|
Post by rfmoo on Feb 16, 2009 16:07:31 GMT
Don't tell me what I'm saying. I'm not agreeing with you. The act to speak freely comes first. Then we live with the consequences. Augustine used to say "error has no rights." That's begging the question. If God did not view our freedom as a value he would not have made us free.
Richard
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 17:36:43 GMT
Strangely you seem to have reversed from a moral to a metaphysical perspective. Of course we're free to speak, but that does not mean 'freedom of speech' as a policy or a moral value is correct. I am not advocating that error does not have a right to voice its view - on the contrary, I'm saying the opposite. But this is not in the interest of 'free speech' but a search for truth, commonality and reason. And you should surely be aware that human freedom is both our blessing and our curse, and just because we are free, it doesn't mean we have a right to exact that freedom in whatever we do. And surely you see the logical inconsistency in your argument: if freedom of speech has intrinsic value it should always be right; it isn't always right (e.g. when lying, backbiting, slandering, abusing, cursing, insulting, swearing); therefore, freedom of speech does not have intrinsic value. Islam advocates the moderate position of regulating speech. 'Free speech' should not be seen as one amongst competing values, but a secondary reality to true values.
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Feb 16, 2009 17:53:26 GMT
Arguments with you are neverending. You know my position. I don't want people telling me what I may say before I say it. Although I believe in THE truth, your take and mine may be and are quite different. Neither should have veto power over the other, in a personal or social context.
And that's the end of it, Zameel. This is boring. You will have to search out someone who is as pertinacious in debate as yourself. I have other things to do.
R.
I hope I die before free speech in this country does. It's a vanishing species in Canada and Europe. Which is all very well, unless your ox is being gored.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 16, 2009 18:24:12 GMT
I am thoroughly disappointed by what I perceive is Zameel's position here.
Arguing that "free speech" should be allowed only if it is done from the right motive is a position which is it possible to understand idealistically, however it is impossible to support practically.
It is a position that makes one wonder about the motive.
Making rules like that would be a warmly welcomed weapon in any tyrant's hand. It makes it sufficient to question the intention to silence the opposition.
Only by allowing all and any free speech, is free speech really allowed.
And I am at the same time all in favor of having laws about insults and libel. However, these must be kept as a seperate thing.
Even if I am allowed to say what I mean, using caricatures and counterfactuals, it should be illegal to insult someone personally for their colour, freckles, opinions or support of conspiracy crackpots.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 18:57:27 GMT
Arguing that "free speech" should be allowed only if it is done from the right motive is a position which is it possible to understand idealistically, however it is impossible to support practically. Not right motive, but right context. The fact that we have laws to curb 'free speech' means 'free speech' does not exist. It's as silly as saying we have a 'freedom to act'. We have a freedom to speak and act within the context of society's laws and values. And that is not idealistic - it was achieved in the vast Muslim empire with all its diversity and brilliance; academic freedom was not hindered unlike in Christendom. What we have now is a totally illogical independent value called 'freedom of speech' that has its own influence on policy and morality; it should only be upheld when it is seen as a favourable outcome of a higher principle. Only by allowing all and any free speech, is free speech really allowed. And I am at the same time all in favor of having laws about insults and libel And that is precisely the logical contradiction in such a philosophy: if you're not allowed 'all and any free speech' it's not free speech. Making rules like that would be a warmly welcomed weapon in any tyrant's hand. It makes it sufficient to question the intention to silence the opposition. The crime of the tyrant is not quelling free speech per se, but repression and oppression. Here the problem isn't a lack of free speech but injustice. If justice is upheld then the ruler would not be a tyrant. In the name of justice, free opposition would be welcomed. But that is to understand free speech in the context of a social value, not as an individual right. If it was valued as an individual right, you should have no qualm with abuse and curse.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 16, 2009 19:28:45 GMT
Arguing that "free speech" should be allowed only if it is done from the right motive is a position which is it possible to understand idealistically, however it is impossible to support practically. Not right motive, but right context. The fact that we have laws to curb 'free speech' means 'free speech' does not exist. It's as silly as saying we have a 'freedom to act'. We have a freedom to speak and act within the context of society's laws and values. And that is not idealistic - it was achieved in the vast Muslim empire with all its diversity and brilliance; academic freedom was not hindered unlike in Christendom. As I graciously, in the name of free speech, allow you to maintain this kind of distorted view of history, portraying an imaginary Islam dream society, I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on the banning of the printing press in e.g. the Ottoman Empire, as well as the many political enemies that were imprisoned and executed, not always after a trial. Why do you imagine such happened in one vast Islam empire? What we have now is a totally illogical independent value called 'freedom of speech' that has its own influence on policy and morality; it should only be upheld when it is seen as a favourable outcome of a higher principle. What you now deliver frightens me no end. However, as I see free speech as something that will provide favourable outcome of higher principles, namely the principles of justice and liberty by being able to ridiculize and critizise tyrants and demagogues, I definitely think it should be upheld. Only by allowing all and any free speech, is free speech really allowed. And I am at the same time all in favor of having laws about insults and libel And that is precisely the logical contradiction in such a philosophy: if you're not allowed 'all and any free speech' it's not free speech. It is. Free Speech is being allowed to express any opinion I might have about anything, except for public slander. That a principle may come into conflict with another principle is not to say that the principle is void. Only that it is limited. However, if all you have to say is that we need laws about insults and libels, we have no problem. Making rules like that would be a warmly welcomed weapon in any tyrant's hand. It makes it sufficient to question the intention to silence the opposition. The crime of the tyrant is not quelling free speech per se, but repression and oppression. Here the problem isn't a lack of free speech but injustice. If justice is upheld then the ruler would not be a tyrant. In the name of justice, free opposition would be welcomed. But that is to understand free speech in the context of a social value, not as an individual right. If it was valued as an individual right, you should have no qualm with abuse and curse. The only possible conclusion to draw from this is again that you live very much in a dream world, coloured by a faith position which I find increasingly less able to like, not to mention agree with. I am all in favour of justice. However I have - as a Christian - no illusions about human nature. Whoever insist he has no sin is fooling thimself. Religions and government should be checked, doublechecked and triplechecked. And then ridiculized in public, just to heep them on the alert. Else, we will never have a just society.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 20:18:40 GMT
I would be very interested in hearing your opinion on the banning of the printing press in e.g. the Ottoman Empire, as well as the many political enemies that were imprisoned and executed I'm not all in favour of the Ottoman empire, which although having banned printing also properly introduced it into the Muslim world (via the polymath Ibrahim Muteferrika). Medieval Islam did invent a form of printing called tarsh but this did not gain much popularity, see Richard Bulliet, Medieval Arabic Tarsh: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Printing (http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/603463.pdf). This of course does not mean the Muslim world was illiterate as there was no shortage in paper-making and writing/transcribing. The Ottomans were an expansionist empire, and imperialism is never pretty. Expansionism was favoured in light of the international political climate as there were no international legal bodies as we have today (although the Ottomans officially joined the international community in the nineteenth century). The pre-modern system was one of 'fight or be fought', of the territorial expansion of hegemonic empires. The Muslim empire I speak of is the early Abbasid Baghdad, Umayyad Spain, Fatimid and Ayyubid Egypt, which was very different and far more civilised that its European counterpart. See, especially, George Makdisi's articles above for a comparison of academic freedom. However, as I see free speech as something that will provide favourable outcome of higher principles, namely the principles of justice and liberty by being able to ridiculize and critizise tyrants and demagogues, I definitely think it should be upheld. But what is to guarantee that free speech will provide those favourable outcomes? We already have the precedent of racial demonisation of black Americans which was upheld by free speech. Justice and equality come first; then free speech within that context. It is. Free Speech is being allowed to express any opinion I might have about anything, except for public slander Here the value is progress and reason. If somebody denies the Holocaust, I personally do not think they have a right to speak, as it only fosters irrationality, hatred and backwardness; there is no guarantee that free speech will provide the values you speak of, unless we start from those values to begin with. Furthermore you have defined free speech as being able to express opinions which I don't have a problem with - but the notion that we have an individual right to say what we want is what I have a problem with; in fact we have a duty not to say whatever it is that we want. If you're opposed to insult, curse, abuse, lying, backbiting etc. then you are aware of the dangers of the tongue. And if you then promote 'freedom of speech' it has no meaning. It's like saying: you have the freedom to kill and then qualify it by 'only when in battle'. We should have the freedom to speak in the public sphere only when it encourages justice, progress, reason and truth (legitimate 'small talk' isn't in question). If you intend more than that, i.e. what the liberals mean, that we can and should speak even if it is irrational, stupid, unjust and opposed to progress, then that is an immoral position that I am unwilling to accept. Wilders is by many people's count a 'trouble-maker' so what good is there in giving him a platform? What do we get out of it, besides a romanticised defence of his personal liberty and rights? Religions and government should be checked, doublechecked and triplechecked I am all for that but I don't think freedom of speech (as the liberals understand it - as an individual human right) is necessary in order to achieve that aim.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 16, 2009 21:09:28 GMT
This is rather amusing and anxiety making. However, as you insist that "The Ottomans were an expansionist empire, and imperialism is never pretty", I understand why the original, imperalist Muslim Arab society was not pretty.
The "Abbasid Baghdad, Umayyad Spain, Fatimid and Ayyubid Egypt" have been much romanticised, and you seem no exception. Unfortunately for your thesis of an inherent and priviliged Islam ideal society, the last two were destroyed by other muslim rulers. One great problem with Islam, is that it, like most ideologies and religions, tends to end in internal strife and struggles. Any lasting Pure Islamic Society is a utopia. And as you insist it will not have free speech, it is also a dystopia.
My reasons for maintaining Free Speech is tied to my Christian view of man. I do not trust any ruler or religion not to backslide into oppression or tyrrany, whatever the ideals or intentions, whether Christian, Marxist, Muslim or Humanistic.
Hence I find your position here just as unrealistic, dangerous and dreamy as your views on the ideal Muslim society.
In short, it frightens me. It is such stuff as nightmares are made of.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 16, 2009 23:33:00 GMT
Whatever your view I think we have a lot to learn from the Muslim Caliphate, despite modern liberal reluctance to learn from the past and its utopian look to the future. Despite deep economic, social and global problems that have followed liberalism's atomistic individualism (which is the primary reason of individual and state greed), it seems it has a blind following from most; so-called freedom of speech has limited freedom of thought. Individualism by its very nature is non-cohesive as it encourages us to be selfish. I think a few descriptions of the Caliphate will suffice:
''…the unbounded tolerance of the Arabs must also be taken into account. In religious matters they put pressure on no man…Christians preferred their rule to that of the Franks" [Reinhart Dozy, A History of Muslims in Spain ]
"In accordance with this order, enormous sums were paid back out of the state treasury [in reference to the general Abu Ubayda b. al-Jarrah in Caliph Umar's time returning the jizyah because of a military defeat], and the Christians called down blessings on the heads of the Muslims, saying, ‘May God give you rule over us again and make you victorious over the Romans; had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us" [T. W. Arnold , Preaching of Islam]
"Christians did not suffer in any way, on account of their religion, at the hands of Moors…not only perfect toleration but nominal equality was the rule of the Arabs in Spain." [Ulick R. Burke, A History of Spain ]
"The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilizers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature" [The Essays of Adam Smith]
"Thus, when Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian Persecution" [Zion Zohar, Sephardic & Mizrahi Jewry]
"…the Christians and the Pagans [i.e. Muslims] have this kind of peace between them there that if I was going on a journey, and on the way the camel or donkey which bore my poor luggage were to die, and I was to abandon all my goods without any guardian, and go to the city for another pack animal, when I came back, I would find all my property uninjured: such is the peace there" [Christopher J. Walker, Islam and the West, quoting a ninth century monk who visited Palestine and Egypt during the Abbasid era]
"Ishoyabth, who was patriarch from AD 647 to 657, writes, 'The Arabs, to who God gave the dominion over the world, behave to us as you know. They are not hostile to Christianity, but praise our religion, honour priests and saints, and help the Churches and Monastries" [AS Tritton, The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects]
Amnon Cohen who described Jewish court cases under Muslim rule looking at documents from that time wrote:
"Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.)"
"Their possessions were protected, although they might have had to pay for extra protection at night for their houses and commercial properties. Their title deeds and other official documents indicating their rights were honoured when presented to the court, being treated like those of their Muslim neighbours…The picture emerging from the sijill documents is baffling. On the one hand we encounter recurring Sultanic decrees sent to Jerusalem – in response to pleas of the Jews – to the effect that “nothing should be done to stop them from applying their own law” regarding a variety of matters. There are also many explicit references to the overriding importance of applying Shari’a law to them only if they so choose. On the other hand, if we look closely at some of the inheritance lists, we see that the local court allocated to female members of Jewish families half the share given to male members, exactly as in Islamic law. This meant, ipso facto, a significant improvement in the status of Jewish women with respect to legacies over that accorded them by Jewish tradition, although it actually meant the application of Islamic law in an internal Jewish context…he [the Muslim Judge] defended Jewish causes jeopardized by high-handed behaviour of local governors; he enabled Jewish business people and craftsmen to lease properties from Muslim endowments on an equal footing with Muslim bidders; more generally, he respected their rituals and places of worship and guarded them against encroachment even when the perpetrators were other Muslim dignitaries"
On the courts, Richard Bulliet writes:
"However, scholars who have gained access to the judicial court records of the Ottoman Empire, unavailable in Weber's day, have thoroughly and repeatedly refuted this stereotype. Minutely studying case after case, they have shown that justice was generally meted out impartially, irrespective of religion, official status, gender, or ethnicity.
Clear indicators of the perception that the qadi's court was in fact a place where justice could be found are the legal disputes involving two Jews or two Christians. Not being subject to the sharia, Jews and Christians were free to go to their own religious authorities for adjudication of disputes; but in many cases they went instead to the qadi." [The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilisation, 2004]
And some of the sentiments of the early dhimmis:
Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish Jew who travelled to Baghdad in the year 1168 CE, described the situation of the Iraqi Jewry in these words:
‘In Baghdad there are about forty thousand Jews, and they dwell in security, prosperity, and honour under the great Caliph [al-Mustanjid, 1160-70 CE], and amongst them are great sages, the Heads of the Academies engaged in the study of the Law…’ [The Jew in the Medieval World]
In 1420 AD Rabbi Yitzhak Tsarfati wrote a letter to his persecuted German brothers from the Ottoman Turkish territory (Edirne [Adrianople]) inviting them to join him in prosperous and tolerant Islamic lands:
‘Your cries and laments have reached us. We have been told of all the sorrows and persecutions which you suffer in German lands. Listen, my brothers…if you…knew even the tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would give heed to no further difficulties. You would embark at once to us…Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame…You will be free of your enemies. Here you will find peace.’ [Farewell Espana]
Bahya ibn Paqudah, a medieval Andalusian Jewish writer, describes the prosperous existence of the Jews in the Islamic lands in a treatise titled Kitab al-Hidaya (ca. 1080):
‘If one of our contemporaries looks for similar miracles now, let him examine objectively our situation among the Gentiles [Muslims in this case] since the beginning of the Diaspora and the way our affairs are managed in spite of the differences between us and them both secret and open, which are well known to them. Let him see that our situation, as far as living and subsistence are concerned, is the same as theirs, or even better, in times of war and civil disturbances. You see how both their leaders and their vulgar peasants toil much more than the middle and lower classes among us, according to our Lord’s promise contained in the Scriptures.’ [The Book of Direction to the Duties of the Heart, translation of Bahya ben Joseph ibn Paqudah’s Arabic work al-Hidaya ila Faraid al-Qulub by Menahem Mansoor]
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 17, 2009 10:22:29 GMT
Good article on this in the Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com/article/SB123483168531395775.htmlThe key passage is: "The notion that liberals can have it both ways -- champions of free speech on the one hand; defenders of multiculturalism's assorted sensitivities on the other -- was always intellectually flimsy. If liberals now want to speak for the "right" of this or that group not to be offended, the least they can do is stop calling themselves "liberals."" It is this sort of questions that sorts the sheep from the goats among liberals. It is odd to find many conservatives are being a great deal more liberal than many liberals on this questions. I suppose that makes me a conservative liberal, or possibly a liberal conservative. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 17, 2009 12:15:02 GMT
Yes there is a contradiction that you run into when you define ‘Europeanness’ as that which is not Islam, which is how Europe has tended to define itself. Homosexual Dutch parliamentarian Pim Fortuyn, a liberal in every sense, wrote ‘against the Islamisation of Europe’ because to be European means precisely that it is not Islam. Many Islamists see it the same way: the decadent West and the traditional family-oriented Muslims. But of course the reality is much more complicated than that. I think ‘liberals’ like Wilders are consistent in that they subconsciously define Islam as the epitome of anti-Westernness, and begin from that premise; of course they then have to run into contradictions with their liberal principles (e.g. in banning Qur’ans, shutting down mosques and preventing Islamic sermons). If that is the liberal conservativism you promote, I think you need to have a little more faith in Islam. The MCB in Britain have gone a long way in integrating Islam into the political praxis of British society; I think that should be encouraged not seen as a threat to Western values. And that can only happen when conservatives like yourself reject your antipathy to Islam. In this regard, I would recommend listening to Tim Winter’s recent talk on the compatibility of Islam and the West where he addresses this very problem: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx9bS3YSJmg On the other hand those liberals who are sensitive to multiculturalism and also promote free speech (as an individual right), they too run into a contradiction as I’m sure you’d agree. We therefore need a consistent interpretation of free speech, which as I proposed earlier is: just as you are free to drive a car within the context of society’s laws, speech is sanctioned within the laws and values of the society. That way you get out of the philosophical and intellectual problems of ‘freedom of speech’. The problem of course ultimately lies in individualism which is itself contradictory: we the tax-payers have to pay for the ‘freedom’ of alcoholics, £1.2 billion a year. I am not radically opposed to the West; indeed I see decadence and I think Islam has potential in an advisory capacity in many sectors including the economic crisis we face, but ultimately I believe religion should not be more than that; and that is in fact the reality of most of Muslim history (more than a millennium) where we see the separation of the highly influential ulema and the state – in fact many of the intellectual giants of Islamic legal history, like Abu Hanifa and Malik, were opposed to the corrupt government although they operated in an advisory capacity. On the Rushdie affair, it is unsettling that Khomeini’s fatwa (pronounced after his Shiite revolution) is given such popularity, despite the highest legal Sunni authority in the world from Azhar having rejected that fatwa and a respected Muslim leader in Britain Dr. Zaki Badawi offering his home as sanctuary for Rushdie. The fact that we are blind to the accomodationist positions (Noah Feldman, a brilliant legal scholar from Harvard, talks of Islam and the West as malleable technologies that can easily conform: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDNEjS4la10) shows the inherent desire in many to fuel a separation.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Feb 17, 2009 22:29:52 GMT
The purpose of civil liberties is to protect minority persons and minority views from “tyranny of the majority”. The point I was demonstrating with blacks in the segregated south was that it was due to conscientious men speaking out against an accepted social milieu (segregation) that the public opinion was ultimately swayed against that type of persecution. Had they not been allowed to speak their unpopular viewpoint it would ultimately be to society’s detriment even if the people at the time would not realize it.
I don’t think morality can truly exists if it is coerced by the government or the military, the goals of these institutions should be to protect the nation and uphold the rights of it’s citizens. If it’s anti-religion to allow one to exercise his God given free will so long as he isn’t harming another person, then so be it. I’m curious where in the Bible it advocates forgoing individual rights for the benefit of society. I’d figure socialists would be quoting those verses endlessly.
That’s probably why I like him then.
Yeah, I get the pattern now, Muhammad never did anything wrong, and any source that suggests he did is a liar and an Islamophobe. Here I was thinking Sahih al-Bukhari was reliable…
Not trying to turn this into an indictment of Muhammad but, come on man, the man how many people does he have to kill and how many Hadith do I have to cite before we begin to get the impression Christians and Jews aren’t his favorite people.
Ibn Ishaq has the earliest biography of Muhammad no?
Great article, agree with pretty much all of it. My favorite part:
I think the cause of this kind of double standard is one, the violence often committed by Muslims after their sacred symbols are mocked as opposed to Christians in the same position who perhaps shriek in impotent rage but never commit any serious acts of violence. (I’ve often contrasted Piss Christ to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad) The second, is I think most multiculturalists are hostile to the majority culture and seek to undermine it whenever possible. Hence why we see Christians being held to a different standard than practically everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 18, 2009 8:43:03 GMT
Here I was thinking Sahih al-Bukhari was reliable… Those stories (of the poets) are not in Sahih al-Bukhari. The incident that I mentioned from Bukhari is where he forgave the Jewish woman who poisoned him. Ibn Ishaq has the earliest biography of Muhammad no? It's the first complete biography but it was written nearly two centuries after his death. Sira works have never been a favourite of Hadith-critics like al-Suyuti and ibn Hajar; ibn Hajar, a renown traditionalist from the fifteenth century, denounced the banu qurayza and other stories as 'odd tales'. Ibn Ishaq is almost unknown in Muslim circles, whereas Malik b. Anas (the author of the Muwatta and founder of the Maliki rite, a contemporary of ibn Ishaq) who called Ibn Ishaq a liar for transmitting these stories, is revered as 'the Imam of the abode of Hijra' (i.e. Medina). We have evidence the Qur'an and (many) hadiths were written within decades of Muhammad's death, hence the Sira is assessed against these sources. Also see www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.htmlthe violence often committed by Muslims after their sacred symbols are mocked as opposed to Christians in the same position You'll notice the cartoons are still there and were around for some time before the protests, but there are no riots now. The reason is that a small group of people brought it to the attention of certain radical Imams who provoked a reaction. However, why is it that you imagine this happened in a vacuum? It is not as though Christians and Muslims were or are on the same footing politically such that their reactions can be judged fairly. Many Muslims are no doubt angry at the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, America's support of Israel's war crimes and crimes against humanity, America's support of dictators across the Muslim world (Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia etc.) and the feeling of victimhood largely explains some of these extreme reactions. Most Muslims, however, were, although disappointed, unconcerned with the cartoons - and if you want to speak of double standards, the very same paper refused to print cartoons disparaging to Jesus some years previously and cartoons denying the Holocaust. The Qur'an in fact tells us the appropriate response to such deliberate provocation should be patience and guarding against one's own faults (quite the opposite to what we saw in the riots): 'Ye shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and ye shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if ye persevere patiently [sabr - patience], and guard against evil [taqwa - being wary of God's presence],-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs.' (3:186)
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Feb 22, 2009 13:56:10 GMT
A good article on ummahpulse a Muslim online news outlet: www.ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=484'In the last few weeks, we have seen a number of celebrities and media personalities come a cropper due to "offending" various groups, whether it was Carol Thatcher and her golliwog remark, or Prince Harry and his Paki comment (or his dad and just about everything he has ever said in public), or Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross and the filth that spewed poltergeist-like out of their mouths, or Jeremy Clarkson for his "one-eyed Scottish idiot" aside (which apparently offended both the visually impaired and the Scots). In fact, even the cartoonist Michael Rowson on Radio 4's "Start the Week" admitted that he had received hate mail after he drew a caricature of Richard Dawkins (with one atheist apparently telling him to "lay off Dawkins because he is the only saint we have"). All in all, there seems to be a huge amount of offending going on... closely followed by soul-searching on the part of the offender and a grovelling apology, and occasionally punishment by sacking or suspension. So why is it that all of those beating their breasts when it comes to defending Geert Wilders et al could not conjure up any sort of passion when it came to defending any of the others? I believe it lies in the lack of understanding by our society when it comes to knowing exactly what it wants. Does it want freedom to express its opinions and engage in a dialogue? If this is the case then I am all for it - better dialogue will foster more understanding and build better communities. Or does the west want the ability to make offensive, insulting and abusive statements in public about specific minorities it considers worthy of these statements and then report feelings of fear and repulsion when said minorities make their anger at these statements known? The latter is unfortunately where we as a society appear to be headed.'
|
|