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."
and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone enlighten me, please?
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
The tweet was made on Muhammad's birthday. He was accused of apostasy as a result, an offense punishable by death in the muslim tradition.
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, Funny)
Apparently the Saudis put out the warrant and the Malaysian authorities detained at the airport and are shipping him back. Apparently the Malaysians are really amenable to the foreign governments about extraditing and returning people, so even if this guy faces the death penalty the Malaysians just don't want to get in the middle of things.
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.
But if you choose Sweden, keep away from the women.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Read up on Julian Assange
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Malaysia is a Sharia law country, if you are fleeing from Muslim authorities this is the last kind of place you go.
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:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
This tweet got posted on several important websites, and this is a sort-of important person. Their religion demands they execute him for this, and they can't publicly ignore that. Ask a "western" muslim about this, you'll be horrified by their response. I guarantee it.
So they didn't have to pour over tweets. The "police" got this shoved in their face.
Note that no-one forced any muslim to kill people over the muhammad cartoons. This is sort of like that. Their prophet publicly and cruelly executed anyone who criticized him as soon as he could get away with it. Not "taking" insults is very important to muslim culture.
All of this doesn't mean that they don't pour over everyone's tweets though. They do. Or at least, they try. Luckily, they're about as capable and effective as your average government.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5)
no, no. it is way, WAY more disgusting than that.
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/hamzahkashghri-sparks-polarising-debate-twitter-0022029 [aljazeera.com]
Spineless little fuckers. That whole article, including that he "repented" of his awesome, beatiful, and TRUE tweets, makes me want to choke someone. And I'd do well to remember all the Muslims who are just as appalled as this as me. Islam is a big thing, and Saudia Arabia is just a desert hole with oil and a bunch of clueless old fucks who wear towels and spent breadcrumbs of what they don't understand on things they don't understand. I'm not a racist, and I try real hard to not be a bigot, but this just makes my blood boil.
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, Informative)
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?
http://www.interpol.int/content/download/9429/69209/version/5/file/ConstitutionGeneralRegulations.pdf [interpol.int]
Like the article says, it's against Interpol rules to be involved in something like this.
The proper thing would be to not extradite him. What will actually happen is he well be extradited because of (pre-election) politics and he stands a reasonably high chance of being executed.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me the moral of the story is don't use Twitter. Wasn't there a recent case of some girls getting sent back to England from LA because they'd Tweeted that they were going to "destroy America". I seem to remember rather a lot of people on Slashdot not being very sympathetic. But suddenly it's freedom of speech?
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the moral of the story is NOT "don't use twitter". The moral in this story is that Islam is stuck in the iron age and still believes barbaric things. The moral of the story about the two English fellows getting sent back is that USA border guards have no sense of humour.
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, Insightful)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my opinion though.
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:5, Insightful)
Such extremism isn't the sole domain of the religious, and I say that as an atheist. The assholes will always find some way to legitimize their assholeness, if not religion then some other idealogy like nationalism, racism, economics, etc.
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.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, what does the Bible say on the subject?
Circular reasoning? yes. But it is all three of those things, right there in the text.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, none of these verses were written before the Bible was compiled. So it's a bit silly to say that any verse in the Bible is referring to the Bible itself.
2 Timothy 3:16: Does saying something is God breathed mean that it is the true word of God? Is Paul really trying to set the Bible (which was not compiled) as an infallible text? Or are you taking him out of context?
Psalm 19:7-9: Is it reasonable to say that the Law and the Testimony of God refers to the Bible? Or are you talking this out of context as well?
Deuteronomy 4:2: This is a commandment, not a claim.
Revelation 22:19: Is it referring to the Bible? Or the Book or Revelation? Or the prophecy itself?
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
2 Timothy 3:16 states that the Scripture is "inspired by God", thus refuting the GGP's claim that "the Bible never actually claims to be the word of God"
Bzzzt! Wrong! The Letter to Timothy, when it was written, was not Scripture, nor was it probably ever thought it would be Scripture. Paul was referring to Jewish Scriptures and likely one or more of the Gospels. The only book in the Bible where something like what you're saying takes place is Revelation, that that's a direct admonition not to change the words of the book of Revelation, and says nothing about the other collected works within the Bible. You're reading without thinking about the context, like the guy above who thinks that Jesus and the disciples must have been homosexual because they kissed each others' cheeks as a greeting (I know he was talking about the Grand Inquisitor, but they are described doing that in the Gospels too).
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly the type of extremism that turns me away from religion, and that applies to all forms of it.
That's not specific to religion. If in the former Soviet Union you had said that you don't think communism is a good idea, your life wouldn't exactly have been safe either.
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.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Funny)
He was accused of apostasy as a result,
In my country, apostasy from Islam is punishable by free beer!
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's important to understand that peace [wikipedia.org] doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
"About the only two groups who haven't waged wars for their religion (or lack of one) are atheists and Buddhists"
If you think Buddhists have never fought wars over their beliefs then you know very little of Asian history
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:5, Insightful)
Stalin did NOT collect stamps. This lack of stamp collecting was of course the main reason his leadership led to some much death and suffering. We must immediately promote stamp collecting to stop this sort of grievous crime from every happening again.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stalin killed for an ideology - one that justified killing for a greater cause. Atheism wasn't the source of that sense of justification, Communism was.
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.
Re:Moronic equivalence argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Some religions are worse than others. Pacifists generally don't run about murdering people. "Moderate" members of most mainstream religions don't generally murder people for saying they have silly beliefs.
But all religions promote irrational belief without any supporting evidence. All religions promote adhering to some beliefs no matter how barbaric, and then acting on those beliefs. All religions make it a virtue to ignore evidence, and promote stubborn pig headedness.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's how they explain it:
"Kashgari, a 23-year-old journalist with Al-Bilad newspaper in Jeddah, last week posted a series of tweets of imaginary conversations with the Prophet, in which he spoke to him as an equal, showing his admiration for the man but also confusion around his persona.
“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you” said one Tweet quoted by The Daily Beast."
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. I feel really sorry for this guy- it took a lot of courage, or a lot of stupidity, or maybe both to do what he did- but his life as he knew it may be effectively over. Even if he apologized and the Saudi government pardoned him, he would still face the threat of being murdered if he ever returned to Saudi Arabia.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Except in Western terms, we don't put a price on your head for saying that.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
In the west the "not putting a price on your head" for blasphemy is fairly recent thing. From wikipiedia:
The last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921
and as late as 1977 a Briton was charged with blasphemy. So we in the west are two or three hundred years ahead of the middle east in moral development which shouldn't make us too smug. Just look at the USA and the number of people trying to get religion back into schools and courts. Don't be complacent. Superstition and hate needs to be constantly fought.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There are days you see this five times before breakfast ... and yet no killings, no nothing.
It's called "freedom of religion". Muslims demand it from others, like the west, so why do they get to do this ?
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are days you see this five times before breakfast ... and yet no killings, no nothing.
It's called "freedom of religion". Muslims demand it from others, like the west, so why do they get to do this ?
It's called "hypocrisy" and it's a staple in most major religions.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rome allowed lots of religions. As time went by the faithful came to be an armable resource for use in local conquests as well as resiting local conquests by others. Religions came to see that they must supervise their flocks closely. Catholics were like this back in the old days. Reformation allowed for fragmentation and large numbers broke away. In the UK under 5% go to church, same in Canada. Scientology and Islam go to great lengths to keep their adherents - frequent prayer in groups, punishment of breakaways, etc. They both need a reformation. No-one seriously thinks of scientology as a religion - it is a racket. I happen to feel all religion is a racket.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
Considering
1. Christ is a GREEK TITLE , not a NAME, (there are 20+ CHRISTS = MESSIAHS in the Old Testament), and
2. He said himself "Why do you call me good? There is no one good except God"
You'd have a point if it weren't for ignorant Christians.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
The second question was obviously rhetorical, and meant to point out that the one talking to him was skirting the point of acknowledging that he is God. He acknowledged his Godhood on several other occasions, making this one out to be a denial is to ignore the rest of his words.
But that is the core of Wahhabism. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except even in Muslim terms, the Prophet is not regarded the same way as Christians view the Christ. He is a prophet to them, on the level that Isaiah was to the Israelites, but he is not a saviour nor does he self-represent as being a deity.
Proper respect for the Prophet himself is an issue Muslims often fail to deal with I find, not knowing whether to revere him (and thus possibly blaspheme by treating him as a God figure) or treat him too lowly and seem disrespectful.
Similar problems exist for the reverence of Mary among some Christian groups.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find most despicable, is that Interpol did this.
I assume tweeting the above text is not a felony in Kuala Lumpur, so they have no business doing this.
Does this mean that Interpol could arrest me, just for posting the following text :
"'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"
It's not even clear it's talking about Saudi-Arabia.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
He should be able to tweet whatever the hell he wants.
Probably a good idea not to be a foreigner in Malaysia then.
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:5, Insightful)
Or you could try to open a Jewish Temple in Saudi Arabia. Islam is a tolerant, peaceful religion, we're told.
Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this statement is very simple. If you actually implement this, you are basically making it impossible for muslims to live their religion. It is how their culture works and self-polices. Cut this out, and you destroy it.
Additionally, this is no joke. Saudis and a lot of muslims will scream (quite literally sometimes) about racism if you criticise their attitude towards "hate speech" (executing anyone they perceive as insulting, and there's plenty of example where the person didn't even say anything, it was just "generally thought" (sometimes because of lying) that he said/did/... something). Reading the actual primary sources of the religion, it's plain and obvious that this is how islam works, and they're vastly more flexible than the muslim example. The prophet had people buried in sand in the desert to watch them die for criticizing him.
Cutting out this means flat out declaring the central figure of islam to be an inhuman moronic, cruel paedophilic bastard.
Of course, that's exactly what he was.
Until we face this reality, and force muslims to accept people saying this everywhere on this world, this won't end.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ain't gonna happen, especially not with regards to Saudi Arabia. The US Federal Government *loves* Saudi Arabia, because its rulers are pretty much amenable to whatever they want, as it benefits them as well.
The Feds love the fact that they don't have to deal with that pesky "Constitution thing", when pursuing imperialism overseas. They can just say "It wasn't us! It was them!" if anything should come back to haunt them... but it doesn't, usually, because they aren't directly involved in implementing Saudi domestic policy.
After all, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, right? God forbid that the US Federal Government should interfere with that!
Sarcastically/cynically,
dj
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the U.S. loved Egypt until the revolt, then it told Mubarak to hit the road, Jack. After Quaddafi was "rehabilitated", didn't take Washington too long to show him we loved him enough to send the very best in the business end of smart bombs.
Wanna bet if a good revolt happened in Saudi Arabia how long it would take Washington to heave the royals overboard and start anew with whatever takes their place. Mind you, what will take their place won't be pleasant for anyone, but that won't stop Washington...well...Obama anyhow, from trying.
Re the imperialism thing, err...we sort of gave Iraq back to the Iraqis, we didn't even steal their oil. Of course they are making a mincemeat of their new country, but that's what happens with tribal societies that are in shotgun marriages. Come to it, we gave Kuwait back too. Hmmm...we gave Panama back as well. Hey, is there a pattern here?
Got any other straw men in addition to "imperialism"? By the way, last we checked in on S. East Asia, the countries there appear to want to be snuggle bunnies with the U.S. Something about China throwing their weight around or something. Hell, even Vietnam wants to get under the covers. Could be a trend? No, couldn't be, must be U.S. Imperialism.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have very few problems with invisible wizards, provided they do not order large mobs to kill others.
Needless to say, islam's invisible wizard is found lacking.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:4, Informative)
So? That doesn't nullify the fact that the roots for all 3 are the same.
Anyone saying otherwise is just having a "My god is better than your god" pissing match, not realising that the god is one and the same.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like an atheist (because if what they believe in does not exist, then it's all the same).
Just because the three religions are monotheistic doesn't mean they all refer to the same God. At the very least, the three assert some different and incompatible things about God, so they refer to distinct Gods, and/or contain theological errors. The Muslims, for example, perceive the Christians as polytheists, worshipping three Gods (the Trinity). The Jews worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Muslims fork off their religion after Abraham, following the genealogy of Ishmael (Abraham's son by his wife's maid). If those two are both the same God, then one of the central tenets of Islam ("there is one God and Mohammed is His prophet") is incorrect because it does not recognise the Jewish prophets, or the Jews are wrong for considering the likes of Isaiah to be a prophet.
The fact that your comment got modded up to "5 Informative" is a sad indictment on the moderators for elevating their contempt for religion over actual facts and reason. And why, oh why am I even bothering to respond to atheist dogmatism with a reasoned response? It never achieves anything.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with your critique of religious fanatics, I do have to step in and correct you on the "single greatest cause of death." Mao and Stalin lead that charge (I forget which one has more blood on his hands), and if you're going to lump "religion" in as one big cause of death it'd be hard to avoid lumping "socialist totalitarian states" as one big cause of death.
If you want to claim that each of them were essentially demanding that society treat the State as sacrosanct, and the leadership of said State as worthy of worship, well, that's a different argument.
But lets keep our facts straight; they're what separates science from superstition.
Re:Problem here is "racism" (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Stalin appears to have killed upward of 20 million, Mao was similar. That's a lot of stiffs for Islam to live up to. Personally, I think they have it in them to do it, but they'll have to up their game. As soon as the lunatics finish taking over Pakistan and Iran gets their Shi'ite bomb and the Mideast Sunni's match it, they'll be plenty of stiffs to go around.
First up, they'll try to finish the civil war started in the 600's when someone's grandnephew got whacked. After that, which ever side "wins" will feel like they should win something besides smoking ruins, so there go the Israelis. Nothing warms an Islamic fanatic's heart like smoking Jews. Notice their fondness for the Holocaust.
Historical note: the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was made a Gruppenfuhrer in the Nazi Reich, he rather thought Hitler had the right idea on how to deal with the Jewish problem, Yasser Arafat was his nephew. During the war, he was good friends with the SS and broadcast to the mideast advocating exterminating the Jews, he also was instrumental setting up local SS in the Balkans to wipe out Jewish communities there as well and pushing Eichmann to get on with the job in Europe proper. Arafat idolized him.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
apostasy is punishable by death in Islam
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
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: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.
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and where is exactly the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not just those backwards fools everyone in the middle east talks about. There are upstanding, progressive regimes in Europe where there are literally things you can say that don't involve a threat of violence or which won't cause immediate danger to those around you ("I'm going to kill you!" or "Fire!") which are still considered illegal.
It's cute because these same nations are held up by many as paragons of virtue in terms of human rights, health care, standard of living, etc... Just don't voice an illegal opinion and you'll be fine, that's all.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Informative)
Prob is, figuring out which are the local gods. Course, the Saudis are a bunch of nutjobs. They produced a shitpile of mujihadeem in Afghanistan back when they 'were on our side' fighting the Soviets. If they didn't have oil, we'dve dropped the Saudis like a hot rock.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Informative)
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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets [guardian.co.uk]
So here's your example about homosexuality and "God's" will. Those damn Britains are against free speech!
Or maybe go to Germany and say really love Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung [wikipedia.org]
Quoting wikipedia:
The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person
in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace
So yes, if you are saying I love Hitler and let's kill some Arabs in Berlin, you are in conflict with the law, which - in liberal/western european democraties - tries to protect his citizens against organised attempts to commit mass murder.
What TFA describes as the reason for detention would be protected in the UK and Germany.
Do you see the difference in the reasoning in countries like UK or Germany compared to Saudi-Arabia? They are fundamentally opposed in terms where your freedom is limited. A concept of human rights and secular law on one side and a concept of religious law / God's law on the other.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol, now you're also trying to pretend all religious "CONSERVATIVES" are the same. I'm atheist, myself, but even I can see the difference between your typical bible thumper here in the states and an Islamic radical who wants to behead a woman for having the audacity to be raped. Not that there aren't radical kook Christians who are insane as well, but by and large it's far less common.
Your false, pointless dichotomy is fucking amusing to me. Let's grow beyond being 5 years old and look at censorship independently of what someone else is doing. I condemn assholes who want "DEATH" for what someone said. I also condemn assholes who want PRISON or FINES for what someone said because it offends their delicate worldview.
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Much of the world has "illegal speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm unclear about the number of levels of indirection and sarcasm in your first paragraph due to that last sentence. Therefore I will ignore the last sentence and play your first paragraph as mostly straight.
Yes, homophobia is acceptable as is spouting racism. Hating women is fine too. Just don't assault someone and you can be as much of a homophobic, racist, sexist fuckstain as you want.
Not illegal but reckless negligence (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Bad title. (Score:5, Informative)
Interpol has no "officers" to arrest anyone. It is a multinational organization that facilitates the sharing of info, and arrest warrants, between countries. Here, Saudi Arabia sent out an arrest warrant to Interpol and Interpol transmitted it to police in Kuala Lumpur. The police in Kuala Lumpur arrested. Interpol is just a middle man. We can argue whether it's good or bad (probably both), but Interpol doesn't "arrest" anybody and they didn't force the Lumpurian authorities to arrest. Interpol can't force the police of any State to act. Kuala Lumpur probably doesn't care about this guy and figured better relations with Saudi Arabia is more important.
Re:Bad title. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact Saudi Arabia has an inhumane legal system is widely known and as long as we want their oil it is not likely to change, but Interpol has done something against the moral values enshrined in their own constitution and the persons responsible should be challenged.
Re:Bad title. (Score:5, Insightful)
and as long as we want their oil it is not likely to change
Oil doesn't change human nature. It's not a magical substance that makes people evil. Nor is the Saudia Arabian government unusually bad in some way. It'd be considered an enlightened and open government for the 16th century. But as you have no doubt noticed, it's no longer the 16th century. What has changed is our expectations from government.
In other Developments (Score:4, Insightful)
The US Demanded that Interpol Arrest all the millions of citizens of the world who have at some time or another demanded 'Death to the US'. They even cited a number of people who led the demonstrations against the Vietnam war in the late 1960's.
Ok, so I'm joking but it shows how absurd this is.
I'll be waiting for a knock at the door and my speedy extradition to the USA where no doubt I'll get 999 years in Jail for daring to criticise the USofA.
Re:In other Developments (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps. Probably? Wouldn't it be nice if there were some sort of system by which evidence could be presented and and people could defend themselves before some sort of impartial authority who could judge them. Perhaps throw in a group of their peers to render a verdict.
Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't buy it that interpol can get out of it's part of this by saying that they "don't judge the merits of the warrants". They played a part in this and they need to be held to account. Turning a blind eye whilst helping such a cause holds as much water as "I was only following orders".
Re:Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he'll enjoy his hearing where he knows that a bad outcome there will lead to near certain death. That sounds harmful.
Unlike the home owner in your example, Interpol is in no danger whatsoever of finding itself and it's family replacing the guy it helps if caught. I would argue that the homeowner that refuses to help even if he can do so with no consequences to himself IS actually complicit. Several states in the U.S. have laws consistent with that view where failing to render aid where the victim's life is at stake where one may safely do so is in itself a crime.
Meanwhile, in actuality, Interpol in this case is more like the homeowner that says "There they are" when the Nazis come looking for Jews. They did not just passively watch when evil took place, the actively played a part in facilitating it.
Re:Interpol doesn't arrest (Score:4, Informative)
Articles 2 and 3 of INTERPOL CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL REGULATIONS state:
Article 2
Its aims are:
(1) To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police
authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of
the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights";
(2) To establish and develop all institutions likely to contribute effectively to the prevention and
suppression of ordinary law crimes
Article 3
It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political,
military, religious or racial character
Unless Saudi Arabia lied about the charges against the man, Interpol had a duty not to issue a Red Notice for him.
I said the same thing about /. (Score:5, Funny)
The same could be said about
'I have loved things about you (great submissions, brilliant posts) and I have hated things about you (useless news, trolls, goatse) and there is a lot I don't understand about you (why your code is still buggy after so many years) I will not pray for you.(But I will still read)'
Fuck you all (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just gonna say it right out. Fuck Muhammad and Islam, Fuck Jesus and Christianity and Fuck you and all religions where you have to pray to show devotion and destroy your enemies. Got to love this world. One one side you're getting fucked by your government, right next to it you are getting fucked by corporation and right next to that you're a target some some fucking religious freaks that instead of keeping away from you and minding their own business are trying to enslave or kill you.
A merciful god (Score:4, Informative)
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate - funny how that works.
If you don't get what I'm saying go thumb through the Quaran.
Re:A merciful god (Score:5)
"Kashgari faces the death penalty in Saudi Arabia." In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate - funny how that works. If you don't get what I'm saying go thumb through the Quaran.
Yes Allah the compassionate and Merciful, who selected a pedophile (Piss be upon him) war lord as his prophet, and taught "Kill the infidels wherever you find them".
Hamza Kashgari is a Saudi. (Score:5, Informative)
Hamza Kashgari is a Saudi. The offense was committed in Saudi Arabia, from which he fled to Malaysia. That's a standard fugitive situation. He was in transit to New Zealand where he apparently intended to request political asylum.
Al Jazeera has images of his Twitter feed [aljazeera.com], with English translations. Here's the full text:
"On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go, I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don't understand. On your birthday I won't bow in front of you, I won't kiss your hand. Instead, I will shake it as an equal, I will smile at you and you will smile back and I will talk to you as a friend, no more. All the great gods that we worship, all the great fears that we dread, all the desires that we wait for impatiently are but figments of our imagination. No Saudi women will go to hell, because it's impossible to go there twice."
It's amazing how touchy the Islamic theocracies are about this sort of thing. It's as if they're terrified that their whole religious edifice will collapse if there's any criticism. Islam has never had a Martin Luther.
How can God be damaged by words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can God be damaged by words? (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as Muslims are concerned, God himself - through Muhammad - has indicated that he wants them to execute blasphemers and apostates in His name - so they are simply doing as ordered.
Going into more details, Islam is somewhat different from Christianity in that it does not focus overly on perfect faith. It is certainly desirable, but it is recognized that many - indeed, most - people do not achieve that kind of perfection. Hence why Islam has that whole Shariah part, which is supposed to be the law for running the society in such a way that nudges people, even unbelievers, towards that state, by removing temptations to stray, and imitating the righteous behavior.
Re:How can God be damaged by words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bring on the blasphemy, it's the only way we can fight this bullshit.
As an atheist... (Score:4, Insightful)
As an atheist, my list of "do not visit" countries is getting longer and longer.
When the fuck are we humans going to make it properly out of the dark ages?
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:I am saudi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems More Extreme Than Usual (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how is that an insult? (Score:4, Insightful)
You expect religious types to be rational?
As for Interpol, it is my understanding that all they do is process the warrants. They only check that it's got the right signatures on it, and leave the countries to work out whether it should go through or not and that it gets to the right parts of the government. Kinda like ISPs arguing they have common carrier status.