world

Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban

149 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

149 Comments
Login to comment

Blasphemy is cool

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Taliban blew up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia backed that 'government'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any religion that feels is must persecute those who disagree with it, is not worthy of respect. Islam in particular. I am proud to say things that believers would consider blasphemous. People that are enraged by the mere publication of a cartoon mocking Mohamed, means that more cartoons need to be published. Mohamed should be mocked until those who are so outraged as to commit violence are so inured to the ridicule, that they wonder what the big deal was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will they support a ban on burkahs and headscarves in public schools in the west?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Children killed and maimed in suicide bombings, schoolgirls sprayed with acid, people kidnapped and executed, women barred from education, genital mutilation of children...these are some of the real blasphemies that Islam needs to address. The key words in this article are "angry mobs." Frankly, I'm not interested in anything "angry mobs" have to say. The United Nations should set up a Religous Crimes Tribunal and prosecute anyone who causes suffering in the name of god(s).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Way to go, "they" can stone to death people in Somalia ( no mention of that in the JT world section...) for a triviality but you cant draw a picture of a prophet?..... and muslims wonder why so many are suspicious, untrusting of, or flat out despise their religion..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about the lot of them gather onto a small island and begin a new life free to do what ever they want. Just rack off and let the rest of us enjoy life without your stupid ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Islamic Conference “believes that the attack on sacredly held beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols, personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights of followers of those religions,” the letter said.

This should open up a great dialogue with the non-Islamic world whose enjoyment of human rights includes freedom of speech and expression.

These Islamic committees should take a lesson from what the Catholic Church used to do with its decency boards: Condemn things that you don't want your adherents to expose themselves to, and otherwise learn to coexist with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is that not everybody will agree with the Islamic definition of blaphemy.To people who respect human rights, Sharia will never be acceptable. So we have to be watchful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What planet did these people drop in from? Can we send them back?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh this is going to go over well...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have got to be kidding me. You've got Muslims yelling in the streets of London, a non-Islamic country, calling for head to be cut off, country after country bowing down to their wants and desires.... We have already gotten the Christians under control, the Jews don't make up enough to worry about, Buddhists are cool, Hindus don't cause problems, Devil worshippers are non-existent.... Please don't agree to this ban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about calling for a ban on fatwahs for blasphemy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They can go whistle for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pakistan proposed extending the treaty against racism to require signatories to “prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.”

The key phrase is "any religion." Even the three monotheistic religions that sprang from the Middle East (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) cannot agree on what is, and what is not, "grossly abusive" or "insulting" in relation to matters held sacred by each other. Once you add in religions that believe in multiple deities the problem becomes even greater. Then, add in groups that are some countries treat as religions but that other countries do not recognize as religions (such as Scientology) and the possibilities for what might be outlawed are virtually limitless. What a joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am usually respectful to Muhammad. But when people try to force me to be through law and treaty, the urge to be disrespectful swells. The people behind this are very, very, very, extremely stupid. They will get the opposite of what they want. They should have left well enough alone. Even I am surprised with the restraint that has been shown in NOT mocking Muhammad in the west. The few times it happened were aberrations. Now watch the number of incidents rise. What complete morons!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not into this argument at all, basically because it will be corrupted by some countries and used as an excuse to cut down on freedom of expression in their own countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if Obama the people pleaser supports this...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hindus don't cause problems...

While I agree with most of what you said there, I think a lot of Indian Muslims would disagree with this blanket statement. Particularly when you consider some of the religious riots they've had there, where followers of Islam were murdered by the Hindus. They're not like the Islamic nuts, but still. Suffice it to say there are nuts in every religion. Its just Islam has more then its fair share.

How about calling for a ban on fatwahs for blasphemy?

No, there should be a fatwah on fatwahs for blasphemy and a host of other things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see. So our Muslim friends will stop criticising and mocking Judaism will they? Maybe they are having doubts about the drivel that passes doctrine in their faith?

If a person holds an irrational belief, it should not make him immune to mockery. You can believe whatever nonsense you like, but don't tell me what I can and cannot say.

The main tenet of my new religion is to mock all other religions at every opportunity. A ban on blasphemy would restrict my right to practice my religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Scrote

The main tenet of my new religion is to mock all other religions at every opportunity.

Can I be your first convert?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You will be happy to know sabiwabi that the vast majority of those people do feel the same way when discussing the holocaust, a lot of Europeans and North Americans are surprised that Germany has such laws.

When the cartoon thing exploded, many Europeans were preaching about freedom of expression while having no problems about silencing debate of the holocaust, a clear double standard.

Actually it's not a double standard, one is pretty much a fact and one is a belief and unless you are in Germany you have every right to make fun of or deny that it happened. The reason why people are harsh about silencing the debate of the holocaust is because they feel it is fact not a belief, it also deals with the deaths of millions of people, now of course there are people who believe that there religions are fact but they are not exactly provable facts like for example the holocaust. You would get the same response from people if a person was to deny that the world was a globe or said that 1+1=3 they would most likely get the same response in terms of silencing them but it is not against the law to deny such things.

The real double standard here is that they are calling for expressions of freedom of speech when it comes to Islam and other religions to be banned but not denial of the holocaust to be banned(unless of course you live in Germany). That is the double standard. Another problem is that when the Muslims went on a riot the only people rioting were Muslims and it was Muslims against fellow Muslims and Muslims against people who had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoons, not to mention the fact that it has already been proven that several of the cartoons/pictures shown around the Muslim world, specifically the pig ones(the most offensive), were created by Muslims preachers in order to purposely inflame their populations because the first time going around showing the original cartoons didn't really cause any problems and so in order to get the response they wanted they went back and created and added new ones, more offensive ones, to the originals that were printed to get that verbal/violent response.

So the idea of having blasphemy ban after it was Muslims themselves purposely trying to anger their own population with the original cartoons and when failed added new ones that were more offensive to do the trick and now to have a blasphemy ban because of that uh ya no.

Moderator: Sorry, the Holocaust is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a lot of Europeans and North Americans are surprised that Germany has such laws.

Most of Europe has such laws, not only Germany. The US and Canada does not have specific laws against it, but the result is close.

Actually it's not a double standard, one is pretty much a fact and one is a belief and unless you are in Germany you have every right to make fun of or deny that it happened.

Not at all. The cartoons were made specifically to piss off the Muslims, there was no other reason to publish them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow still on the planet pluto are we? You know the "2012" film omitted the destruction of an Islamic "holy" site just because the producers didn't want a fatwah on their head? This article is actually old old news, from around 2004~2006.

Most Islamic countries have no qualms about insulting others or blaspheming other religious beliefs that aren't theirs, so they need to understand you can't have your cake and eat it too. These rules can only be applied in their own lands, just becase they think their way is the ONLY way doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ongoing islamic push to establish shariah dominance over the world.

Of course, once such laws are in effect, they will muffle any rational cricicism of islam --- while doing nothing for the religious freedom of non-muslims in the islamic world.

And on the slippery slope we go in the name of appeasement...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir:

" I see. So our Muslim friends will stop criticising and mocking Judaism will they? "

LOL! Fat chance of that. In particular since need to look no further than to saying from Mohammed to find criticism and mocking of Jews.

Anyone who does not have his head buried in the sand knows that these blasphemy laws will be enforced in only one way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is nothing more than another confirmation to my understanding of Islam and Muslim's ideology toward the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks, but I'm gonna have to pass...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Life of Brian would have to be banned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is NEVER going to happen. Don't waste your energy getting worked up about it. Flip the nutjobs "the bird" and get on with your day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a shameful move on the part of these countries. They know the only reaon this would ever have a chance to pass is due to fear of extremist violence should it be rejected. Basically they're playing on western fears of terrorism for their own ends, all the while distancing themselves (of course) from the perps. Let's kick this into touch before it gets near the courts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What ever happened to the good old days when those who called themselves liberal denounced anything religion specific? Yet, who is behind this ultra conservative rule? Libs of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What ever happened to the good old days when those who called themselves liberal denounced anything religion specific? Yet, who is behind this ultra conservative rule? Libs of course.

Huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No one, and I mean no one, has a right, god-given or otherwise, to not be offended. Don't like what you see? Don't look. Don't like what you're reading? Put it down. Don't like what you're hearing? Walk away.

All other things being equal, I will vigorously defend anyone's right to worship whomever they wish, but I draw the line at blanket demands for something so entirely subjective and arbitary as to not be "offended."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jjunnama: if you don't understand my post, you can say so. My point is that it is libs who are backing muslims recently. Never has there ever been such protection of a religion as what we are seeing now. It is libs who are pushing us to allow Islamic schools in the US, but scream at anything Christian. It is libs who have forced Bloomberg to reverse laws in NYC that says no religious advertising on the MTA to allow Islamic groups to put up recruitment posters. It is libs that backed the Muslims against writers, artists of cartoons but applauded a painting of Jesus peeing in a pool and demanded its event be public. It is libs who cry foul when right to lifers get air time but stay silent when Muslims are basically believing in the same thing. LFRAgain has it right! No religion that none of us are part of should have the right to say what is blasphemy and what is not. We killed that in the US for the most by the 1970's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, I understand what you're saying now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

btw junnama: I'm more lib than indy.. but lately?????

Also, what happens when we finally ban smoking? Is that gonna be blasphamy too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh my montheistic god. ...a ban on blasphemy ????? Hahaahaahaaahahahahahah what a joke. Well time for me to start cartooning again. First on the list...Muhammad himself. Yeah. I think wear pumps will be appropriate. Why do these clowns feel they can control freedom of speech. They should go back to their caves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These idiots who think it is more important to go nuts over a stupid cartoon in Denmark etc..are the same fools that think it is ok to go and blow yourself up, wait for 70 plus virgins in "heaven" and consider yourself a martyr because you were able to kill as many "infidel" non-believers as possible, so we need to talk some sense to these idiot talibani and make them understand that enough is enough and that if their really is a god, he/she would not put up with all of this violence, murdering innocent men, women and children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it wouldn't work.

If these Muslim countries were to propose a world-wide ban on religious dicrimination, however, that would be more realistic, and then everyone, including the terrorists could jump on board.

Oh, wait. No, that would undermine the terrorists' basic tenet that Muslims are discriminated against worldwide, and take away their reason for fighting. They wouldn't like that. My bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then can we mock Mohamed for research purposes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hurray for Muslim word!

Executing someone for his or her religion, backed up by state laws: OK, it is not violation of human rights.

Drawing a cartoon: BUUUUH, you hurt my feelings!

Welcome to the monkey-house!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFR said it first and best: nobody has the right to not be offended.

And I've heard of delicious irony, but this is revolting:

“If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there’s nothing you can do about Islamophobia—you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds—you give an ideal platform for recruitment of suicide bombers,” he said.

If people don't stop talking about how bad Islam is . . . we'll keep blowing people up in the name of Allah.

Muslims, along with any other religious zealots that think they deserve some special respect for their beliefs, can go pound sand.

I can't believe this is even a discussion in this day and age. You're really going to strap on some dynamite because someone said something bad about an invisible man that you ask for stuff in return for favors like "honor killing", subjugation and mutilation of women, and the murder of "infidels"? Really? In 2009?

And everyone else is supposed to have some kind of reverence for this irrationality?

NO!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, this type of law is in most of the Islamic led countries, why do they need a world wide ban? From the Pacific, to the Atlantic is covered in Islamic countries. Isn't that enough?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is very similar to the us teaching creationism as truth issue. I can see it being passed unless real weight is put behind freedom of speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about a ban on religion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about a ban on religion?

even if i don't like islam and i am not a member of any religion.

i still thing that people should have the right to believe in whatever they want to for as long as they keep it to themselves.

banning religion on politic is sounded better to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Goodness, the Islamophobia on display here is troubling.

Spirits are very low at the Dearborn Kabob House. The consensus is that large numbers of Europeans, Americans and even those in the Anglo-democracies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been radicalized.

How did this happen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spirits are very low at the Dearborn Kabob House.

Do you mean La Shish? Make sure to order the puffy bread!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam brings with it always oppression in its sharia law wake. It demands free speech but then takes that of others away. An example would be the thousands of Bibles confiscated in Malaysia recently.

Islam is devoted to global jihad now and is backed primarily by Iran. This is fact.

Hezbollah, hamas, fata, and other terrorist groups are finding a good friend in Iran.

Iran is developing unchecked nuclear weapons.

It does not take much to put two and two together.

Islam is a force for much evil around the world and we see it every day. But most of us would rather not see it, so we pretend it is not there.

It IS there and head in the sand technique is dangerous.

Islam and the West are not heading toward a showdown. They are in it already. Only the West appears not to notice.

You can bet islam does.

I believe in religious freedom but I cannot support so-called religions which do not believe in same freedom.

Islam does not believe in freedom of religion unless that religion is islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hate those who speak on what they do not know like experts.. For any Muslim, insulting the prophet is more than insulting him himself or his own parents Basically, you want to insult every Muslim and don’t want them to say anything back.. Very impressive.. Your human rights stops when you step over others human rights.. or are we just some barbarian animals.. I forgot that.. and I want to clear one thing which is that we believe in Jesus as much as we believe in Mohammed, which means we will never insult him, in the contrary, we respect him as much as all the prophets Considering those who bomb themselves just let me make it clear Suicide is prohibited in Islam and those who do it are not considered Muslims and we are forbidden to pray for them It is just some divisions who do not know the real Islam who may do this So, just stop barking, read some books, know what is forbidden in Islam and what is not, come say sensible things here freely

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cool:

" For any Muslim, insulting the prophet is more than insulting him himself or his own parents Basically, you want to insult every Muslim and don’t want them to say anything back. "

Nonsense. That some people can feel insulted is the flipside of free speech. And you can "say back" what you want -- but in the case of islam, the "saying back" typically includes rioting, embassy and church burnings, and death threats.

" I want to clear one thing which is that we believe in Jesus as much as we believe in Mohammed, which means we will never insult him, in the contrary, we respect him as much as all the prophets "

O really? That must be why bombing and burning of churches is such as favourite pastime in the islamic world. (Not to mention the discriminatory status of christian instutions in the first place.)

And by the way, Christians regard Jesus not as a pre-mohammedan "prophet" but as the son of god. How do your fellow muslims "respect" that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, just stop barking, read some books, know what is forbidden in Islam and what is not, come say sensible things here freely" That statement right there is a violation in our world, but we won't hurt you for it. No, you guys stop barking and you guys start reading some books and come to realize we prefer to have a freedom of speech. I said above, you have you lands with your laws, don't leave them if you expect the world to bow to your laws as they are no more superior to ours as ours are not of yours. let me make it clear Suicide is prohibited in Islam and those who do it are not considered Muslims and we are forbidden to pray for them It is just some divisions who do not know the real Islam who may do this " Then, it may be who of you to work that issue out instead of taking away a freedom we fought to have. We don't believe in kings! As for no one insulting Jesus, you have got to be blind. how many movies in the past few years alone were depicting him and which were comedies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do they realize this means nobody can make fun of Scientology too, right?

Who decides which qualifies as religion anyways?cool

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your human rights stops when you step over others human rights.

You believe in human right too? Wow, what about get marry with a Muslim you mush submit to Islam?

This is for you, “I hate those who speak on what they do not know like experts! just stop barking, read your own books, and keep it with your self “

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would prefer that instead of banning speech, ban religion. These posts here today only proves it can not co exist with modern humanity.

I am not saying ban it, but if we are left with a choice, what is best? Only a true lib would have the best answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Goodness, the Islamophobia on display here is troubling.

technically a phobia is a fear...i don't think most of us fear islam, we just despise it...at least i do, and i'm proud of that fact

0 ( +0 / -0 )

stirfy:

technically, a phobia is an irrational fear.

And looking at 14,000+ islamic terrorist acts around the world, plus islamic initiatives to muffle free speech in the whole world like this one here, I do not think that fear of islam is irrational at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Coool "It is just some divisions who do not know the real Islam who may do this..."

And therein lies the problem. These "divisions" claim to know and speak for the real Islam. Moderate Muslims like you then start to sound weak, and become the enemy of Islam and legitimate targets of their attacks. Out of self-defense, moderate Muslims tend to fall silent.

For Muslim governments to call on the world for a ban on blasphemy sounds like an attempt to mend the internal rifts in Islam, and if possible get the radical Islamists to cooperate. Good internally, sure, but the rest of the world would be more interested in a ban on discrimination against religion, as I suggested above.

Unfortunately these "divisions" as you call them need examples of discrimination against Islam as a pretext for their fight for the spread of so-called true Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These Islamic nations want a ban on religious 'mockery'. Yet the Holy Koran, the very essence of Islam, very clearly refers to Jews and Christians as 'apes and pigs'. Is it only 'Islamophobes' who think this is outrageously hypocritical?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There has been a clear anti-Muslim attack from the mainstream media over the past decades. The publication of cartoons of Mohamed with a bomb in his turban serves no function other than to further inflame the Muslims. Although I understand how they feel and I too want an end to this anti-Muslim media campaign, I am not for a law banning "blasphemy", especially since it becomes difficult to judge what is blasphemous and what isn't, and we have to be concerned about who will determine this. However, I am much more opposed to certain laws, which currently exist, that punish people with stiff prison sentences for expressing views that contradict one particular alleged historical event, even if it is done in a respectful and intelligent manner.

Nobody is forced to believe or follow the teachings of Mohamed, but there is no reason to intentionally ridicule him in public.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why don't the Muslim nations in support of this ban do the civilized world and ban themselves from interaction with the rest of us. Feel free to go back to the 8th century. You won't be missed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should it be up to non-muslims to differentiate who is who? In 1993, I didn't hear much from the Islamic world - and I was actually there at time. It wasn't until the WTC did I hear a great many coming out saying that the so called Al Queda is NOT a Muslim group but a group of nuts. If you want us to separate you from them, it is you that needs to do the reaching out. I don't have time to read some glorified book and then have to compare it to another glorified book. If we non-muslim have it wrong or have any misunderstandings, its just as much of your fault as it is ours.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cooool up there says he hates . . . . I say learn the truth for yourself. My comment is followed by two good sites for the truth. I provide these so you may judge the truth for yourselves . . . .

Religion is just okay, IF, it does not force it itself upon others. Christianity did at some points in history past. Long past. islam has from its inception forced itself on others. And islam still does and states that non-believers are infidels. Infidels must convert to islam or else and so orders islam.

This is reality and history.

I have a copy of the koran and I continue to study it.

I do this to understand the true danger of this so-called religion and to know the enemies of freedom.

It is best to know your enemy.

I used to believe Islam was a Great Religion.

No longer can I justify this belief.

I now consider islam to be a dangerous cult.

If not, why would a leading islamist in Britain recommend the Queen convert to islam in order to avoid the poll tax that would be placed on non-believers in an islamist ruled world? This is fact. It happened recently.

To learn the truth that is filtered by the leftist media, I recommend the following sites so that you may judge for yourselves

Be my guest:

www.hotair.com

www.carolineglick.com

www.jihadwatch.org

The truth is not to be found in the liberal media therefore the thinking person is urged to find for him/herself on the internet.

Forewarned is forearmed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn`t I read this same news a couple years ago? And what does his mean:

The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.

Is this article basically just an attempt to stirr stuff up? Is there any actual substance underneath all this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, cooool, islam believes in Abraham and perhaps Jesus as prophets, but it does not in anyway consider Christianity to be the "right" religion. The koran indicates that Judaism is a false religion and furthermore indicates that one may not consider Jesus as God. To Christians, the Holy Trinity applies. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore, Jesus is worshipped as both man and God. Islam does not allow this. As the present Pope stated, islam and Christianity are at odds and are not compatible.

Coool is being misleading.

Still, there is another major difference here.

Christianity does NOT force its beliefs on you. islam does. Period.

To be honest, the religion Christianity and the cult islam both insist the non-believer will go to hell.

Christianity may teach this, but it leaves the choice to believe up to you.

islam gives you no such choice is my point.

My religious beliefs here are not the point, I am telling you to the best of my ability the major difference between Christianity and islam.

I personally believe you have the freedom to choose.

islam does not believe you have the freedom to choose.

Now you choose which is preferable.

Put aside the additional fact that islam allows for no peace with Israel. That Israel must be expunged completely from the planet. Put aside the fact that the US is just as much a hated foe of islam. Put aside the fact that islam hates the West and repeatedly says so on its television stations. Put aside the fact that there is no freedom in countries ruled by sharia/islam law.

Put aside all of the above and make the islamist happy. They like your ignorance just okay.

I just wish you to learn that islam is a real threat to your freedom.

islam has already turned the Netherlands into a dangerous place for non-islamists. Remember the director Theo van Gogh who was brutally murdered by islamists in Amsterdam? He was murdered for pointing out the truth of the submission of women under islamist rule.

Rushdie in Britain in hiding forever.

These days you can critize just about anything.

Except for islam.

You do so at your peril.

Is this the freedom we must allow islam??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

coool,

First and foremost, it isn't lost on anyone that this call for a worldwide ban seems to be coming only from Muslims. No one else seems to be suffering from this persecution complex so profound as to inspire secretive lobbying to curtail the freedoms and rights of entire populations in order to assuage their fears. Not even the Scientologists, if that can be believed. So, to borrow the parlance, what’s that all about?

As for your comments:

"For any Muslim, insulting the prophet is more than insulting him himself or his own parents . . . "

If this is true, then, dare I say it, Muslims are in desperate need of some emotional growth.

"Basically, you want to insult every Muslim and don’t want them to say anything back."

And basically, you are grossly incorrect here with your assumptions.

For one thing, no one wants to “insult every Muslim.” To claim as much is about as close to paranoid insecurity as one can get. But I certainly don’t want or need some grand religious council forbidding me from speaking negatively against Islam, particularly if I feel circumstances warrant the criticism.

For another, no one is saying that Muslims can't say anything back. You can say anything you want in response to perceived insults. Knock yourself out. What I’m saying is that Muslims cannot put a gag order on the entire planet for something so vague and arbitrary as "criticizing a religion." What exactly constitutes “mockery” or “blasphemy,” gross or otherwise, in your opinion? After all, one person’s insult is another person’s simple observation, and vice-a-versa.

If I were to say, “Mohammad was a wife-beating, loan shark with a gift for gab. Oh, yeah, and he probably was a terrorist,” I might see how you’d take offense.

But if I said, “Mohammad was no prophet and hardly extraordinary. Rather, he was just an ordinary man caught up in extraordinary times, who managed to become a key historical figure through the whims of timing and coincidence.”

Would you take offense at that? Some Muslims have. Deep offense.

And if you do take offense, what would be my punishment be under this proposed "thought and expression" law? A monetary fine? Imprisonment? Corporal punishment? Death? Who determines this? You? Me? Anonymous religion police?

The permutations by which this imagined law could be used and abused are endless, a point borne out throughout history. The Spanish Inquisition is just one such instance that comes to mind. The Taliban’s destructive rampage through Afghanistan is another.

Which brings me to my final point regarding a thinly veiled suggestion being made both here and in the overall world Muslim community, namely the subtext that Muslim are somehow being cripplingly oppressed.

With 1.5 billion believers in 180 countries comprising 19% of all the world’s religious adherents, Islam and its believers are a far cry from being oppressed, even by liberal interpretations. If insults against Islam were resulting in religion-based genocides on par with The Crusades or what’s happening right now in the Sudan or Rwanda, then there might be justification for some sort of worldwide intervention, but the truth is that Islam is doing just fine in the world as the second largest religion. In fact, by most accounts, it’s thriving. So any claims that a worldwide prohibition on criticizing religion is in direct response to overwhelming persecution are dishonest at best.

You, as do we all, have a right to life, liberty, and freedom to worship (or not worship, if one so chooses). But you most certainly do NOT deserve or possess any special consideration to not have your feelings hurt; That’s a right reserved solely for small children too emotionally tender to handle certain truths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doesn't more suicide bombers = less suicide bombers??? Once you've blown your load, there is one less, right???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi,

"However, I am much more opposed to certain laws, which currently exist, that punish people with stiff prison sentences for expressing views that contradict one particular alleged historical event, even if it is done in a respectful and intelligent manner."

Then you should take up your opposition with the specific Western European nation that enacted that law, rather than derailing this discussion with an unrelated matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There has been a clear anti-Muslim attack from the mainstream media over the past decades.

This is ludicrous. The mainstream media, like the rest of us, has been bending over backwards in order to differentiate between the sort of terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, the Madrid, London, Bali, Mumbai et al bombings and mainstream Islam. The Danish cartoons were an extremely rare case, that's why it's just about the only example Muslims can cite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam needs more tolerance. Blasphemy is the exact opposite of what should be regulated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For any Muslim, insulting the prophet is more than insulting him himself or his own parents Basically, you want to insult every Muslim and don’t want them to say anything back.. Very impressive.. Your human rights stops when you step over others human rights

To not be offended by others is not a human right.

I find the very tenets of Islam to be extremely offensive. But, in light of as much good it would do the world, I still don't call for its eradication.

I, like any rational person, just insist that Muslims understand - and respect - that their religion is ridiculous and offensive to many and, as it is, has no place in an enlightened society.

Welcome to the 21st century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is ludicrous. The mainstream media, like the rest of us, has been bending over backwards in order to differentiate between the sort of terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, the Madrid, London, Bali, Mumbai et al bombings and mainstream Islam. The Danish cartoons were an extremely rare case, that's why it's just about the only example Muslims can cite.

Bending over backwards is right. And after the pathetic response to those cartoons, publishers have been running in fear ever since. Either fearing violence against them and their families for having the temerity to publish something like a cartoon, or fearing violence against others for the same offense. I believe, that every government around the world should make it mandatory that every publisher publish something "anti-islamic" at least once a year, as a public service. They can publish pro islamic stuff too, but this outrageous overreaction has got to stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's called freedom of speech. No religious prig is going to tell me what I can or can not say, write or draw. Same for the university snobs and the political hyprocrites.

"I find the very tenets of Islam to be extremely offensive. But, in light of as much good it would do the world, I still don't call for its eradication.

I, like any rational person, just insist that Muslims understand - and respect - that their religion is ridiculous and offensive to many and, as it is, has no place in an enlightened society."

Very well said. I'll agree wholeheartedly and defend your right to say so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cults need only be considered dangerous when they use violence or force their dubious beliefs on others. islam is such a cult. It long ago passed the danger point when it began terrorist activities. It passed another danger point when it found an organizational home in Iran, a non Arab country, but one managing to establish it hegemony in the middle-east nevertheless.

When islamist honor killings are increasing in both the US and Canada it is time to put a stop to this cult`s dangerous practices.

islamists must at least be forced to lay down their arms wherever they are.

If they will not lay down arms then the only answer is the force of conventional warfare. islam cannot stand against this, for it favors terrorism and the slow blood letting we find in the middle-east.

I daresay you would dislike islam if you happened to live in Israel whether you are a Jew or not. An old lady sitting on her balcony enjoying her morning coffee and wham! a missile greets her from the hezbollah.

Many Israeli governments have made concessions in land to the palestinians. Only to find the missiles and rockets coming closer. There can be no peace in the middle east until islam lays down its weapons or is forced to lay them down.

But again, make no mistake, this is no longer some foreign problem of little concern to you.

When a shopper in an American mall is assaulted by an outraged islamist employee who proceeds to rip the crucifix from the shopper`s neck, it is time to wake up. This actually happened.

When Kyoto University establishes a falal food corner for saudi students it is time to wake up. Where is the Hebrew food corner? The vegetarian food corner? NA.

islamists exploit the freedom and "diversity" of the West and other democratic nations to their delight.

Malaysia is a lost cause.

Indonesia is close behind. Bali bombings anyone?

And add the Phillipines to that number. Many islands are for all intents and purposed already under islamist control.

Again, I hammer home the truth that this is no movie. This is real life.

Ask Daniel Pearl and many others.

Do Buddhists cut your head off for disagreeing with them?

No.

Athiests?

No.

Agnostics?

No.

Christians?

No.

Baptists?

No.

Methodists?

No.

Jews?

No and why the resurgence in anti-Semitism, I ask? What have these people done to be harrassed constantly through the centuries? The UN itself is largely anti-Semitic in nature.

Things will only improve when people of good will who value freedom realize the danger of islam and put a stop to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion, if you to ban people from disagreeing with you or your beliefs then you obviously aren't very confident about what you believe in which suggests that you are somewhat blasphemous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ashika1009 -

I used to believe Islam was a Great Religion.

No longer can I justify this belief.

I now consider islam to be a dangerous cult.

Cults need only be considered dangerous when they use violence or force their dubious beliefs on others. islam is such a cult.

The popular, derogatory sense of the term (cult) has no currency in academic studies of religions, where "cults" are subsumed under the neutral label of "new religious movement", while academic sociology has partly adopted the popular meaning of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

0 ( +0 / -0 )

even if i don't like islam and i am not a member of any religion.

i still thing that people should have the right to believe in whatever they want to for as long as they keep it to themselves.

And therein lies the problem. People have the right to believe whatever they wish, as long as they keep it to themselves - which they don't! The believers are encouraged to 'spread the word' and so I get approached each morning at the bus stop by the Jehovah's, once a month or so the Mormons pedal by, the Catholics and the Pope are always issuing some nonesense.

Goodness, the Islamophobia on display here is troubling.

Well, you see Prof the problem is that, at least in the last century or so, when the Jehovah's, Catholics or snake handlers approach me, they don't usually have AK-47's or twenty sticks of dynamite strapped to their torso. The old ways of 'convert them or kill them' that now seem to be the mantra of much of the islamic world have in the west gone the way of dungeons and beheadings. Unfortunately the lines between extremists and your run-of-the-mill muslim seem to be somewhat muddy.

I've often quoted this, but it was Napoleon who said that religion was invented by the rich to keep the poor from killing them. Think about it. Religion was always the way for a very few to control the many. Kings and Emperors would use the belief in religion, and the fear of it, to keep their subject in line and extort money from them. One just has to look at the Catholic church today to see this practice still in existance. And thousands of years later we still don't get the joke. We laugh at the ancient Greeks and Romans for their belief in multiple gods and goddesses, but yet think nothing of going to church/temple/mosque and doing the exact same thing that we laugh about. And the collection plate comes round, doesn't it? Our fear of the finality of death and the need for something of hope to cling to in life keeps us hopelessly shackled to ancient beliefs born of an earlier age when the world was more of a mystery.

If the President signs such a thing it would be pandering to this hocus pocus. Are they really going to lock up some cartoonist in Ohio for drawing a disparaging cartoon of Allah?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the article: “Religions as such do not have rights—it’s people who have rights.”

This is an interesting statement. In Western countries, companies have rights as if they were people. If we are consistent, either religious should be considered as having rights like companies do, or companies should have no rights, only the owners and workers within a company. Just an interesting thought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All freedom-loving people should be utterly dismayed by this movement for a "blasphemy treaty", and Japanese people in particular should be disgusted.

In 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses" was stabbed to death, in Japan, by a Muslim who was obeying the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini. The fatwa was issued for all those involved in the creation or dissemination of "The Satanic Verses".

The West's pathetic reaction to the fatwa and the fanatics who attacked bookstores, blew themselves up, and otherwise engaged in mob violence during the Satanic Verses controversy established for Islamists that they could huff and puff and threaten violence and get away with it. He wasn't president at the time, but Jimmy Carter's reaction to the fatwa is a good example of everything wrong with appeasement. It was the wrong road to go down, and we're perhaps finally seeing that now. We regressed, not progressed. The Founding Fathers of the USA showed less deference to religion than the Jimmy Carters of this world, and were they with us now, certainly wouldn't capitulate to demands for a "blasphemy treaty".

I'm not saying that belligerence is the better way of dealing with it. The better way of dealing with it is politely but firmly explaining that the West values freedom to argue and debate far above deferring to religious sentiment. End of. If you don't like it, too bad. We're not for turning.

Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought. - Graham Greene.

All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NO, NO and NO! I am not a believer and don't care if people publish pictures of Mahammed on the carpper. You do not get to say what goes in my country as we protect free speech. If you want to issue fatwas calling for the death of people who defame Islam go right ahead in your country. Muslims do not run the world and we will not submit to demands that limit our freedoms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits:

" This should open up a great dialogue with the non-Islamic world whose enjoyment of human rights includes freedom of speech and expression. "

Dont bet on that. More likely the UN will cave and grant islam its superior status, and Western countries will gradually follow.

(As they already are, seeing how the Danish cartoon censorship is applied in reality, and "hate speech" laws are slowly tested in e.g. the UK (which of course are never applied to the hate speech emanating from mosques and various imams and mullahs).

If the West continues down this road, well all end up under the burkha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about a ban on religion instead?

Such voodoo and belief in fairy tales will be humanity's undoing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's get it over with and pass a blasphemy ban... the Taliban should be the first ones to be prosecuted for destroying ancient Buddhist sculptures carved into mountain cliffs. Then we'll repeal the ban and once again enjoy our freedom of speech no matter how stupidly outrageous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ban anyone who bans anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Other than not blaspheming, an admirable tenant of Islam is charity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the West continues down this road, well all end up under the burkha.

Nah. Pilgrims to Mecca will be wearing mouse ears before that day comes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I kind of like the term "Islamaphobia". It shows that islam is, in reality, an advanced state of psychosis. There is a cure for "islamitis".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This story omits some important quotes I believe. Here's a more accurate account:

http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/2009/11/muslims-seek-international-blasphemy-ban.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Although i can completely see where many of these feelings and arguments are coming from. They are bordering on extremists rants on the other extremity. First of all most of the rubbish you see these days by so called Muslims is actually contradictory to the teachings in the first place! It comes form a combinations of factors, including a lack of proper understanding of the teachings (they are complex and context sensitive etc). On top of this, as always, most of these are simply sheep that are being used to higher up people to do there bidding and further there own agenda. On the aspect of people being able to ridicule things that are very well known to be dear and close to the hearts of a large part of the world. Is it not fair to say that we as adults and part of the human race, should have more sense, respect and ultimately accountability for what yo know will result from such actions? I am sure they, or any other people, have no problem with you debating/opening sensible and respectable dialogs with them on any issues of there practices. Would that not be more sensible? Something else to take into consideration is that we give protection and respect to other things in society and life, and lets face it many of these things did not do anything substantially worthwhile. And no matter what you may think of such religious figures, if you study history, they bought about a lot of positive change and gave us much of what we have today. There is far too much arguing and time wasting spent on things upon which we all differ. Is it not about time we stopped inciting one anther and looked at solidifying the goodness we share and common values, that can restore our ethics and good values? May be these authors or cartoonists can better place themselves to try and look into some of the real injustices that are happening around this world currently. Stop stirring trouble and start being a positive solution instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A ban like this might fly in Europe, but not in North America.

Asia will just ignore it.

Frankly, if I were a Muslim delegate to the UN, I would work on stopping Sunnis and Shias from murdering each other in cold blood.

Those of us outside the cult are all too aware of what the so-called prophet's endgame was...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So say your interpretation, and others will come out with different ones. At the end neither can prove anything for certain. What on earth does it achieve for mankind? Many of them look at our values and society and ridicule it. And in many ways it is true, but then we see it with different eyes. Who cares. If it works for you and there way works for them, great! But why point fingers at each other or try and force each others values on one another? I just find all this very hypocritical and without a worthwhile objective.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jamydodge I think your point seems to be that whether you agree with Islam and it's teaching, or whether they agree with the rest of the world, why try to force these values on each other? Live and let live so to speak. But clearly you can see that Islam is not content with this. While it is unfortunate that the non-muslim world confuses the actions of the extremists with mainstream Islam if you will, the overwhelming violence and inability of these extremists to co-exist with anyone else precludes this living in peace. And the lines between extremist and 'mainstream' are still murky in the eyes of most.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So...Now muslims get to tell every other human on earth how to talk....oh ok.

Not gonna happen just try to enforce it.

BTW Muslims think about this....how many buddist are there. Now when you say buddist what do most people in none buddist countries think. Buddist monks, temples, peaceful folk them buddist.

Now if i say Islam or Muslim. See.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about a ban on religion instead?

Such voodoo and belief in fairy tales will be humanity's undoing.

Oh yea cause we've all seen what logic, peace, love, and general goodness came from the Soviet Union.

BTW why are so many atheist such arrogant people. I wont tell you what not to believe dont tell me or mine either cool? cool.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of Europe has such laws, not only Germany. The US and Canada does not have specific laws against it, but the result is close.

Yes it appears so, my mistake and they are dumb for having such laws especially in this day and age. No the result isn't really close in my opinion in US or Canada, insulting or making fun of a religion doesn't incite violence, the Muslims rioting over such insults wouldn't fit the bill when it came to inciting violence. Inciting violence would be if you were to tell people to openly harm another.

Not at all. The cartoons were made specifically to piss off the Muslims, there was no other reason to publish them.

No the cartoons were made as a form of protest against those trying to limit freedom of speech and expression. It is the same reason why the creators of South Park created the episodes Cartoon wars part 1 and part 2. This is actually one of the quotes of the editors from that danish news paper

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...] he cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

If you honestly believe the only reason why they made those cartoons was to anger the Muslim population you are sorely mistaken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also the South Park episodes Cartoon wars part 1 and part 2 deal specifically with Muhammad issue, it is the main point of the episode.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about an infidel ban?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Belesarius> I agree, a ban on religion would be a great start, although somewhat impossible. However, we should criticize ALL religion, not single out any one.

I disagree with you saying atheists are "such arrogant people". Remember, this is the Internet where EVERYBODY thinks they are right and arrogance freely walks among all those with labels on themselves!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you honestly believe the only reason why they made those cartoons was to anger the Muslim population you are sorely mistaken.

I don't think so, but that is just my opinion. Anyway, I don't expect the editor to come out and say that he just wanted to piss them off.

No the cartoons were made as a form of protest against those trying to limit freedom of speech and expression. It is the same reason why the creators of South Park created the episodes Cartoon wars part 1 and part 2.

But did you notice that there are no cartoons (in Europe) or South Park episode protesting the laws that prevent an honest debate of that one historical event.

Moderator: Please do not be so obsessed with the Holocaust. That is not what this story is about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But did you notice that there are no cartoons (in Europe) or South Park episode protesting the laws that prevent an honest debate of that one historical event.

We get it, sabiwabi. You're a Holocaust denier.

Now what are your thoughts on this issue?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But did you notice that there are no cartoons (in Europe) or South Park episode protesting the laws that prevent an honest debate of that one historical event.

That is because the issue that was being raised by Muslims was about the cartoons and not about holocaust as a result the journalists and south park is going to focus on the issue Muslims are raising.

Moderator: Readers, the Holocaust is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd agree to a ban on Stupidity. Sorry Sabi and the rest of the islamist movement. It's not an entire call to eradicate your religion. Just the stupid ones. That should make some space on this planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow! Recognizing symbolism. Wow! I guess the US, or specifically certain people in the US, might be in ahurry to cover up where they have not allowed freedom of speech, especially where symbolism is concerned. I think the cartoon incident only identified the problem to the Muslims. The Christians had already taken a lot of the heat and slack of thrown blasphemy, making it easier for the Muslims to recognize the danger. Its not about the argument of freedom of speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're missing the point illsayit. What constitutes as "blasphemy" depends on what the religion itself considers it to be... which pretty much means that if they say their offended and its blasphemous to their own personal ideology to tie your shoe in a double knot, then according to this so called resolution you'll be in trouble because you tied your shoe in a double knot because you wanted to and you don't see it as a blasphemous action.

Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism has constantly been assaulted by perception of blasphemy all over the world, but you know what? They can say they feel offended, but they never force others to not say or do anything negative or criticiziing to their religous ideology. This is what the Islamic nations pushing this resolution are trying to do, because it will effectively make you a bad person for criticizing another persons beliefs if they consider it to be blaspemous. Think about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is scary; of course they may be opening themselves to a bit of push back. If this were to pass then western nations could simply seek to limit ideas in the same manner that restrict any of the natural rights of man, and thus ban Islam all together as it keeps women as second class citizens and condones persecution of non-Muslims via religious justifications.

I, however, do not see this passing at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam has the weakest logics and therefore its followers feel the most vulnerable. Some of their beliefs are so funny they cant risk them even be mentioned!No wonder they want a ban! They would also ban if others just let people know what the teachings are!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There already is words that are banned in the US. Maybe not called blasphemy, but the restriction of speech. We already are past that freedom point, mostly. By making a ban I agree it points to restriction. I dont agree with the ban, but I dont see the Muslim world as the problem as more the door that is opening the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nedinjapan: I agree. Why would anyone be so against criticism unless they are aware of the weaknesses themselves? Any religion that is afraid of being examined, afraid of debate, afraid of someone disagreeing or finding fault with it, is a religion filled with doubt. By asking for this ban, they are just making themselves sound more like a cult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if that same "treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery" that they want to push on the UN would include religious symbols and beliefs in the muslim world? Does that mean churches and synagogues would be allowed in Saudi Arabia? That the Bahmyan buddha statues be recreated in Afghanistan?

On second thought, I don´t wonder...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would anyone be so against criticism unless they are aware of the weaknesses themselves? Any religion that is afraid of being examined, afraid of debate, afraid of someone disagreeing or finding fault with it, is a religion filled with doubt. By asking for this ban, they are just making themselves sound more like a cult.

That's an interesting point. I agree to a certain extent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They've been trying to pass something like this for years. And it looks like they're still at it...

you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds

No, it doesn't work that way. Or at least the way Butt wants it to work, which is probably discriminatory in itself as many commentators have noted. Why should we agree to not criticize Islam, until the followers of Islam will not criticize the Christians and atheists and all it's dissenters.

(that being said, Muhammed was a kind cat lover and I don't he would approve some of the things people do for "him". ditto for christ and others who have their images hijacked for a cult. )

There has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others

Apparently the Islam countries don't know about the Streisand effect or the Internet yet. Take a example of how it works in America:

John publishes a racist sexist blog blasting the government, the jews, buddhists, islam, atheism, redheads and canadians, whatever. John is freely ridiculed by his fellow man and nobody takes him seriously. Problem solved.

John publishes some forbidden things such as the encryption keys for some DRM system or incriminating photos. Corporations and/or governments try to censor John. Information gets RTd and topic is trending on twitter in less than an hour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The hypocrisy of this is off the scale; Islam wants to be able to punish people who blaspheme against them, whereas anti-semitism is openly practised throughout the muslim world. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a spectacularly crass forgery detailing how the Jews were supposedly planning to take over the world, is taught to children in schools as if it were true. It's as if we in the west were teaching our children Mein Kampf. The world - or the sensible part of it - has fought hard for democracy and freedom of speech so this proposal should not be taken seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jonswan quote "hypocrisy... anti-semitism is openly practised throughout the muslim world"

Anti-semitism is fine in this context and not a problem; their proposal is a 'blasphemy' ban. The proposal is not anti-discrimination.

It is for legal protection against attacks on religious symbols only. Not on particular races or even on the actual existence/being of God/Allah/Jehovah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems your forgetting the old sayings Nandakandamanda. Give an inch they take a mile. And blasphemy goes a lot further than religous symbols. Its opening up a can of worms that you really don't want to go into. Only after ALL the bad things emptied out did they find only one good thing at the bottom of pandora's box. This may not be so fortunate if approved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honest Dictator, thanks for the follow-up. What I wanted to say, for the third time in these comments, is that such a ban will not cover what is really important. You are right. What is unsaid is the problem, and the devil is in the detail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I recommend people interested in this topic have a look at what happened to Dieudonne. He was one of France's top comedians. For years he was poking fun at many different people, including Muslims, and nothing happened. But one day, he made a sketch of an Israeli settler. Suddenly, all hell broke loose, he was fined and was no longer able to work in France. It seems freedom of expression is not for everyone. I would hope freedom of expression laws would be more consistent and fair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suddenly, all hell broke loose, he was fined and was no longer able to work in France.

Ummm...that is not true. The man was cleared of all charges. Read much?

Anyway, I am pretty sure this question is about blasphemy against Muslims. Any particular reason you are obsessing about Jews and the Holocaust so much? It seems the only way you can discuss any subject is by bringing Jews or the Holocaust into it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems freedom of expression is not for everyone. I would hope freedom of expression laws would be more consistent and fair.

sort of agree on the freedom of expression point, but he didn't get kill right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I completely agree with my brother muslims.

As a committed member of the 'Church of the flying spaghetti Monster' ... a 'Pastafarian' if you will... I am sick of people telling me that my invisble, untouchable, inaudible, unknowable, deity is just a made-up story. That really hurts me and members of my faith.

circling the solar system at the exact opposite side of the earth to the sun, the FSM abides in his giant tea-pot unwatched by man. To say otherwise is BLASPHEMY. I don't need scientifc proofs... they are 'just theories' which in my logic means that whatever I say is just as valid.

An end to blasphemy please... blessed by the pasta which binds us. Go in his delicious name.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems the only way you can discuss any subject is by bringing Jews or the Holocaust into it.

Notice that I did not include these in a recent discussion on the flu.

But in this thread, it is relevant. In Europe, you can make fun of all things or groups of people, except the Holocaust, Jews, or Israelis. As I stated in my last post: I would hope freedom of expression laws would be more consistent and fair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is relevant. In Europe, you can make fun of all things or groups of people, except the Holocaust, Jews, or Israelis.

you can actuary, but someone will sue you and you get to pay "fine" for what you said.

what will happen if you publicly make fun of anything relate to islam? ask Theo Van Gogh. well, he dead. he was stabbed to dead in public by... you know it.

if you think make fun of any religion is wrong, then sue them, not kill them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suddenly, all hell broke loose, he was fined and was no longer able to work in France.

Ummm...that is not true. The man was cleared of all charges. Read much?

Yes, I read more than you, it seems. Dieudonne has been in court over 20 times, and fined several times. Most charges have eventually been cleared, but he has had a recent fine of 10,000 Euros. If you have proof of this fine also being dropped, I'd like to see it. Anyway, even your beloved Wikipedia has a list of fines he's had to pay.

what will happen if you publicly make fun of anything relate to islam? ask Theo Van Gogh. well, he dead

Yeah, but I wonder WHY he dead. It might have to do with the movie May 6th, which he was working on. That movie was not about Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi at 07:42 PM JST - 24th November

Suddenly, all hell broke loose, he was fined and was no longer able to work in France.

Ummm...that is not true. The man was cleared of all charges. Read much?

Yes, I read more than you, it seems. Dieudonne has been in court over 20 times, and fined several times. Most charges have eventually been cleared, but he has had a recent fine of 10,000 Euros. If you have proof of this fine also being dropped, I'd like to see it. Anyway, even your beloved Wikipedia has a list of fines he's had to pay.

what will happen if you publicly make fun of anything relate to islam? ask Theo Van Gogh. well, he dead

Yeah, but I wonder WHY he dead. It might have to do with the movie May 6th, which he was working on. That movie was not about Islam.

Or one could just read the radical Muslim note "pinned" to his body by the knife that killed him. He was killed for his remarks on the "peaceful" religion of Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Belesarius:

BTW why are so many atheist such arrogant people. I wont tell you what not to believe dont tell me or mine either cool? cool.

Quite true, but see my earlier posting. I'm not sure about the arrogance part of atheists. But the 'I won't tell you what to believe and you don't tell me - cool?' part is, well, not cool and rubbish. I've never had an atheist come to my house and knock on the door, or approach me on the street to espouse their views. I have had Mormons, Jahovah's Witnesses and a handful of other christian religions try to talk to me or give me literature, knock on my door, etc. History of full of cases of religion being forced upon the common people, or their rights being stripped if they were non-believers. Ever heard of the inquisition? History is littered with wars, murders and misery all based on enforcing religious beliefs. Islam is much the same.

So your idea is great if those who choose to believe would practice it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But in this thread, it is relevant. In Europe, you can make fun of all things or groups of people, except the Holocaust, Jews, or Israelis. As I stated in my last post: I would hope freedom of expression laws would be more consistent and fair.

Here in the States we make fun of everyone on an equal basis. One of my best friends is Jewish and he tells many great jokes knocking his religion. You have more of a chance of getting the crap kicked out of you in a bar for insulting someone's horrible mullet than you do getting in trouble for insulting anyone's religious beliefs. Normal humans have a sense of humor, those without are just scary and have psychological problems and inferiority complexes that need serious counseling. Lighten up. How can you have fun when you're worried about trying to follow the tenants of some outdated religion that is interpreted a thousand different ways? And why would you want to subject yourself to this torture? Just what if the after-life is a bunch of tosh and you spent your life in the torments of a burkha?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone else see the advertisement while looking at this page for the International Muslim Matrimonial site? I'm pretty sure they are going to stone and beat that woman for showing her face in public and smiling, no less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Europe, you can make fun of all things or groups of people, except the Holocaust, Jews, or Israelis.

That is not true exactly. All of these things are on a case by case basis. You make sweeping generalizations, but these are not true. There was even a musical about the Nazis in Germany recently. As I mentioned, and you finally admitted, Dieudonne charges have been cleared. Again, case by case. That is how all charges of racism should be dealt with.

Dieudonne has been in court over 20 times, and fined several times.

Not for the incident to which you referred. As I wrote, he was cleared of the charges. I am not going to discuss Twenty times because, again, that is not what this article is about. My point was merely that you were mistaken.

Yes, I read more than you, it seems.

Well, then it seems that you misrepresented what you read as he was cleared of the charges in that incident and, as you now have admitted, others as well. Why is it that you must always attempt to bend reality to suit your argument? Politically charged words always have the chance of getting the person in trouble. Look at the two idiot announcers that spoke ignorantly about the Iranian born NBA basketball player. They got in hot water too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or one could just read the radical Muslim note "pinned" to his body by the knife that killed him.

Ever hear of false-flags?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ever hear of false-flags?

Yes, you falsely bring them up a lot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or one could just read the radical Muslim note "pinned" to his body by the knife that killed him. He was killed for his remarks on the "peaceful" religion of Islam.

Just to give you one example, do you remember the anthrax letters that were sent around 9/11. The writing was meant to make us believe that it was sent by Muslims, but now we know where the anthrax came from and we know it was not sent by Muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The writing was meant to make us believe that it was sent by Muslims,

Unsurprisingly, incorrect again. 'Muslims' have never been listed as suspects or persons of interest in FBI investigations. The writing might have made you believe it was sent by Muslims. However, nobody suggested that except for you. The person to whom JHansen referred was a Muslim however. However, rather than focusing on his religion, I think it is more appropriate to point out he was a nut and that is why he killed van Gogh.

Bottom line, false claims of false flags have nothing to do with the discussion of Muslim countries seeking blasphemy bans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi:

" But in this thread, it is relevant. In Europe, you can make fun of all things or groups of people, except the Holocaust, Jews, or Israelis. "

You can repeat this lie, but it does not make it true. Jews can and are made fun of, including pretty disgusting antisemitic cartoons regularly published e.g. in Norwegian papers, without much reaction except some soft protests from Jewish groups.

Those who dare to cartoon or criticize islam, on the other hand, are faced with serious and real death threats very quickly. Ask the Danish cartoonists, Theo van Gogh, or Robert Redeker about that.

Denying the holocaust is illegal in Germany, but that is routed in the particular history of the country.

The islamic initiative for anti-blasphemy laws is meant to muffle criticism of islam only, and you know that very well. The chance that non-muslims could use those laws to protest discrimination in muslim countries is zero.

Stop trying to fool us, please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unsurprisingly, incorrect again. 'Muslims' have never been listed as suspects or persons of interest in FBI investigations.

And your point is? How does your response demonstrate that I am incorrect. The anthrax note was meant to make us believe that it was sent by Muslims ("Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great.". That it failed to convince the FBI is another matter.

As for Gogh's death, you might be right, it might just happen to be a coincidence that he was murdered just when he was working on a movie about the Mossad involvement in the murder of a politician.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And your point is?

My point is simple. It was not a false flag.

The anthrax note was meant to make us believe that it was sent by Muslims.

You have no idea what the note was meant to make us believe. The person that sent it was a nut. Nuts generally don't make much sense.

That it failed to convince the FBI is another matter.

No, that is the point. It failed to convince anyone of anything except that the sender was a nut.

it might just happen to be a coincidence that he was murdered just when he was working on a movie about the Mossad involvement in the murder of a politician

Again, unsurprisingly, incorrect. From where do you get your fantasies? He had two unfinished movies and neither was about the Mossad. In addition, you seem to be forgetting that they caught his killer. He was a Muslim however. However, rather than focusing on his religion, I think it is more appropriate to point out he was a nut and that is why he killed van Gogh.

Again, your attempts to inject fantasies about false flags and incorrect information have nothing to do with discussion of Muslim countries seeking blasphemy bans.

Moderator: All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sabiwabi

Yeah, but I wonder WHY he dead. It might have to do with the movie May 6th, which he was working on. That movie was not about Islam.

you still wonder "WHY"? ok this is some info for your ignorance.

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in 2 November 2004, Bouyeri then cut his throat nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso. one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note ( http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/312 ) threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra. The murder of Theo Van Gogh bears similarities to the fates of 7th century poets Abu 'Afak, Asma bint Marwan and Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who were all murdered after having written critically about Muhammad.

Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon several weeks before the murder in which he called Theo van Gogh "a 'criminal bastard' and beseech[ed] Allah to visit an incurable disease upon the filmmaker."

still wonder why he dead? still wonder why people don't like muslim way of force express their freedom upon us?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if something is decreed to be beyond criticism then it would rather suggest that without protection it wouldn't be able to stand up to criticism

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This seems to be a case of Islamic leaders hoping to "protect" their religion by making it a punishable offense to criticize Islam. Losing followers means losing power and, like other religions, they are afraid of that. It is offensive to think that such a "blasphemy ban" could make it to the U.N. for debate. How many have been murdered throughout history for this so-called sin? It is shocking, ridiculous and it still happens in the world of Islam. Let's hope the evolution and enlightenment of the human race continues in a positive direction. We are learning, aren't we? Surely such a ban would fly in the face of the U.N. charter of protecting free speech. As technology and comunication has become so advanced and fast, religions (and not only Islam) will continue to lose their relevance in the world today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hate all religions equally, there is no place whatsoever for religion in politics and requests like this, from any religion, should be thrown out by any democratically elected body. Organised religion has a hell of a lot to answer for over the last few hundred years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well guys, the only reason that you are free to say these sensible things without fear for your life is that we are in a non-islamic country. Lets hope it stays that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many European thinkers ( and quite many among others) feel that they have the new form of fundamentalism. They have absolute fundamental right to write, express, draw, paint what they want without restrictions.

This sort of non-faith based new form of fundamentalism is MORE DANGEROUS than any form of religious fundamentalism ( Islam as well as other religions). If this sort of unrestricted freedom of expression is maintained consistently as in Europe, it will lead to an immoral universe.

By absolute freedom of expression, a novelist may exert his fundamental right to advocate torture, rape, child sex, orgy, murder, genocide and he will defend his rights as resolutely as he advocates liberty, affection and sexual love. No one objects intellectual criticism of religions, but we have to put a stop to deliberate mockery, vilification, insult, hurting the feelings of non-Christians in the west.

There is no freedom without restrictions and there is no independence without discipline

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam recognises all religions, in fact the source of all true religions is the same, and there is not a single community, linguistic group, nation to which a prophet was not sent by God Almighty according to Islam.

In fact Islam recognises that the entire humanity one and the same community of equals.

I quote the Quran " God has created you into nations, clans and tribes so that you recognise each other, and in the sight of God the one closest to God is one who is righteous"

This means that a righteous Hindu, Christian, Jew, is closer to God than an unrighteous Muslim. That much is the tolerance of Islamic teachings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither Islam nor any other religion approves the killing of the innocent. Killing the innocent is an unforgivable sin in Islam.

God says in the Quran “ If any one kills an innocent person, it would be as if he slew the whole people, and if any one saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people, yet many of them continued to commit excesses in the land” Chapter 5 Verse 32.

There is so much of anger on the perpetration of killings and violence on the innocent by the occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in Kashmir due to internal insurgency Basically it is true that the responsibility for killing the innocent lies with those who perpetrate it. Many of us are inclined to submit to this.

In the second WW when the British soldiers killed the German soldiers, were the British soldiers responsible for the violence? When a 10 year old young Chechnian girl who witnessed her mother being raped by Russian brutes, did suicide bombing at 17, killing scores of Russian soldiers, would we say that the young girl was responsible for her violence?

In one sense the answers are, must be yes. But in very many cases, whatever the laws say, the moral responsibility for violence is divided between those who perpetrate it and those who provoke it. But many including the Nato forces escape all responsibility for their brutal drone attacks and killing the civilians in large numbers by taking refuge in a kind of political slogan making.

Of course there are occasions when terrorism must be resisted without compromise. But we can not deny the fact that the common cause of terrorism is the denial of natural justice and those who insist on perpetuating such a denial are the ones who are perpetuating terrorism. This has been happening throughout the world among many communities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Killing the innocent is an unforgivable sin in Islam.

right, however, unbelievers and worshipers of a different GOD, are on the hit list. As a matter of fact anyone who disagrees, is susceptible to being killed by these haters, Muslim terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guest.

Explain then why Jews, Muslims and Christian worship the same god, follow the same commandments(old Testament), etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kodimirpal at 07:57 PM JST - 26th May - This is a November 20th article. Let us say that in the pursuit of Truth, Righteousness and Love, violence is never an answer. We must always work to mitigate the effects of harmful laws and get good laws passed, peacefully. It is in the interest of all. All people of good will, throughout the world, must work together towards the just world you speak of. One with freedom and an openness to the future out of the goodness of man's heart. There will always be ups and downs, with new insights from new generations. C'est la vie. La joi de la vie. Enjoy being good to one another and do not let the media nor propaganda get us down. We can make the world a little nicer just around ourselves and maybe it will spread through countless generations. This is my hope for all of us. You are part of us and we you. Your pain we also feel. One humanity. I liked this quote you quoted: " God has created you into nations, clans and tribes so that you recognise each other, and in the sight of God the one closest to God is one who is righteous" Peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most ironic thing about this proposed blasphemy ban is that the Koran would have to be banned due to it's blasphemous subject matter concerning other people and religions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither Islam nor any other religion approves the killing of the innocent. Killing the innocent is an unforgivable sin in Islam.

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216 (different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

Moderator: No more quotes from the Koran please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

quest - perhaps many quotes are taken out of context. People do the same with the Bible, which is also honored by Islam. The people of the Book. Cheers, for your comments do make the followers of Islam more peaceful just to prove you wrong. Christian have their bad apples as well, just look at what "members" of the Catholic church have done. I call them infiltrators rather then members for those criminals do not belong to the church. Anyway, most of the Islamic countries live peacefully. A lot of very good people who wish peace on Earth for their children as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites