Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

Repo Man said:
Comparing a novel with ideas you find offensive to a couple having sex in public is laughable. And indicative of a very poor understanding of the concept of freedom of speech.

There may not be a First Amendment where you live, but there is where I live. If you don't like the western concept of free speech, including the freedom to offend the narrow minded, don't read western media, stay out of western countries, problem solved.
Click to expand...

Why? Becuase people doing that in a public place offends you in any way? No ones forcing anything on you right. Looking at them would be an action. Doing nothing on the other hand would be inaction.

What I find laughable is people thinking Freedom of Speech means you can just go and offend a large group of people over and over, for fun.
 
Last edited:
Arsalan said:
What nonsense cant I support?
Click to expand...

All of it.

Are you saying there arent any books critical of Islam or that attack Islam in countries with large Muslim populations? Is it my fault that you arent aware of what is going on and being published in Muslim countries? That you are unaware of Jamal-al-Din Afghani? Muhammad Abduh? Syed Ahmed Khan? Syed Ameer Ali? Maulana Muhammad Ali?
Click to expand...

Red herrings. Thanks for wasting my time looking up those individuals, which don't support your claim.

"There have been numerous books written in Muslim countries that look at Islam in a critical way and ask questions. "
 
Arsalan said:
What I find laughable is people thinking Freedom of Speech means you can just go and offend a large group of people over and over, for fun.
Click to expand...

What's even more laughable is your understanding of Freedom of Speech and your narrow-minded perception of the reality.
 
Arsalan said:
Why? Becuase people doing that in a public place offends you in any way? No ones forcing anything on you right. Looking at them would be an action. Doing nothing against them would be inaction.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm not one to get too worked up about sex in public. If I were to move someplace where it was commonplace and the norm, I think I'd adjust pretty quickly. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you books don't jump off the library shelves and force you to read them. The answer to books, movies and music that offends you is to not read, watch, or listen to them. This is never enough for censors, who don't want anyone else reading, watching, or listening to things that they (the censors) do not like.

What I find laughable is people thinking Freedom of Speech means you can just go and offend a large group of people over and over, for fun.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment means precisely that. Sticks and stones, and too bad if you don't like it. You have no right to not be offended.
 
(Q) said:
All of it.

Red herrings. Thanks for wasting my time looking up those individuals, which don't support your claim.

"There have been numerous books written in Muslim countries that look at Islam in a critical way and ask questions. "
Click to expand...

So they havent written books that were critical and demanded reform? And there havent been any books, journals, articles or tv shows in countries with large Muslim populations that were critical of Islam and or attacked Islam/Muslims in one way or another?
 
Last edited:
Repo Man said:
First off, I'm not one to get too worked up about sex in public. If I were to move someplace where it was commonplace and the norm, I think I'd adjust pretty quickly. Secondly, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you books don't jump off the library shelves and force you to read them. The answer to books, movies and music that offends you is to not read, watch, or listen to them. This is never enough for censors, who don't want anyone else reading, watching, or listening to things that they (the censors) do not like.
Click to expand...

Neither do these people jump in front of you or force you to watch them. theyre just doing their thing, whats it to you? Fact is that censorship exists. If you want your movie to be shown in a threatre, you need to submit it to the MPAA who will rate it and restrict people from watching it where necessary. If you dont submit it to the the censors at the MPAA, your movie will not be allowed to be shown.

The First Amendment means precisely that. Sticks and stones, and too bad if you don't like it. You have no right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

Kind of like a childish "ne-ner-ne-ner-ne-ner!" Doesnt matter if there isnt a right not to be offended. Doesnt mean people wont be. If someone says and or writes something extremely negative and offending about you, it is foolish to not see what the hoopla is all about. Why live ignorance of what other people are saying about you?
 
Last edited:
Arsalan said:
Ayatollah = Shia.
Click to expand...

Ayatollah = head of a state with many tens of millions of citizens, complete with a military, international intelligence apparatus (which actively tracks and murders dissidents and intellectuals the world over), tax revenues, and the self-proclaimed leader of a worldwide Islamic revolution.
 
S.A.M. said:
Which revolution???
Click to expand...

They refer to it as "The Islamic Revolution." It represents of co-option of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which was promptly consolodated by the Islamists, who spent the following decades trying to use the country as a base for a Shia-led worldwide Islamic Revolution.

That all sort of puttered out by the mid-90's, although they remain officially committed to the proposition, and still arouse lots of suspicion amongst the Arab states. But it wasn't until 9/11 that Sunnis extremists regained the leadership of international Islamic insurgency. Indeed, much of the motivation for targetting the US and staging spectacular attacks was to cement exactly such a reputation.
 
So this religious leader who is part of 10% of Muslims used his revolution and all his suppression methods to force people to act like that?
 
arsalan said:
What I find laughable is people thinking Freedom of Speech means you can just go and offend a large group of people over and over, for fun.
Click to expand...
It means exactly that, and there's nothing laughable about it.

And the limits involved are the ones involving coercion of others and public nuisance, as you mention - neither of which is involved in novel writing or novel reading.

This bizarre inability to comprehend what non-fundies find obvious and simple, was what I noticed about the Muslim reaction - the general and common and representative Muslim reaction - to Rushdie's novel.
 
iceaura said:
It means exactly that, and there's nothing laughable about it.

And the limits involved are the ones involving coercion of others and public nuisance, as you mention - neither of which is involved in novel writing or novel reading.

This bizarre inability to comprehend what non-fundies find obvious and simple, was what I noticed about the Muslim reaction - the general and common and representative Muslim reaction - to Rushdie's novel.
Click to expand...

There are more reasons that can prevent the publication of material or that can apply forced censorship than just coercion and public nuisance. Looking back at materials that are banned in certain countries or the publication of materials which is banned in, lets say, Germany, brings a couple more reasons to mind. Anyway, isnt antagonising a large group of people a public nuisance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top