Muslims are not welcome at the rally (again as many posters have said) they will feel with cartoons and flags like they've walked into a BNP rally - not nice.

2) Muslims are essentially prevented from coming to debate the issues because displaying the cartoons makes it 100x more likely that any Muslim attending will be physically threatened by the very same kinds of people who have threatened the Danish cartoonists.

But that's OK - because they're SO much more important to the argument that never mind if the one or two Muslims brave enough to show up with good faith, reading newspaper articles, in support of free speech, are dead within 5 minutes of walking away from the rally.

6:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.

HIRSI ALI: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a modern day HEROINE

6:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous of 5:54pm said

'Let's not allow ourselves to be played like monkeys by the far right or any other kind of militant agenda.'

I thank him/her for this statement. This i think is what the driving force for this smoke screen of FE is. Some racists want to drum up support for themselves and their ugly cause by MASQUERADING and hiding under a smoke screen.

A smoke screen that sounds nice and looks appealing, but when scrutinized, is found to be nothing but falseness.

So for me , people who campaign for Freedom of expression are either:
1)Unaware that the concept is false, or
2)Have a hidden racist agenda behind them and are keen to ignite violence world wide. They incite violence in an underhand way. By planting the seed of hatred into people's hearts and minds. They are the ones whose freedoms should be curtailed.

May God give guidance to the people of the West and help them to scrutinize all controversial issues so that they see falshood when it is hidden and so that they see lies when they are spoken. Amen

Ali the Muslim

PS: The biggest liars in this age are the politicians i think. They even have a new name for lieing: SPIN

6:14 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

I'm not sure that I am close to your viewpoint!

The "behead those who insult Islam" people were not marching under FE, they were precisely only concerned with persuading/insisting/forcing/threating (delete as appropriate for whichever banner you were looking at) everyone else to accept the universal truth of their own way of thinking. That's not FE, that is directly opposite to FE. The point is that they were not simply expressing their views, they were backing that up with threats of force against anyone who didn't agree with them. The key word is force. That's where the line needs to be drawn in my own opinion, but I don't feel it's a line that invalidates the idea of FE, because the line is there precisely to defend it.

Well, I'm going offline for the weekend now. Thanks for the debate. I sincerely hope you come along tomorrow, but I suppose that isn't very likely. That's OK though. Nobody's forcing you, after all :)

6:19 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anaonymous of 6:07pm

What you on about?????

Ali

6:28 pm  
Anonymous deflated said...

Ali,

Media doesn't need to spin anything for me. Muslims either reacting violently all over the world, or protesting peacefully to censor criticism or mocking of a religion, tells me all I need to know. Their violence or political pressure was in response to the cartoons.

Cartoons are neutral unless a person goes beserk and commits violence when they could just as easily have ignored them. As the Danish newspaper is accused of being right wing, why would a Muslim go and buy it? Simply ignore what may offend you. End of story. No harm done. It's not like they plastered on billboards near traffic lights.

When I saw the cartoons, are people suggesting they inspired me to want to defend against Muslims? No. I would perhaps have nodded in recognition, and smirked at one or two, and then forgotten about them.

What "did" inspire me to finally draw a line and want to defend Europe against Muslim censorship,was the worldwide reaction from both Militant and Moderate Muslims towards the cartoons. How were the Cartoons violent? How were they Racist? Most of them condemned the tendency of some people to use the name of Muhammad and Islam as a divine sanction to commit murder. Or the- "We've run out of Virgins in paradise",etc.

Simple as that. Muslims jump on the bandwagon and scream the cartoons are "nothing more" than a racist Islamophobic attack. Are they denying that some people DO use Islam to commit murder in it's name?

If so,why? Muslims really need to stop living in denial about this. So often I hear this - "They are just fringe elements". No, they are quite a large element unfortunately. They need to be condemned. Some of the cartoons got right to the core issue and condemned.

The energy of the Muslim "anti cartoon" protesters would be better served protesting against "those" people who abuse Islam more than Europeans ever could, rather than towards cartoon makers who point out harsh truths in the first place. But no,that rarely happens.One has to ask oneself why!

Islam never wants to look at it's own pitfalls. It's just easier to condemn "others" as Islamphobic, racist,or a conspiracy by Jews. That is what I'm sick of hearing. Islam deserves some public criticism, just as many other religions and ideologys do. None should be above criticism,just because of "Respect".

Again,I would suggest that people trying to give the impression that Islam has nothing to do with this march tommorow, are deluding themselves. We all know what we are angry about. Why this sudden diluting of annoyance, to yet again save muslim "face". I am not a thuggish hater of Islam. I know it's virtues, and I know it's pitfalls. Knowing both, I am well within my rights to criticize it's pitfalls when Islam is trying to shut our media up.

When I heard one of these Muslim groups was appealing to the Police to get Saturday's march stopped, that told me everything I needed to know. Why don't everyday Muslims stand up and protest against these people who mean to censor Europe? Perhaps because the gap between Extremist and Moderate isn't so wide? You tell me why else they are silent about them, but oh so quick to rally together against white non muslim Europeans.

6:51 pm  
Anonymous Europa said...

Islam cannot stand any criticism whatsoever because it sees itself as god given perfection. Why even bother trying to debate? You might as well trying arguing with a shoe.

7:11 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Name of Allah the Most Kind , the Most Merciful

To Deflated.

Some comments.

1)Its fine to criticize Muslims and even Islam. But its not fine to insult Prophets of God Almighty. This is according to Islam. You are welcome to criticize Islam for saying this, there is no problem in that.

2)Are Muslims not allowed to protest against things they believe should be protested? I assume your answer is yes they are allowed. So why then accuse them of trying to shut the media? We would love for the media to be open and impartial and unbiased and keep on reporting truth. Especially in the atrocities against the Palestinians which are nearly completely shut up by pressures groups that are not Muslim. Are you brave enough to critisize Jews for instance? I don’t think so. Ask yourself why not? Then ask who has control of the Media? The Muslims???

The funny thing this British historian got jailed for having an opinion he had about a Jewish issue some several years ago and which he didn’t any longer. Where is freedom of expression. Your mind is trapped and you don’t realise it.

3) The Denial Issue
Who is in Denial. The West invade other peoples land (based on lies). The invaded try to retaliate to remove the invaders. When they do retaliate they are viewed as terrorists. Yet when Britain retaliated against Germany with Bomber Harris, he wasn’t regarded as a terrorist? Can you smell the hypocrisy. And if someone says that the British people caused the 7/7 massacre by voting in the person that ordered the invasion, they cry Blasphemy. If you vote for Hitler then you are responsible for his actions. Were the German people not responsible for the actions of Hitler? And you say you are democratic and the people with conscience say 'Not in My Name'. Does that not mean the British people have been deceived and become responsible for much bigger massacres of humanity that still continues to this day. But how many people actually care or realise this?

Is what I am saying truth, or am I the one who is deceived or brainwashed by the Mullahs. Could it be that you are the one deceived by the Spin Mullahs? Mullah Blair.

But why is it a minority who speak like this? Another outspoken minority is Yamin Zakaria (eg http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=4424).

I think the reason why a minority of Muslims speak like this is because the Muslims are a minority in this country and so are vulnerable. They are like how the Jews were in Germany. They could be kicked out and even tortured like what happened to some of the Jews. Its not far off really, as hate is being piled up against Muslims today. They are not allowed to freedom fight , because if they do they become terrorists. The spin machine is alive and kicking.

The problem with the Jews is that they then started doing the same things the Germans did but to other people. And have nearly full media control. Aljazeera offices bombed for instance.

I do hope you can now see the world picture.

You are welcome to ask more.

Ali the Muslim

7:35 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali explain this to me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4841334.stm

Increasing international pressure over the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is forcing the Afghan government to play a careful balancing act between its Western allies and religious conservatives at home.

Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

'Deserves it'

The judge's comments are one indication of why President Hamid Karzai, who already has a reputation for being pro-Western, faces some difficult choices.

The president has yet to comment publicly on the trial but statements put out by his office point out that, while the government respects human rights and personal freedom, the country has an independent judicial system.


Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad

Mohammed Qadir
Kabul resident
In practice, it is even more complicated.

The Afghan judiciary is dominated by religious conservatives, many with strong religious ties or backgrounds.

Many feel it will be difficult for the president and the government to confront the judiciary.

But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.

At Friday prayers in mosques across the Afghan capital, the case of Abdul Rahman and the consequent international outcry is the hot topic of discussion and the centrepiece of sermons.

"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.

"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."

Public mood

The issue has not reached the stage of street protests, as was the case recently during demonstrations against the publication in the West of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

But there is little doubt that feelings run deep and can easily be inflamed.


The mood among worshippers in Kabul is hardening

"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

Few were willing to listen to the growing condemnation in the West.

"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land," says Mohammed Qadir, another worshipper.


US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.

That cuts no ice with Mr Qadir.

"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."

Western backers of the Afghan government are pressing to create a country that is a moderate and progressive democracy, able to turn its back on its Taleban past.

But analysts say they often forget that Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country rooted in tribal traditions.

"This is a Muslim country. The state is Muslim, people are Muslim 99%," says Judge Ansarullah.

"This is a very sensitive issue."

Afghanistan's constitution, written in 2004, enshrines the country as an Islamic state under which no law can contravene Islam.

But it also protects personal freedom and respects international human rights conventions.

"It is a deliberately ambiguous document which tries to paper over the cracks and contradictions of Afghanistan," says one Afghan law professor privately.

"But now the contradictions have risen to the surface."

7:44 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali, The precise question is linked to this man's pending murder in the name of Allah!

7:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To europe,

The Biggest and most Powerful strength of Islam comes from debate. Why? Because it is foundation is based on reason and logic.

It doesnt accept that everything came from nothing.

It doesnt believe that an effect has no cause (ie that no one banged the big bang)

It doesnt assume everything goes to nothing after death. It requests evidence for any assumption.

It doesnt deny there is a creator?

Islam is for people who THINK

Ali the Muslim

7:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali, Answer my question about this man's pending murder in the name of Allah!

7:58 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali, are you lying to yourself?

Explain this as quoted by an islamic judge:

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

8:01 pm  
Anonymous A2 said...

Ali,

I understand your point of view. I hope you will understand mine.

The purpose of freedom of speech is to move towards the truth as quickly as possible. Humans are fallible, and their comfortable assumptions must be challenged. If their beliefs stand up to reasoned debate, they are strengthened, and if they don't, their downfall is deserved.

For this reason, it is especially important that even the worst of humanity can bring its beliefs out into the light of day - otherwise how can they ever be defeated? Silence them, push them into the dark corners, and they will continue to believe and persuade and spread unchallenged. Worse, your refusal to debate will be used as evidence that they are right, as the BNP have done. They use the cartoons not because of their content, but because of your reaction.

Our default position is that we restrict what people may do for the sake of good order, but make a special exception from this for speech for the above reasons. Insults do not hurt people unless they let them. It is only when speech spills over into action that the costs tilt it the other way again, but there we are not punishing the speech, only its consequences.

In another context, the Muslim demonstrators calling for violence would not have been a problem. Had we been certain the threats were not serious it could well have been counted as expression.

While there are valid reasons for limiting speech, simply causing offence is not one of them, because there are no limits to what people can find offensive. There is much about Islam that I find offensive in the same sort of way we both find racism offensive, but I don't want Muslims to censor themselves out of politeness, I want them to explain and support their views. If I'm wrong about some point, and I always accept the possibility, I want to know about it.

I suspect (and you can tell me if I'm wrong) that what you really mean is that you support free speech for good people and oppose it for bad, by which you mean people who do or do not hold similar opinions to yours. Comfortable assumptions.

But if you are serious about a general responsibility not to offend that goes with the right to free speech, I will expect you to respect our beliefs and pulp anything anyone else finds offensive, and that includes just about everything, I'm afraid.

(If you like I could argue your points about Islam being based on reason and logic - your examples aren't at all convincing - but that would take us too far off topic. Hopefully, another time.)

8:25 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Its fine to criticize Muslims and even Islam. But its not fine to insult Prophets of God Almighty."

That's your view.

Fuck Allah, Fuck Mohammed, one doesnt exist and the other is a murdering kiddy fiddler. As for that wanker Jesus, he should have been strangled at birth, the boring bearded liberal hippy.

8:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali, welcome to the real world, outside of the mosque.

9:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Ali the Muslim,

"The Biggest and most Powerful strength of Islam comes from debate. Why? Because it is foundation is based on reason and logic."

No it's not, it's based on a book written by a primitive people who had none of the scientific knowledge that we do now.

"It doesnt accept that everything came from nothing."

Neither do scientists, realists or Darwinists. Read up on your physics.

"It doesnt believe that an effect has no cause (ie that no one banged the big bang)"

No-one ever did actually "bang the big bang". Just like no-one made gravity. We don't pretend to have all the answers to the beginning of time, but we're looking for the answers and are not satisfied by a mythical explanation. Hence, based on reason and logic - unlike religion.

"It doesnt assume everything goes to nothing after death. It requests evidence for any assumption."

Except that it makes the primitive, superstitious and altogether foolish assumption that a 'God' made everything. Where is your evidence?

"It doesnt deny there is a creator?"

I do. Wholeheartedly.

"Islam is for people who THINK"

No, darling, Islam is for the brainwashed. Twat.

9:20 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali the muslim wrote:

" ...The Biggest and most Powerful strength of Islam comes from debate. Why? Because it is foundation is based on reason and logic. ..."

ROTFLMAO

9:29 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bring on a real debate is what MAC were saying from the outset
and Ali's views about balancing values is already MAC's starting point
www.globalcivility.com

10:44 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Agreed - well the BNP are trying to incite murder of muslims on religious grounds by using the cartoons as swarstikas against muslims - at this rally. They have issued death threats to the organiser and to any muslim wishing to participate

Hi.

Can you provide links giving evidence of these death threats?

Can you provide evidence that the BNP have actually *incited* murder? Why aren't the institutionally anti-BNP police involved already?

Or are you really just making all this up?

> 2) Muslims are essentially prevented from coming to debate the issues because displaying the cartoons makes it 100x more likely that any Muslim attending will be physically threatened by the very same kinds of people who have threatened the Danish cartoonists.

No, silly, it's MUSLIMS who are threatening the cartoonists, not free speech protestors. All they threaten is the status quo.

> Muslims brave enough to show up with good faith, reading newspaper articles, in support of free speech, are dead within 5 minutes of walking away from the rally.

WTF???

Give me the name of ONE Muslim who was the victim of a racist murder in the last 12 months. You can't, but I could give you a whole list of young white men to have been murdered by Muslim gangs in the same time period.

Have you been taking politics lessons from Void?

10:53 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To a2,

thankyou for you respectful post. You see , I can see the answer to your central question just by now thinking about which people to answer and which not to. Those who have decided to throw insults, I have no respect for them. How can I? That would be stupid of me. I hope you would agree with that.

That is why, if you really do want people to open up, the last to do is to insult them. This is a sure way to close the door on any dialog. I hope you agree on that too.

Islam is a balance between extremes, the middle way on everything in general. Its not against accepting critisizm, but it does not accept insults and disrespect. It views humanity as people who respect one another even though they have differences, and does not accept forceful conversions and the like. One absolute freedom Islam does give is freedom of thought. Through freedom of thought , which means also freedom of debate people can progress and elevate themselves, ie understand their errors and discover new and better paths. But if you disrespect or insult those you are trying to help or trying to debate with, do you honestly think they will want to debate with you?

You said "I suspect (and you can tell me if I'm wrong) that what you really mean is that you support free speech for good people and oppose it for bad, ..."

Thats is not really what i mean so allow me to explain. In reality there is no absolute freedom of action and there is no absolute freedom of expression. This is reality, not opinion.

So rules and laws already exist in societies world wide that curtail and restrict these freedoms. In the UK its now even risky to debate honestly because of the silly laws that are newly introduced. So since laws exist we need to ask who is making these laws and are they the right bodies to legislate? Can they legislate fairly and unbiasdly? Do they have enough knowledge to create such legislation? In secular society people are legislators (eg Mullah Blair) and these people have biases and are limited in Knowledge. In Islam (or religion in general) it is the Supreme Being (Einstien called it the Superior Spirit) that
a)Has the right to legislate for all things, since It created all things.(we can debate this also if you want).
b)Has unlimited knowledge so is able to legislate with no error.
c)Is not affected by bias or subjectivity, as all beings belong to It. So laws created by It (or Him) are fair to all.

So the balance of what to curtail and what not is perfectly made and is harmonious with everything else, since the knowledge is infinte and all encompassing. And the laws dont need to change everyday in order to hide something etc

People dont really understand religion. They have been brainwashed (by secular Mullahs) into thinking that it is evil and there is little or no good to be had from it. Citing that it causes wars. And not realising that world war 1 and 2 where not due to religion, but to secualrism and capitalism. As well as nationalism.

You and any respectful person are welcome to discuss further on my debate forum at
http://groups.msn.com/OxfordMuslims

There are many points to go through. Life is rich in knowledge and variety.

take care and again thankyou for your respectfullness.

And for those who only know to hurl insults, it shows that you have given your mind away, and as a result, handed also your self respect, and thrown it far far away. In Islam we view such people as we view barking dogs. Dogs that bark whatever you do or say. They dont know what is coming, nor what is going. They live their life on this planet for a while and after their last bark, they depart and no one misses them. If you want people to respect you, you need first to respect your selves. And to do that you need to be upright and to treat others like you want others to treat you.

Ali

11:37 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mr Anonymous about the 'Murder' of the person that changed belief.

Ok , In Islam the condition of accepting it is that if you change faith and do not repent you get killed. This is the contract, and people are not forced to become Muslim. They enter into the contract of thier own free will.

So in Islam it is not viewed as Murder. And the aim of islam is not to kill but to give life. This law acts as a deterrant to those who have accepted Islam. You see the one who accepts Islam and follows it enters Heaven and by deterring a person not to leave Islam God Almighty is trying to keep him or her to be a citizen of Paradise and not the other place.

Do you know that in some countries (eg Mullah Bush land aka US), people are actually 'Murdered' for killing others !!! But they dont say 'Murdered' they say executed and that its because they Murdered another innocent human being. So this is an issue of playing with terms. Just like freedom fighter is labelled terrorist, but not if he's bomber Harris, bombing his way through children and civilians in germany.

Ali

11:48 pm  
Anonymous Phil Hellene said...

Ali - can you not see why people find the view you are expressing that to change a personal belief (an act which injures no-one) can be considered somehow equally criminal to killing another human being quite terrifyingly abhorrent?

We used to have similar cultural attitudes in Europe, and it lead to a quite astounding level of horrific religiously motivated (catholic/protestant) intercommunal bloodshed. We largely got over it in the 18th century (give or take some horrible episodes of regression) and it makes this whole multicultural model of society possible. If the Muslim community comes round to the broad modern, secular cultural consensus that predominates in the other communities in these Isles we will be able to maintain this harmony. If not, those values will have failed and the other communities will become radicalised over generations in response we will all end up living (figuratively) in Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Bosnia or Lebanon.

The aggressively anti-secular attitudes of the Caliphate period have to be abandoned (at the very least by Muslims in the West) if we are to have peace. Religion is a personal matter here, not a political one. Honestly, everyone benefits this way.

12:47 am  
Anonymous Welsh Nat said...

Best wishes for your march, oh yes indeed to goodness.

Unfortunately I won't be there as I have a prior engagement with a sheep.

1:32 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Phill Hellene

Thanks for your reply.

You said regrding secualrism
"Honestly, everyone benefits this way. "

What about world war 1 and 2. What about hiroshima? These are all fruits of secularism. Did everyone really benefit, or are you only concerened with the UK ?

Islam is not biased to just a certain people, it cares about ALL humanity. It views secularism as an evil and that is why the caliphate was not friendly to it.

Secularism means law of the jungle. That lieing is fine. Survival of the fittest. It also leads to nationalism and the many wars that result from it. And worst of all it leads to capitalism and materialims, which essentially means greed. And we have all seen where this leads to? Greed for oil etc.

The problem is that people are not aware of the evil of the situation that they currently exist in today. This is reall brainwashing.

Ali

8:29 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ali,

Islam is flawed and you are only lying you to yourself.

You said:

Islam is a contract! with whom did abdul rahman sign the contract?

Who signed the contract for, Ali you and which other party? For sure not Allah!

This guys death is murder no matter how you view it.

Also you are the murderer as you sanction this death in the name of Allah!

WAKE UP!

11:03 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous of 11:03am

Sorry but I disagree with you.

In Islam many abortions are viewed as Murder. But the West dont see it that way. How come?

Because people who see the world in different ways dont agree on everything. One persons murder maybe another ones mercy. Can you see?

For this person to avoid the death punishment of Islam all he has to do is SAY that he repents and then move out of his country at some point and then redeclare his change of faith. He may well be able to claim asylum in the West, and the West may warmly welcome him. Because in their eyes they see him as oppressed. But in the eyes of Islam he is someone who has been lead astray and Islam worked to prevent him being mislead.

If he does decide to die as a martar then he should say on what point does he disagrees with Islam. If he says this point then people can debate with him to show him how his thinking is wrong. If he shows us that our thinking is wrong then we should change and not him. But if he becomes stubborn and doesnt reason or debate then he has only himself to blame. But this is unlikely when someone is faced with death.

Also, contracts dont have to be written. Ask the many converts to Islam (the majority of whom are woman by the way) whether they know what the penalty is for changing religion. They should all tell you it is death. This way Islam ensures that those who convert are not half hearted but fully commited to the faith. And you will find many happy to give their life a way many a time, for the sake of Islam (both men and woman). Because in Islam after life there is life and not nothing.

Ali the Muslim

11:39 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ask the many converts to Islam (the majority of whom are woman by the way) whether they know what the penalty is for changing religion. They should all tell you it is death."

thank you for confirming that Islam is actually a highly dangerous death cult.

4:25 pm  
Anonymous Rastaman said...

Islam is shit. Period. It came from a camels ass named Muhammad and has never changed. I don't hate Muslims who practice Islam. I hate Islam. Islam is a foul, evil, satanic scabby cancer on the face of good Earth and must be excised. Islam promotes the rape of children and Muslims rape children so often it barely makes the news anymore. Islam promotes the death of rape victims for being raped. It finds them to blame. Islam promotes death, death, death, death, death.
Torture and death. Rape and death. Islam hates me and I hate Islam.

6:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To ratsman and anonymous man !

How come the statistics for rape in western countries are much much higher than those in Muslim countries ? Have a think about that ?

To anonymous: You say Islam is a death cult. Its like saying that Secularism is an imprisonment cult. Do you get it?
The death penalty for leaving Islam is like the imprisonment penalty in the West. Its meant to discourage from doing wrong , not Encourage. Otherwise to you all countries are penalty cults, because they all impose penalties when people fall foul of the law.

7:39 pm  
Anonymous Rastaman said...

My god, that's the most specious argument I ever read. In the first place, the rape and violence rates are Much higher in Islamic countries, PARTICULARLY those with a mixed population, than in any western country. The "other" part of that mixed population is the one getting most of the violence done to it. For the rest of it, nearly all rapes in Islamic countries go unreported, and we all know why.

Your sloughing off the death penalty for leaving Islam as being comparable to being jailed falls a bit short, don't you think?

Your entire argument is a pack of lies. You suck. What else can be said?

8:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rastaman dude, u is made GIANT mistake in your logic man.

First you say:
"the rape and violence rates are Much higher in Islamic countries,"

Then you say:
" nearly all rapes in Islamic countries go UNREPORTED, and we all know why."

So if its unreported for the most, how can you know if its higher or lower dude??????

For me I believe I know its higher in the West because i have lived in both regions. Have you lived in both?

Wikked logic man. No wonder you are supporting a self contradictory protest.

Ali

1:28 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Ali, we had several Iranian Muslims tell us at the rally that in Iran woman are stoned to death of having sex outside of wedlock.

That does not happen here.

Nor do we kill any individual for their religous beliefs.

Do you believe that is a bad thing? In terms of human rights, should we be more like Iran, or should Iran be more like us?

8:09 pm  
Blogger Ali the Muslim said...

To thefreindlyinfidel

You should be more like IRAN.

Ali

9:50 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home