Slashdot Log In
Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Mar 23, 2008 04:11 PM
from the pre-emptive-suppression dept.
from the pre-emptive-suppression dept.
h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
Related Stories
[+]
Pakistan YouTube Block Breaks the World 343 comments
Allen54 noted a followup to yesterday's story about Pakistan's decision to block YouTube. He notes that "The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan's traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP's must block access to YouTube because it was a source of blasphemous content. YouTube has announced more granular routes so that at least in the US they supercede the routes announced by PieNet. The rest of the world is still struggling."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Funny)
No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.
I'm offended (Score:5, Interesting)
How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
lol, but of course it's always more complicated... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't... I severely despise everything he stands for, yet I will fight for his right to say so. Even if the movie is offensive and inflamatory (and no one has seen it yet), I think if we ban this or any other speech, it's not just bad for "free speech" but mostly, a threat to an open society. I think his kind would never have gained the support if we would all allow him to say whatever stupid things he wants. When it's not allowed to talk about it, all good reasons against it aren't heard either. I say, let's view his inflamotory, hatefull movie and laugh about / discuss it.
That said... I really fear what will happen to him, cos we can't really expect a guy that's so full of **** and so much in the public spotlight to *not* get some crazy muslim to kill him... I mean, I hope it doesn't happen and just degrades to another "Jan Maat", but if he does get killed (and he's really working hard to make that a reality) his views will only be adopted even more... and he will have gained more support in death than he ever could in life...
Parent
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points.
Parent
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the GP deftly avoided the blanket statement you fell for: "certain groups." Just like with Theo van Gogh (for the rest of the world: a cinematographer who made a short film about women's rights under the Koran and was killed by a crazy Muslim) there will be crazy folks with an axe to grind.
About the validity of Wilders' points, I'm sure we can find good sides to every person. I also think that the Netherlands as a nation is worse off with this clown in our parliament. The man is one-issue (rest of the world: the issue being "there are too many foreigners in the Netherlands.") He's trying to instill fear in the Dutch people, fear of the Islam and of foreigners in general. There's a word for it: xenophobia. In a multi cultural society like ours, xenophobia is a bad thing.
In this Saturday's Volkskrant, there was a large piece about all kinds of Islamic groups in the Netherlands, like the LBM (Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen / National Morocan Society) actually and actively defending the Dutch government and society by sending messages to Islamic "hot zones" explaining our stance in the matter, telling them how well integrated they are, how many mosques there are in the Netherlands, etc. The piece is titled "We're not Denmark," an unfortunate title for a text that communicates openness, referring to the Mohammed cartoons.)
Of note is the anti-movement on Youtube: people posting short films saying sorry, titled "Fitna by Geert Wilders", in the hope that a search for the film will yield only apologies.
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society. If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament. I think it's very unfortunate that he's getting so much attention, especially from abroad. People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
no one is forcing these muslims to watch it, yet they think their being offended gives them the right to tell me what i can and cannot make up my own mind about.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is precisely freedom of offensive speech, particularly offensive political speech. When the party in power in a givernment can arrest an opposition party member or candidate (or censor his speech) for simply stating his platform, democracy is over.
I believe the term for inoffensively destroying democracy is "velvet fascism". It seems to be gaining ground in a great many countries. You should be outraged by this!
Parent
More rights you don't have... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes [wiktionary.org] ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.
Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to?
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see anything about, "unless it's speech we really, really don't like," in there at all, do you?
Parent
I declare Network Solutions a bad citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
This demonstrates the problem with allowing private organizations to serve as the gateway to the network. The nets, like the roads, should be a public resource; otherwise, they're going to be filtered by the views and fears of those entities providing access.
This is a perfect example: Network Solutions is in no way the author of, or the sponsor of, this content, but they will filter it because they don't want to be another target of violent factions of Islam or hordes of politically correct, censorship-minded people / investors. So the site is censored. Today it is someone speaking out against superstition and violent social coercion; tomorrow it may be a site against the drug war, or one against the war in Iraq. Or one that speaks out against your local school board. Or one that promotes Catholicism over Protestantism.
Personally, I think access-provider censorship is the kind of behavior the FCC really ought to be watching for, if they were really looking out for us. But of course, they aren't. They're watching out for corporate interests. And of course, Network Solutions is a corporation.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
Because that directly hurts kids.
"I love violence. I love free speech. Pretty much everything that's 'dangerous to the mental health of out youth' kicks ass. But if the film, say, encourages people to go out and punch a muslim, then yes, it should be banned."
Well, no one has seen the film yet...which means no one knows if it says to 'punch a muslim'....however, I kinda doubt it does. I believe it probably shows islam in a less than admirable light...and just because those muslims get all up in arms (literally) when someone speaks ill of them or prints a cartoon of muhammad or whatever, the ISP pulled the plug.
This is hardly the same thing as banning kiddie porn. This is more being scared of religious idiot zealots acting out.
And no, I do not believe there is freedom from being offended. That takes a heck of a lot of fun out of the freedom of speech. I think even if they film did advocate punching a muslim...it would not merit pulling the plug on their website. No one is harmed by speaking about ideas.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Long ago. Where were you, in a cave? In the nation with the world's most advanced concepts and legal frameworks relating to liberty, in order to Save The [insert fear-inspiring potential Victims here], free speech is not free; freedom of religion is not freedom; the explicit right to keep and bear arms is no right; the commerce clause is the inverse commerce clause; the orderly and specific requirements of probable cause, oath or affirmation, warrant, and then search have become search, followed, perhaps, by warrant; the freedom from incriminating one's self has become the freedom to be tortured until you speak the desired confession; the absolute dictate against ex post facto laws spawns them instead of stopping them; enforcement of the prohibition against being deprived of property without due process is only a dim memory; and the government wages a violent war against personal and consensual adult choices in such a way as to create black markets of equal violence and danger.
Certainly, more remains to be lost. So enjoy what you have now. It's only going to get worse. Save The [fitb]!
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fact that I think this guy is an islamofobic, racist and generally unpleasant guy, I still have to disagree with you here: before having seen the film, you can't assume it contains legally or otherwise unacceptable material. It will probably do so, but we'll have to wait and see whether this is indeed the case. Until the movie has been published, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Geert Wilders, regardless of his lousy reputation.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're willing to give the Koran the benefit of the doubt, why wouldn't you extend the film the same courtesy?
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Informative)
There are more than enough passages in the Koran to justify the killing of non-Mulsims as the following two show:
4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols (unbelief). So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
The second one sounds good - except that the Koran defines a wrong-doer very broadly. It is a class that includes freethinkers, polytheists, atheists and non-Muslims that preach their own religion. Among other passages:
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.
4:101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
Exegesis of 4:76 [tafsir.com]:As one can easily see from the exegesis and from the text of the Qur'an-il-Kareem, that this verse was
(a) presented in a historical context of freeing Muslims from oppression in Maccah
(b) more generally refers to the fight in the cause of Islam against oppressors.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
The verse of the sword [wikipedia.org]
Moderate muslims are simply deluded by the lies of their shieks. The language in the Koran is archaic and your average muslim rehearses it over and over without really understanding what's going on. If they ever wonder about the meaning of some particular verse, they usually turn to their shiek for explanation. The shiek can lie and twist the meanings of the words to give whatever explanation they want.
In fact, the problem is deeper and more complicated than this. The Koran contains verses that incite violence as well as those which encourage mercy and coexistence. However, the violence-inducing verses override the other ones. This is because Mohammed was weak and without support when he started his religion, so he had to be peaceful. Later on when his army grew, he became merciless and commanded his people to violently kill their enemies.
The peaceful verses remain in the Koran today, even though muslim scholars agree that they are overridden. Your average Muslim does not know about any of that, and a shiek can easily manipulate an average muslim into believing that the Koran is a peaceful book by stressing the peaceful verses and avoiding the violent ones.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather pointless to blame Islam, or Christianity for that matter. Both are in fact inert doctrines until they are taken up and interpreted by individuals. Martin Luther King was a Christian, but so was Jerry Falwell, and so were the Crusaders and Oliver Cromwell. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, but Avicenna, Abd Ar Rahman, and Suleyman the Magnificent were Muslims too.
I'm an atheist, but I admire many religious people and deplore others. It's a mixed bad. Idiots like Hitchens can pretend that religion has never done anything good, but has he ever listened to a Bach oratorio or stood in the Mezquita? Only an idiot could say religion has done nothing good.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
There is no tolerance whatsover. Dhimmi aren't tolerated, they are persecuted. You pay a fine for your non submission (literally what it's called), and they can take your home for any Muslim. Basically, to be dhimmi, you have to live in such a hovel that no Muslim would demand you be displaced so he could take it. And the persecution was much further, of course.
The idea that dhimmi means that Islam can coexist with others is totally Bullshit.
That's not to say that Muslims can't live alongside others, as this is certainly the case. And it's not as though other religions, including Christianity, have not also persecuted, but your point is bunk, totally.
Parent
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:5, Informative)
As the submitter of this story, I just wish to add that kdawson has rather heavily rewritten the original submission. Also, the link to the story on the BBC site, which was the original first link has been removed. It is here [bbc.co.uk] for those interested. I also had a look for the film on torrent sites and though I found something pretending to be the film, it turned out to just be some "music to inspire peace" and a README saying "we the Dutch don't support this politician."
Parent
On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the BBC article (Score:5, Informative)
Serious Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...
Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.
So, does anyone know what would happen if (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()
The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.
If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.
Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.
Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?
If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and
Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.
Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?
Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.
Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, you need to go ponder the words of your god/prophet/book and figure out just how poorly you follow the principles of your own beliefs.
Parent
Interestingly, I had a similar problem recently (Score:4, Insightful)
Some asshole(s) took their dissatisfaction with the link in my sig to the University's administration... It being a university, rather than a commercial enterprise, I was merely forced to add an obvious disclaimer, that the views on the page are my own, rather than the school's...
Curiously, my request to see the complaint itself was denied on the ground, that there would be no way to preserve the anonymity of the complaining party(ies)... Any lawyers out there willing to file a FoIA-request on my behalf (the school is a government institution)?
These attempts to use the legal system [nysun.com] and/or bureaucracy to shut the unpleasant views down are a welcome change from killing fellow country-men to make a point — as is happening in Iraq [bbc.co.uk]. But if anybody is hoping to score sympathy-points doing it, they are doing it all wrong...
I live in Holland, and (Score:4, Interesting)
They gave him -exactly- what he wants (Score:5, Interesting)
Geert Wilders is someone that got this far in politics by feeding on fear and hate.
The man is dangerous and should be ignored, not shut down.
Is anyone tries to shut him up, it will cause publicity.
And we know there's no such thing as bad publicity in politics.
I agree NetSol has very little business in taking down his site, but
I just wish the people would see the man for the windbag he really is.
(a few years ago, we had someone running for government with an agenda slightly like Wilders.
The man got shot (by an 'animal lover', the irony) and they continued the party in his name.
Strangely enough, that empty shell of a party even got into power.
Unfortunately, very few people in that party actually had any knowledge of politics.
Yes, chaos ensued...)
Now, quite some time later, the exact same thing is happening -again-...
Wilders declines offer from Dutch Mulimbroadcast (Score:5, Interesting)
http://canadianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-declines-offer-from-muslim.html [blogspot.com] in English
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
Nice to see that the Muslims are more willing and open then a US based company when it concerns free speech.
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
No, I guess they just go regular bombing. [cnn.com]
Parent
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
As you can read on the wikipedia page you linked, the dutch were hopelessly outnumbered (400 lightly armed soldiers vs 1k-2k serbs with tanks and morters). The dutch troopers weren't given the mandate, the manpower, the reinforcements or the air-support required to fight back.
I wouldn't know what I would have done in their place, and I hope I never will know. Either way, it shames me that the dutch and the UN were this toothless faced with genocide right under their noses.
Parent
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
I will say that generally people that hate each other tend to use religion as a motivating factor to get people to rally around their cause and war. I can't speak for Muslims, but Christians, specifically Catholics are opposed to almost any war. The last Pope (John Paul II) who lived through WWII and saw many horrible things even mentioned that it was ok to fight in a war but he had never seen an instance of a time when it was warranted. This coming from a man who saw Hitlers army crush Poland and kill many innocent people. Granted there are many different sects of Christianity and I will concede that almost every religion has their weird splinter groups, but the VAST majority of Christians (and I bet Muslims) do not promote violence in any way. Just the opposite they promote peace, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own lives.
Parent
Re:hum (Score:4, Interesting)
When guerillas swim among their supporters like the proverbial fish in the sea, one must dry up the sea. In an era of unconventional war, so-called "war crimes" are actually the proper response. We conveniently forget all the "war crimes" the Allies committed to win WWII, and the post-Nuremburg fetish for imposing laws only on our own side isn't getting us anywhere.
Parent
Re:hum (Score:5, Informative)
What I heard that happened was that the Dutch UN soldiers were in Srebrenica, lightly armed and not authorized to open fire. They radioed for back-up from the other UN (and NATO?) forces, but got nothing.
It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers: knowing it is your duty to protect these people, but not allowed to open fire, and not receiving back-up, despite supposedly having allies nearby. Supposedly, they got the medals in recognition of that.
The medals certainly weren't pinned on them in a move by the politicians to save their asses. Far from trying to save their asses, the whole Dutch government resigned [bbc.co.uk] is response to a report about the incident.
Maybe it is my national pride (I am Dutch - and, as many Dutch, I have little national pride, but I do have some) that is being injured here, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Dutch. Sure, it's convenient; the Dutch were there, so it's all their fault. But the Dutch weren't there alone: this was a UN mission, and so it was ultimately the UN and everybody who was there that failed. Yet I hear nothing about that. It's only the Dutch who are getting the blame.
Parent
Re:hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
That's what censorship is (Score:5, Insightful)
if he said what you wanted to hear instead of what you don't want to hear.
That's what censorship is. That's also why we have free speech protections in the USA -- because speech that everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's only the "flamebait" and other stuff that someone might disagree with that needs protection.
Parent
Re:hum (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.
Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.
Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.
What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter [slashdot.org]). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Mod Parent UP (Score:4, Insightful)
Ridicule of a religious belief or political persuasion is NOT a hate crime. I consider myself an agnostic science-is-religion libertarian - you can make fun of my beliefs all day long, draw cartoons of political leaders I respect or make jokes about those who I consider prophets (Newton, Darwin, etc.). I won't sulk around with hurt feelings or have promptings to harm anyone. Such absolute reverence to an ideology almost always ends in persecution and evil.
Further if you really feel you worship the "right" vision of God and this God is almighty why doesn't this God make a public statement and strike down such provocateurs directly? Why does this God need protection from puny humans.
Seems to me the Truth needs no local support but can stand on its own.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is mere insult. Insult is not a crime, except under Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.
You are invited to make all the derogatory cartoons of me you like, and of my beliefs (I'm theism-free). It bothers me not.
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition. I will not yield to demands to change our social discourse just because it is not on Islamic (or Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc) terms.
Your Prophet can kiss my fat white arse.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Interesting)
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Shenanigans my good man. The canons of Islam are no more nor less ridiculous than those of any other major religion. Just as Richard Dawkins points out that "Christian morality" cannot possibly come from the bible, "Muslim intolerance" is also a myth.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, let's talk about Aramco, through which American money has supported the rule of the House of Saud and the Wahibbist's grip on Saudi society for decades. Dontcha think that would piss some people off, particularly those who live under that regime without profiting?
No, Islam itself is not the problem. It's economics and politics that are the source of this era of Muslim weirdness. This is definitely not a case of we are better than them, it's a case of, boy we are lucky we weren't born in one of those countries.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
No they aren't. If someone kicked the shit out of you for being a muslim, that would be a hate crime.
Again, no, it is not a hate crime. Making unjustified negative statements about a group of people may be morally wrong, but it is not a hate crime.
I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech must include the right for someone to say something that you find reprehensible, or it means absolutely NOTHING.
Parent
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. Anti-Semitism is not a crime. I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime. So you are asserting that Islamophobia is also not a crime. I agree. There is no crime in hating you for your religion. There is no crime in insulting you because of your religion. There is no crime in making fun of your religion and your religious figures. There is no crime in any of that, so you agree that it shouldn't be prevent for anyone to do that to any religion, including yours. That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
That makes you a terrorist. You want to make a crime my ability to speak my mind. I hate you. Not because you are Muslim. Not because you are a radical (and you are, despite your claims, or you wouldn't want to make it illegal for people to speak their minds about any subject). I hate you because you are claiming to be renouncing violence, yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself. Not only are you a spineless coward, but you are a hypocritical spineless coward. Oh, and please note, I didn't insult your religion. Whatever religion you had or didn't have is irrelevant to your condemnation of violence, followed by your support thereof. It is the ignorant hypocricy that I hate, and anyone that displays it with such vigor in a public forum is worthy of my disdain.
Parent