This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Muslims speak out in defence of free speech

Muslims speak out in defence of free speech - Comments

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 1 by LaurieB

Hassan,

The link isn't working. Can we get another one?

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:16:24 UTC | #928308

jel's Avatar Comment 2 by jel

Copy and paste in the address bar,or try this

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:31:09 UTC | #928360

jel's Avatar Comment 3 by jel

Free speech is very important, even more so if you don't agree with what is being said. It's very easy to support someone who thinks the same as you, it's much more difficult to defend the right of someone else to have a differing point of view but, if you demand the right to free speech then you have to support those who disagree with you.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:34:03 UTC | #928363

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 4 by Jos Gibbons

In my browser, just double-clicking it makes it work. Maybe it's one of my countless add-ons doing that; I forget what the default behaviour is in Firefox.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:53:17 UTC | #928392

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 5 by LaurieB

Got it. Thanks jel

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:03:21 UTC | #928394

aroundtown's Avatar Comment 6 by aroundtown

It is obvious that an individual should be able to speak their mind without persecution, but disgustingly, here we are in the 21st century and religious persecution continues unabated. I often here the refrain what is the harm of religion and here it is in a video right before your eyes in living color. The religiously inspired here in America won't stand up and say anything because to do so would put their religious notions on trial also. Religion is and always has been the bane of mankind, it imprisons ones ability to grow or a nation for that matter.

These despotic nations know their days are numbered, but it is with great sorrow that they will endure for a short time and be allowed to carry out these atrocities but it will not stand forever. These purveyors of lies and crimes will be remembered in the annals of a future history as the thugs and mentally challenged people that they were. This is no comfort to the presently oppressed but hopefully they will be aware that they were the beginning of the fall for these oppressors. A trickle can quickly become a flood and hopefully a tsunami will engulf these oppressors and wipe them from the face of the earth. There is no god that is going to save them.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:13:22 UTC | #928417

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 7 by Starcrash

Comment 3 by jel :

Free speech is very important, even more so if you don't agree with what is being said. It's very easy to support someone who thinks the same as you, it's much more difficult to defend the right of someone else to have a differing point of view but, if you demand the right to free speech then you have to support those who disagree with you.

Yes, that's very true. Not long ago we had several debates on this forum over the Westborough Baptist Church and its picketing of a gay funeral. There were several of us who defended their right to free speech (I say us because I was among them) and there were several who called it "hate speech" and said that it should have been illegal. I have always tried to be consistent in my treatment of others, because I never want to be called out on hypocrisy. Also, freedom of speech is very, very important to me.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so even a stopped clock isn't "always wrong" or "wrong because it's broken". A person's statements shouldn't be judged on their religion (that's ad hominem). Muslims can be right about freedom of speech as much as atheists can be, and it's nice to see that these ones are. Unfortunately, less than 6,000 views means they're right but hardly anyone knows it or cares.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 23:21:04 UTC | #928491

VrijVlinder's Avatar Comment 8 by VrijVlinder

The purpose of freedom of speech was to allow people to publicly disagree with authority without the threat of persecution. To not become a political prisoner due to your views.

I am not sure when it became acceptable even to promote hate and ignorance under the umbrella of freedom of speech and expression. Is there not a limit or a way to tell the difference between free speech and free hate speech, globally insulting speech, Specially when it is filled with obvious lies and hypocrisy?

That is definitely turning the other cheek on the double face...

However those people in what was the USSR that were diagnosed schizophrenic only because they defied authority and sent to mental hospitals, might agree it is better to let everyone talk, because the alternative could become an atrocity.

Political abuse by psychiatry to control dissidence

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:26:20 UTC | #928532

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 9 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:31:48 UTC | #928540

Ranting Socrates's Avatar Comment 10 by Ranting Socrates

I'm sorry, but this is just bull shit. What do you mean by '' Liberal Muslims''?

Islam says that apostate are to be killed-- a Muslim not following that law, is not following his religion. These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims. I'm happy they exist in the majority, but don't tell me that these are cases of good Muslims, when what they are doing is contradictory to their faith.

Them defending the apostates right to free speech, and his right to openly declare it, runs counter to their beliefs. Thank goodness they refuse to adopt such dogmatic beliefs, but don't tell me that these adults are representing true Islam.

Anyways, read Shakespeare, learn history, be science based, and try to be happy in life.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:17:59 UTC | #928549

skeelo's Avatar Comment 11 by skeelo

I thought this was okay, in the main. But the guy who says,

The persecution of people for what they say, for what they think, for how they dress, is un-Islamic and plain wrong.

spoilt it for me a bit: he's clearly deluded. Punishment for blasphemy, for example, is really very Islamic indeed.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:15:10 UTC | #928584

JeffVader67's Avatar Comment 12 by JeffVader67

Interesting to see what the opinions of the Muslim Council of Britain/ MPAC etc is.............. Oh yes it's deafening silence!!!

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:58:06 UTC | #928595

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 13 by Bobwundaye

Comment 10 These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims.

Comment 11 Punishment for blasphemy, for example, is really very Islamic indeed.

Religions have evolved, and as such have differing interpretations and ways they handle and live out their holy texts. To attack these people as bad Muslims, or to define all of Islam as intolerant because of the fundamentalists is to over simplify the idea of religion.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:59 UTC | #928612

skeelo's Avatar Comment 14 by skeelo

Comment 13 by Spiritual Atheist :

Comment 10 These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims.

Comment 11 Punishment for blasphemy, for example, is really very Islamic indeed.

Religions have evolved, and as such have differing interpretations and ways they handle and live out their holy texts. To attack these people as bad Muslims, or to define all of Islam as intolerant because of the fundamentalists is to over simplify the idea of religion.

First of all, I did not attack anyone as being 'bad Muslims' - I only said that one of the speakers in the video was deluded. He is deluded.

It is you who is over simplifying: not all religions are the same, not all have evolved to the same degree, and not all religions regard the contents of their holy books with the same level of reverence. When it comes to Islam and the toleration of blasphemy, the 'fundamentalists' are in the majority.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:19:04 UTC | #928635

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 15 by Starcrash

Comment 13 by Spiritual Atheist :

Comment 10 These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims.

Comment 11 Punishment for blasphemy, for example, is really very Islamic indeed.

Religions have evolved, and as such have differing interpretations and ways they handle and live out their holy texts. To attack these people as bad Muslims, or to define all of Islam as intolerant because of the fundamentalists is to over simplify the idea of religion.

Agreed. I'm still mystified by the idea of Christians who don't believe that the bible is literally true, but they do exist, and many of them label themselves as "liberal" Christians. "Liberal" Muslims would be the Islamic version --- Muslims who don't subscribe to a literal reading of their holy books. So they aren't speaking in violation of their faith, but rather the faith subscribed to by fundamentalists.

Basically, Ranting Socrates, you're employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. They're not "bad" or "wrong" just because they're not "true" Muslims.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:24:05 UTC | #928636

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 16 by Starcrash

Comment 14 by skeelo :

It is you who is over simplifying: not all religions are the same, not all have evolved to the same degree, and not all religions regard the contents of their holy books with the same level of reverence. When it comes to Islam and the toleration of blasphemy, the 'fundamentalists' are in the majority.

Even if the fundamentalists are in the majority (and I'm inclined to agree), to ascribe a similar quality to the entire group is prejudiced, and logically a fallacy of composition.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:29:31 UTC | #928641

skeelo's Avatar Comment 17 by skeelo

Comment 15 by Starcrash :

Agreed. I'm still mystified by the idea of Christians who don't believe that the bible is literally true, but they do exist, and many of them label themselves as "liberal" Christians. "Liberal" Muslims would be the Islamic version --- Muslims who don't subscribe to a literal reading of their holy books. So they aren't speaking in violation of their faith, but rather the faith subscribed to by fundamentalists.

Liberal Muslims that don't subscribe to a 'literal reading of their holy books' constitute a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide: what they might describe as 'their faith' would be considered apostasy by the majority.

Given this state of affairs, it would be utterly ridiculous to claim, for example, that 'Islam' is, in fact, tolerant towards blasphemy.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:39:54 UTC | #928644

skeelo's Avatar Comment 18 by skeelo

Comment 16 by Starcrash :

Even if the fundamentalists are in the majority (and I'm inclined to agree), to ascribe a similar quality to the entire group is prejudiced, and logically a fallacy of composition.

What nonsense! A minority view cannot be representative of the majority view! To say that, based on the opinions of a tiny minority, that Islam is, contrary to all the evidence, actually tolerant of blasphemy is utterly ridiculous.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:01:43 UTC | #928650

ColdThinker's Avatar Comment 19 by ColdThinker

Comment 18 by skeelo :

Comment 16 by Starcrash :

Even if the fundamentalists are in the majority (and I'm inclined to agree), to ascribe a similar quality to the entire group is prejudiced, and logically a fallacy of composition.

What nonsense! A minority view cannot be representative of the majority view! To say that, based on the opinions of a tiny minority, that Islam is, contrary to all the evidence, actually tolerant of blasphemy is utterly ridiculous.

Judged by the contents of their Holy Books, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all equally horrible. But if you're willing to accept that it's possible to be a cultural Jew or a liberal Christian, it is unfair to deny the possibility of being a liberal Muslim. Why would anyone deny this from the Muslims, even if they are the minority at the moment?

The current mainstream Judaism or Christianity have only recently evolved away from their most barbaric dogmas. This is because they have been forced to evolve under the pressure of the most enlightened, democratic, wealthiest and -- most importantly -- scientifically advanced societies. Islam has not been under such philosophical of intellectual pressure, having been a third world religion endorsed by immoral despots.

It isn't reasonable to expect all educated and enlightened muslim individuals to take a leap into atheism or apostacy.  We should accept that the progress towards reason is slow and gradual. Usually being liberal or moderate about one's religion means holding on to certain convenient and charming rituals and traditions while discreetly rejecting the violent and intolerant parts of the dogma. It works for many if not most Jews and Christians, so why wouldn't it work for Muslims too.

Just like the majority of Catholics disregard their dogmas, I can't see why you would want to discourage the Muslims trying to find their way of disregarding theirs.

 

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:14:03 UTC | #928671

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 20 by xmaseveeve

Freedom of speech has never been an absolute. It is about context as well. It is illegal to shout 'Fire' in a crowd, to cause a stampede. I see this forum as a cosy dinner party where we can talk about anything, and we discuss religion because many of the problems of the world are due to the (growing) political influence of religion.

I don't see why the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to preach hate at a funeral, but they can say what they like in their (very) little 'church'. Imagine you were burying your child and hate-filled faces are screaming evil rubbish nearby, aimed at you. That is unacceptable. But freedom of speech is crucial. Hate speech is something else, as is incitement.

Muslim peachers too often cross the line. They incite jihad, and sometimes they seem to incite rape. They know that our belief in freedom of speech will defend their right to try to destroy it. I'm very pleased that some Muslims are now wakening up to this paradox.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:24:16 UTC | #928675

skeelo's Avatar Comment 21 by skeelo

Comment 19 by ColdThinker :

Judged by the contents of their Holy Books, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all equally horrible. But if you're willing to accept that it's possible to be a cultural Jew or a liberal Christian, it is unfair to deny the possibility of being a liberal Muslim. Why would anyone deny this from the Muslims, even if they are the minority at the moment?

It is perfectly possible to be a 'liberal' Muslim: I am not denying any such possibility. Irshad Manji would fit such a description, because she has the courage to say that some of the contents of her religion's holy books is wrong. She wants to reform Islam, and is honest enough to confront its failings - I wish her luck.

It isn't reasonable to expect all educated and enlightened muslim individuals to take a leap into atheism or apostacy.  We should accept that the progress towards reason is slow and gradual. Usually being liberal or moderate about one's religion means holding on to certain convenient and charming rituals and traditions while discreetly rejecting the violent and intolerant parts of the dogma. It works for many if not most Jews and Christians, so why wouldn't it work for Muslims too.

It is hard to reject intolerant and violent parts of the dogma, if a core part of the dogma is that the dogma itself is the literal, eternal word of god. This is why meaningful reform will only come when the dogma is considered open to criticism from inside Islam and without.

Just like the majority of Catholics disregard their dogmas, I can't see why you would want to discourage the Muslims trying to find their way of disregarding theirs.

Many Catholics do indeed disregard their dogmas, by using contraception, for example. However, not many would claim that, because of this, that using contraception is the Catholic thing to do, or that to deny women the right to contraception is somehow anti-Catholic.

I would encourage Muslims to disregard their dogma as much as possible, but I am not in favour of people deluding themselves, or attempting to delude others: just saying that Islam is not a abhorrent religion does not make it so - in order for it to improve it has to change and it is highly unlikely to change unless those who want to change it actually admit that change is necessary.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:04:43 UTC | #928685

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 22 by xmaseveeve

I've just gone off David Bowie. His lawyers sent a 'cease and desist' letter to 'cracked.com', just for saying he was 'borderline creepy'. I thought that was the whole point of his career. Big girl's blouse.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:21:15 UTC | #928690

woefulb's Avatar Comment 23 by woefulb

I am always puzzled by 'liberal' religious folks who clearly disagree with their religion's tenets.

It's like saying you're a Nazi but disagree with white supremacy and hatred of the Jews. Why, then, call yourself a Nazi???

I suppose it demonstrates the power of early indoctrination.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:47:29 UTC | #928717

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 24 by ZenDruid

Comment 23 by woefulb

I am always puzzled by 'liberal' religious folks who clearly disagree with their religion's tenets.

It's like saying you're a Nazi but disagree with white supremacy and hatred of the Jews. Why, then, call yourself a Nazi???

I suppose it demonstrates the power of early indoctrination.

Either that, or social camouflage. How many Muslims are simply going through the motions so that they may keep their heads?

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:24:18 UTC | #928723

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 25 by potteryshard

Is this just one guy somewhere trying to perpetuate the myth of the reasonable Muslim?

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:51:46 UTC | #928731

raytoman's Avatar Comment 26 by raytoman

Comment 10 by Ranting Socrates

I'm sorry, but this is just bull shit. What do you mean by '' Liberal Muslims''?

Islam says that apostate are to be killed-- a Muslim not following that law, is not following his religion. >These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims. I'm happy they exist in the majority, but >don't .tell me that these are cases of good Muslims, when what they are doing is contradictory to >their faith.

Excuse me!

The Original Jewish sects of the Jewish religion believe that they can perpetrate genocide on the Palestinians since their god "gave" them the land.

The Christian Sects believe that if a man offends their god he should be killed, along with his wife and children and all of his animals. DUH!

Of course I do agree that the Muslim sects of the Jewish religion are nearly as bad but, hey, that's religion.

Been forcing us to kill each other over irrational beliefs for a hundred thousand years or more with the Jewish sects just being the most successful at it with the most brainwashed believers (about 3 million, only seperated by their differing beliefs in the roles of jesus and muhammad!

A pity there are so few normal people and we have to call ourselves (a)theists. DUH!

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:36:40 UTC | #928746

Ranting Socrates's Avatar Comment 27 by Ranting Socrates

I agree with nearly everything you have to say, I also don't think you disagreed with anything I said, so I'm not sure what you want me to excuse.

I espcially agree wit your claim that the usurption of Palestinian land could only be justified-- by those who accept the premise-- that this is ''holy'' land. As someone I'm sure you know says, you are '' just pushing an open door with me.''

Comment 26 by raytoman :

Comment 10 by Ranting Socrates

I'm sorry, but this is just bull shit. What do you mean by '' Liberal Muslims''?

Islam says that apostate are to be killed-- a Muslim not following that law, is not following his religion. >These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims. I'm happy they exist in the majority, but >don't .tell me that these are cases of good Muslims, when what they are doing is contradictory to >their faith.

Excuse me! The Original Jewish sects of the Jewish religion believe that they can perpetrate genocide on the Palestinians since their god "gave" them the land.

The Christian Sects believe that if a man offends their god he should be killed, along with his wife and children and all of his animals. DUH! Of course I do agree that the Muslim sects of the Jewish religion are nearly as bad but, hey, that's religion.

Been forcing us to kill each other over irrational beliefs for a hundred thousand years or more with the Jewish sects just being the most successful at it with the most brainwashed believers (about 3 million, only seperated by their differing beliefs in the roles of jesus and muhammad! A pity there are so few normal people and we have to call ourselves (a)theists. DUH!

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:05:53 UTC | #928766

Ranting Socrates's Avatar Comment 28 by Ranting Socrates

I think you are missing my point. According to my standards these are Muslims that are fine with me. But, their faith mandates that apostates be killed. Their view that apostates should have free speech yatta yatta, is something that their faith doesn't teach. Maybe to say they are bad people because they don't follow ever tenant is unfair, but they certainly are being unIslamic by claiming such views.

Comment 15 by Starcrash :

Comment 13 by Spiritual Atheist :

Comment 10 These are not ''Liberal Muslims'' these are bad Muslims.

Comment 11 Punishment for blasphemy, for example, is really very Islamic indeed.

Religions have evolved, and as such have differing interpretations and ways they handle and live out their holy texts. To attack these people as bad Muslims, or to define all of Islam as intolerant because of the fundamentalists is to over simplify the idea of religion.

Agreed. I'm still mystified by the idea of Christians who don't believe that the bible is literally true, but they do exist, and many of them label themselves as "liberal" Christians. "Liberal" Muslims would be the Islamic version --- Muslims who don't subscribe to a literal reading of their holy books. So they aren't speaking in violation of their faith, but rather the faith subscribed to by fundamentalists. Basically, Ranting Socrates, you're employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. They're not "bad" or "wrong" just because they're not "true" Muslims.

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:08:03 UTC | #928767

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 29 by Schrodinger's Cat

Anyone who values free spech should simply leave Islam.......the much simpler option. I agree with Ranting Socrates in #10 that 'Liberal Muslim' is an oxymoron.

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:59:27 UTC | #928793

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 30 by Bobwundaye

Comment 23 by woefulb

I am always puzzled by 'liberal' religious folks who clearly disagree with their religion's tenets.

It's like saying you're a Nazi but disagree with white supremacy and hatred of the Jews. Why, then, call yourself a Nazi???

I suppose it demonstrates the power of early indoctrination.

Your analogy could be looked at in a different light. Nazis (National Socialists) could fall under the banner of socialism, because they themselves claim to be socialists. Now, if person A claims to be a socialist, do we think it weird that he is a socialist that disagrees with Nazism?

The names we give to religions are very broad terms that cover a host of differing beliefs and manifestation of those beliefs. I think we need to be a little more careful in attacking not the broad umbrella of religion (except on points which they all hold in common, e.g. the existence of the supernatural) and focus more on the evil manifestations of it.

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:41:14 UTC | #928898