Journalist Arrested By Interpol For Tweet 915
New submitter StarWreck writes "Police in Kuala Lumpur detained Hamza Kashgari, 23, 'following a request made to us by Interpol' on behalf of the Saudi authorities. Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet which read: 'I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you I will not pray for you.' Said tweet sparked outrage in Saudi Arabia and resulted in multiple death threats. Kashgari faces the death penalty in Saudi Arabia."
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess the moral of the story is that if you are going to flee to another country, try some place like Canada or Sweden first.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Grand Inquisitor, knowing it's really Jesus, goes to Jesus' cell and asks him what the hell he's doing. Jesus wants to know why the church is treating him this way and the inquisitor says, "You're bad for business. Now that you're here, what the hell are we gonna do? Sorry man, it is in our best interests to make you disappear."
Jesus, somewhat homoerotically, kisses the inquisitor on the cheek and says, "I love you, brother." The Inquisitor, very moved by the gesture, opens the cell and releases Jesus, saying, "Get the hell out of here, and don't come back." Jesus walked off into the darkness and was never heard from again.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the true reason why he fled is a completely different one, and the Saudis just used that twitter message because they couldn't use the real reason, and because they expected Malaysia to accept that one.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, that's a compelling argument. I'd put it a step above "You are a doody head" and a step below "Nuh uh".
I suggest you go to Sweden and preach how you find homosexuality to be abhorrent and against "God's" will. Or maybe go to Germany and say really love Hitler. Or that you think Arabs in poor neighborhoods are dangerous thieves.
I don't agree with any of that, but it's a fundamental right to be an idiot and to express that idiocy as you will. But I'm just preaching to the choir, as you clearly already know that.
Re:Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bible describes this as idolatry. Basically, if you can take a concept and put it into a box, you can gain authority over the idea in people's minds and substitute your own voice for the idea. The Bible is actually a good example of this itself. Even though the Bible never actually claims to be the word of God (in fact, it never claims to be true or accurate either) pastors have an easy time holding it up as a physical manifestation of such ideas. Form there it's a fairly simple matter to pick and choose through it, adding their own words here and there, and presto! Suddenly they've got their own words accepted by people as being from God.
The principle is easily applied elsewhere, and you see it all the time.
Depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the time came for him to leave they had a big party and he asked someone if this guy really worked for the KGB, only to get the reply "No, no, so-and-so is the KGB rep, he's OK, that other guy just thinks everything is better in the West and keeps trying to prove it to us."
As my colleague remarked, imagine an American engineering company where one of the engineers kept trying to tell everybody that life was better in the Soviet Union. All right, he would be massively wrong, but he would also get fired very quick.
Not illegal but reckless negligence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or a person in Saudi Arabia. Damned if you do, damned if you can't.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Kingdom of Saud is a place where there is no justice. Its like Mexico-- all billionaires and peasants. Life is inherently unjust, so those in power have to make a big show of dispensing 'true' justice.
"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world"
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
True as that may be, what the hell was Interpol doing passing on the arrest note? Don't they at least bother to look at what it's actually for?
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interpol is involved BY forwarding the Saudi request as a RED CODE. Interpol has rules saying they are supposed to stay out of politics and religions. They broke their own rules by forwarding this request.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoa, that's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. Let's not forget the millions of Muslim people who do not support terrorism and are as peaceful and law-abiding as most of the Christians in the world.
You know, I used to buy that line - that there are a few very vocal extremist Muslims that tarnish the real image of the religion of peace, but otherwise they're all really nice and mostly like us except for a few meaningless rituals. Then I ran into some interesting stats - from Wikipedia:
A survey carried out by the Indonesia Survey Institute found that 43% of Indonesians support Rajam or stoning for adulterers.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found relatively widespread popular support for stoning as a punishment for adultery in Egypt (82% of respondents in favor of the punishment), Jordan (70% in favor), Indonesia (42% in favor), Pakistan (82% favor) and Nigeria (56% in favor).
Note that Indonesia is generally considered to be one of the most civilized Muslim majority countries - it's not officially an "Islamic state", and it clearly sets out freedom of religion in its constitution. Yet almost half of their population - exactly half if you only count Muslims - support death penalty, carried out in public, in a very nasty way that's deliberately designed to be prolonged and painful, and performed with active involvement of the community (to remind, rajm is generally meant to be carried out by the observers throwing stones). I'm not ashamed in the slightest of calling that half barbarians, because that's what they are in this day and age.
Turkey, now, is a different matter - practically an exception. But Turkey got where it's at by virtue of a single man who was leading it at the time embarking on what was, essentially, a very secularist and anti-religious campaign, forcing it upon the population - he was just careful enough to never openly say it was aimed against religion, but rather against "barbarous customs" and such.
(As an aside, this is also why democracy and human rights are, at present, concepts that are diametrically opposite in most Muslim majority states - so when you wish for democracy in Egypt or Libya or Syria, be sure that you understand well enough what it implies.)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
What? Seriously? Where did you learn your history?
The reality is that Muslim controlled Andalucia was extremely tolerant compared to Christian governments at the time. Granada was a melting pot of Jews, Christians, and Muslims living in peace, to take only a single example. Sure, the Jews and Christians were social minorities, but they were unmolested and had relatively equal rights. Christians were even known to be included in civic and other governmental positions.
During this time period, it's far more accurate to view the Christian Crusaders as ignorant barbarians, as compared to Islamic factions in Southern Europe, and in the Holy Land for that matter.
But that is the core of Wahhabism. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
And what about issues that matter [call-to-monotheism.com] ?
An equally valid point would be that the definition of a muslim is one who agrees on at least this issue (and frankly, ask a few you think "western"/"moderate" on the apostate killing, you'll be scared by the responses).
Another argument would be that they don't act on this due to local laws (which would leave the issue that they will of course try to overturn religious freedom in America, for example). In short, that they don't act on this, and the law is perfect.
The trials of two "honor killers" are underway in America this week: one in Buffalo, New York, and the other in Arizona.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
But according to Islam, didn't early man fall away from God, causing death to exist in the first place?
No, Islam is not Christianity, and does not have the idea of mortality as a punishment for, or consequence of, sinning and thereby falling from "perfect state". Rather, mortality is seen as inherent to humans, Adam and Eve included (that, by the way, is why Muslims consider the Christian idea that Jesus rose from the dead, in human form, as a blasphemy).
The story with forbidden tree is present there as well, but with a twist - Satan was actually tempting the humans with becoming immortal if they tasted its fruits, like "perfect beings" (i.e. God and his angels). Consequently, the tree itself is referred to as Tree of Immortality, rather than Tree of Knowledge.
It is not really treated as "falling away from God", either. It was a sin, confessed and such, and forgiven as such - and so it only applied specifically to Adam and Eve, not their descendants.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you read that, it's sort of like, "oh shit, now I understand why they're pissed off." Basically he's just saying that Mohammed is just some guy- an inspirational figure, but just a human being, not necessarily divine or divinely inspired. In Western theological terms, that's like saying that Christ is an inspirational person with some really interesting teachings, but not the Son of God. That's about as blasphemous as you can get.
Thanks for the context, but the comparison offers no understanding.
In the West, that would generally be considered a very moderate (pretty much the majority) view about Christ. I've had very amicable, respectful discussions with priests where I've expressed views broadly along similar lines and they've been perfectly comfortable - no, I'd go so far as to say agreeable. It was they suggesting that the important thing is the principles of his teachings, whether you learn them from him or elsewhere. You'd really have to find some devout evangelicalists before you'd find anyone who'd even desire some kind of law against saying such a thing, people commonly referred to as "whack-jobs".
Or maybe that is why it is a good comparison. But for the contrast, not the similarity.
Personally though, I'm not convinced that we're all that different. Noisy and powerful people get all the attention. It's tempting to take from this story that Islam is some fanatical thing that thinks you should be killed for noting that you do not believe in it. I suspect however that, as with everything, the impression of fanaticism comes from the few noisy/powerful fanatics. Who probably sit and read news reports about the few noisy/powerful fanatical Christians in the West.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Who modded this up? This is completely, flat out, undeniably wrong. The very phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes from a US Supreme Court case known as Schenck vs. United States, when justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used it as an example of speech that would not be protected if it was factually inaccurate (eg: you can still shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic/stampede that gets people hurt, but there _has_ to be a fire, you are not allowed to shout fire and cause the same harm if there is no fire).
Except you forgot about Brandenburg v. Ohio...
"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used, and that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1917), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.
and
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Islam isn't that different from Judaism or Christianity. Plenty of things in those religions are punishable by death, but not many people are getting stoned for sodomy in America.
The main point behind Christianity is that all sins are punishable with death, but that God acted as the scapegoat thus sins are forgiven. So you shouldn't expect many people to be stoned for sodomy in America.
Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)
If you had no oil, your women would be going topless and your sons would listening to death metal. Because you'd have no power structure to impose your medieval thinking in the modern world. The only reason you can, is because we, in the part of the world that actually builds things and actually works and actually tries to build civil and fair societies, we need to pay you for your oil.
But we in the modern world are pretty sick of your backwards thinking, and someday we'll figure out how to get off our addiction to the stuff I guess Allah buried in your sand. When we do that, you can be pretty sure that there will be no more force left in your ability to impose your ridiculous absurd thinking about religion on anyone, most definitely including your own children and grand children. AND YOUR WAY OF THINKING WILL DISAPPEAR.
In short, I have every respect for Islam, but I have nothing but disrespect for your way of thinking of your religion. Fuck you you backwards ignorant tribal assholes. You don't stand for Islam. Any REAL Muslim with REAL CONFIDENCE in their religion would not care what some doubtful journalist tweets. Any cowardly, spineless, and completely without confidence person, who does not represent anything good about Islam, would get upset so easily.
When the world's reliance on your oil comes to an end, your society disappears into the sand in a heartbeat. Nothing props it up but oil. Certainly not the glory of Islam, because you don't represent the glory of Islam, you represent feeble cowardice, lack of confidence and frailty, masquerading as religious devotion. And you call that your faith? It's pretty sad that this Westerner has more knowledge of the DIGNITIY and NOBILITY of YOUR FAITH than you do, judging by the cowardly way you think your religion needs to be defended. Congratulations on making your religion a joke by your cowardice and lack of confidence.
The prophet was a man, you are frightened little children. You destroy your own religion.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which doesn't make the concept itself wrong due to age, nor any less desirable as a goal for society.
While that was certainly thought to be true when conceived, it needn't be irrevocable: My suspicion now is that the concept of unalienable rights in the 21st century, at least in the US, has long since moved beyond religion to become an inextricable part of its fabric, its foundation, and most US citizens think that such is right and proper, regardless of historical or religious origin.
Speaking only for myself, I believe that we as humans have inalienable, inherent rights, regardless of whether there is a Creator (whose existence I will neither confirm nor deny, as it isn't relevant to this discussion, and is, for me, a deeply personal, individual matter).
I apologize in advance if I am incorrect, but you seem to state that as though it's a bad thing, while I think that it cannot be such. For those that believe that unalienable rights are given by a Creator, they can continue to do so. Those that believe that they come from simply being human can do so as well. So long as all of us fight for them, seek to preserve them, we all benefit, no?
Regards,
dj
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also don't forget the Canadian man of Arabic descent who recently was investigated on terrorism charges after tweeting to his coworkers at a trade fair here in the U.S. to "blow away" the competition. IIRC, his coworkers had a lot of fun trying to get back across the border into Canada after the trade fair because they were known accomplices of a suspected terrorist <facepalm>
"Free speech" must surely mean "as in beer" because it's for sure not "as in libre" anymore.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, for sure. Stoning for adultery goes all the way back to Torah, Muhammad wasn't particularly inventive in that department, he just revived the old practice. So I'm not surprised that Christians in middle age societies also subscribe to that kind of thing.
Still, it would be really interesting to see the distribution between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria when it comes to that question. Thing is, the doctrine of most Christian denominations today emphatically denounces that punishment as not applicable (with most of the Old Testament regulations); indeed, even in Christian Middle Ages, death penalty of any form for adultery was far from universal in Europe. In Islam, on the other hand, the validity of rajm as a divinely prescribed punishment is disputed only by the liberal minority.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was not talking about standing law in the post above, I'm talking about religious doctrine.
The majority of Christian theologists do not believe that stoning (or, in general, death penalty) is prescribed for adultery according to Christian dogmas. The vast majority of followers agree, and would strongly denounce any fanatic who'd do otherwise, as in your example.
In contrast, the majority of Islamic ulema agree that stoning is prescribed for adultery according to Islam, in no uncertain terms (there is some dissent on it even among non-liberal faqih, largely because it is derived from Hadith, and seemingly contradicts a less stringent punishment outlined in Qu'ran - but the broad consensus is that it's valid). And, as evident from the numbers I've posted, a significant part of the followers - the majority in more than a few countries - also agree with that interpretation.
Simply put, death penalty for adultery (and apostasy and blasphemy) is much more mainstream in modern Islam than it is in modern Christianity, regardless of politics.