Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

It is exactly what I already said, what upsets me.
edit:
maybe it is a misunderstanding. What I mean by 'approval' is, it is good to do.And it is clearly not in your cited verses.
what you then think is (I guess?), that your citation shows a kind of disrespect to the situation of the girl being raped (also what one could understand under 'approval' ? after all I'm no native speaker)

You know, that wasn't my point, though. (edit: see above comment)
As a matter of fact I feel the same like you on this issue.

Again, this is your opinion.
Now is everyone who isn't your opinion dishonest?
This would be a lazy attempt of defamation.

As a matter of fact some muslim preacher take such suras as excuses to cruelties done by muslims.
(all the terror incidents, the slaughter and rape of the Jews in the mumbai incident...).
And if THEY view it this way, why shouldn't I be tempted to view it similar? Should I ignore them?
I can tell you I am not dishonest (or try not to be at least ^^) and thus felt offended by your comment.

Hmm, I guess the problem here is, that I take these extremists serious, experiencing their growing acceptance among muslims here in Germany,
while some others think they are only a handful of 'nutjobs'.
By all means I would be glad if the Quran could be read as a scripture which forbids in ALL cases humiliating, rape and murder.
I would be perfectly content with that, I tell you. Though the reality looks different, regarding some muslim interprets.
And let me emphasize that I know, only a special group of muslims interprete the Quran this way, but nevertheless, in my humble opinion, they are to be taken seriously
(as they have already proven).

And as a connection to the official topic (yeah, I had this in mind despite talking about bible verses and rape and stuff ^^) I find
that Wilder has some true aspects in his opinion.
He is generalizing, what I consider wrong, but he has some true points, which many are anxious to admit due to a false understanding of political correctnes.

 

Not really. You took a tiny snippet from sharia 4:24, a passage which talks about who Muslims are and aren't allowed to marry, and acted as if the passage condoned rape. It doesn't. The passage wasn't even about rape, not even indirectly. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact which can be verified by simply reading the passage. Here it is again.

As we can all plainly see, this passage had nothing whatsoever to do with rape. The subject, in fact, didn't even come up.
Of course, you couldn't be bothered to post the passage in context, could you? You couldn't even be bothered to post all of 4:24, let alone the two verses preceding it, which serve to clarify it. No, you posted but one tiny little snippet of the passage, completely misrepresenting its meaning. Let's take a look at what you posted one more time.

What you did was really quite sneaky, and I can think of only two explanations for why you posted this in the manner you did. You were either deliberately misrepresenting the passage (in other words, lying) and assumed that no one would bother to look it up, or you got that snippet from another source and, since it already agreed with your pre-conceived notions about Islam, didn't bother to read the whole passage.

 

@drew
looks like you didn't read my post above. *throughs back to you*
I posted earlier:
"And now that I see the entire 22:24 [has to be 4:24], I see that this Sura can be open to a different interpretation.
As I said my source was mentioned article.
And I still think it is right if put in context with all other sources it cites. "

The way I see Sura 4:24 is as many muslim extremists see it.
Along with other Suras that say one should kill all Jews and Christians if they don't want to convert to Islam that Jews are pigs and so on.
Now we could go on and on and on, I still think that you don't understand me.
looks to me as if you simply ignore my comments on how some muslims justify their cruel actions by Suras like these.

By the way I am not pre-conceived about Islam.Another of your arrogant attacks vs me.
It is how I experience Islam live.Here.In my city.Nothing pre-conceived about it, really!
Though I am adverse to Islam.And I have my reasons. If you deliberately want to call me something then do it this way.

You know, throughing words at me like dishonest, lying, sneaky, pre-conceived, which is simply untrue, will not really help.
Please stay back on topic and keep your ressentiments for yourself.

 

That was an edit, hannibal. It wasn't there when I originally read that post, and I don't make a habit of re-reading people's second-to-last posts to see if maybe they've re-thought their prior positions after first reading and responding to them, and being responded to in kind. Now that you've clarified, your error becomes slightly more understandable. You weren't lying, but were merely passing on misinformation that you picked up from somewhere else without checking its validity.

That said, if your source so thoroughly misrepresented 22:24 for the sake of making a point, why on earth would you trust anything from that source? If they were willing to so brazenly misrepresent 22:24, why would you think they were being honest with the other snippets of passages (they've posted no full passages) they've posted as examples? That they would print such an obvious lie calls their credibility into serious question. There is no way that their misrepresentation could have been an honest mistake. None.

 

To clarify it, the point of the article seems to be about Islam allowing sex with female slaves, it is not about rape.
I simply searched via google, found said quote and posted it.
The rape thing is my interpretation not that of the article.
In my opinion, this article is justified, but that'll be way too off-topic, now.

I know of a story that happened in Afghanistan (before 9/11), where the Taliban raped children of tribes of their ennemies.It was a coverage on TV, where a Woman told here child experiences.
The thing is, rape in war seems to be sadly existant independent of religion and culture.
Though in this case it was justified by Islam law, considering that said tribe was an ennemy.It was simply like the promised heaven for them with all the beautiful virgins.
That is what really upsets me.This justification by a declared holy scripture.

And this is what I want to point out.Still.No dishonesty involved.

 

Sure, hannibal, but I doubt I need to tell you that using scripture to make an argument is not the same thing as that argument being made by the scripture. Most muslims I know would have a **** fit if they heard someone say Islam condoned rape. What we westerners do all too often is look at Wahabi Islam and other extreme brands of the faith and act as if they are somehow representative of the rest. They are not. Where we westerners also go wrong fairly regularly is in failing to differentiate between cultural ills and religious ills within the middle east. Honor killings, for example, are actually a cultural practice, having no scriptural basis in Islam. The act is often wrapped in religious rhetoric, to be sure, but Islam provides no scriptural basis for the act. As a matter of fact, in the countries that have honor killings, the practice actually pre-dates Islam.

All of this aside, I really, really hate defending Islam. As a non-believer, I find most of the tenets and practices of the faith appalling, but as a non-believer, I also remain detached enough to see that most of the ills found in the Koran are also present in the old testament of the bible. The primary difference is that most Christians and Jews have long since ceased adhering to Mosaic law.

One more thing hannibal...I don't think you fully understand the difference between dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty. When I refer to a line of reasoning as intellectually dishonest, I'm not actually calling you a liar.

 

"Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

* the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading" - Wiki

And that's still not true, according to my point of view, with the interpretation (and shall we now call it MISinterpretation, thanks to your enlightenment ^^) in mind of special islam groups.

That said I hope we can now end our personal dispute here .

 

Tal, I think we can say it does boil down to a single factor, but it isn't religion. It is culture. There are plenty of muslims born and raised in the US (and probably in Europe as well) that don't behave this way. It is the extremists coming from the Middle Eastern culture that do these things. And I'm not just talking about rape here, I'm also talking about death threats to any that annoy them.

 

That's certainly the impression given by the newspapers, and there may be some truth in it. The extremists bred in europe seem to be 2nd and 3rd generation malcontents, seeking to fall back on their heritage in reaction to feelings of alienation. Needless to say 9/11 and the USA responses have done nothing but create a breeding ground for such polarization ("You're either with US or against US").
What I've heard, is that if you actually go to a muslim country, on holiday perhaps (no - not my first choice either), you will see that true muslims are completely normal people. Many dutch do this, they go to Turkey and Morocco on recommendation from their neighbours. I admire their willingness to adjust, and they always come back with a deeper understanding.
Saying that a thing like culture is the prime cause, fails to explain why it has become such a widespread phenomenon recently. Muslims are worldwide, and customs and culture are equally widespread and diverse. Their culture hasn't changed abruptly in recent years, so I must conclude that the hostilities are a reaction to antagonism from the west. Just to clarify, I'm talking about muslim-western hostility in general.
As for rape by muslims, I repeat that you should take news reports with a pinch of salt, because men of all religions and cultures commit rape. It should be the act that is despicable; the rationalization that the perpetrator comes up with is of lesser importance.

 

I don't think so. I believe that there is enough antagonism in their own countries to cause them to become "malecontents." The problem for the West is that western countries have to play geopolitical games in dangerous areas that are better left to their own devices.

I could not agree more.

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

 

By the way, does the free speech in the US cover personal litigation? Suppose that I went on a rant to say how a certain protestant sect (let's say Witnesses of Jehova) is a personality cult that brainwashes people, tries to get around the state laws to usurp the regular social institutions and is thus a danger to society, and its members are criminals, immoral and unpatriotic. Am I in danger of being sued by a state or federal agency, or by private organizations or persons?

 

Sued? Possibly, but it probably wouldn't go anywhere. It is very hard (in my opinion, too hard) to win a slander or libel case in the United States.

When Mel Gibson went on his anti-semitic rant in which he claimed (among other things) that the Jews are responsible for all of our wars, no one sued him.

 

But most of the problems are cultural. People still blame so-called "honor-killings" and female circumcision on Islam, for example. That is pure BS, because these two things are entirely cultural phenomenons. You will find no passages in Quran that condone such acts.

As with those rape-cases: Is it clear what the perpetrators know of Islam? Do they rape because their imam told them it's okay, or do they have only passing knowledge of reiligious doctrine and use it as an excuse for themselves?


Also, about rule violation by myself: I did not intentionally insult you. I just called you out on the mistakes you made (some of them really crass). I may have been a bit harsh, but encountering a sudden bout of ignorance by someone who I think is quite intelligent makes me aggressive.

 

Wow, it looks like some of those 'progressive' countries in Europe are really going down the crapper. Here I was thinking that one was only at very real threat of imprisonment for calling a spade a spade in totalitarian states like China and Soviet Russia, but apparently socialist utopias aren't too hot for speech that they find 'offensive'.

I find it quite disturbing, actually. I wouldn't have such a problem with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe if Caucasians could feel safe in offering the same criticism against Muslims that is directed against Caucasians by Muslims. It is a common trend amongst Muslims to condemn the West in its totality, even when they reside within Western countries. And all the while, ass kissing apologists have the Caucasian combatant tethered and muzzled, while the Muslims tears at its flesh. That's awful, it's hardly fair. Let the natives stand in their defense, let them criticise the inherently hostile anti-Western dogma that is political Islam.

 

Ragusa, the culture doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and religion can certainly influence the effects, but if the same religion in different cultures doesn't produce disfunction, then I think we can say that Islam does nothing more than give direction to the disfunction, not cause it. Essentially, you can disect the elements as long as those same elements exist in other contexts. Is it poverty? Well, unlike Islam, poverty is frequently associated with criminal behaviour, but hardly universally, and many of the people in question aren't poor themselves. Poverty may well be a contributing factor, but it isn't the whole. You can continue this and see various roles of many elements.

As for slander/libel, I believe in the US you have to show that the statement has harmed your ability to make money or something, and that it either involve a blatant fabrication of facts, or at the least no reasonable attempt to verify them. For example, if I went to your employer and said you punched me when I was 5 and you were 7, no problem because the employer, aside from not taking me seriously, wouldn't do anything based on something that happened at that age. If I went to him and said you had raped my sister, on the other hand, he may fire you just for that. Given that I don't even have a sister, and was obviously lying, you could then sue me for slander, as I not only lied about you, but cost you your job, too. That's as I understand it, at least. Lawyers can feel free to correct me, as I'm not one.

Basically, freedom of speech goes pretty far in the US, as long as it doesn't to any actual harm to anyone. I'm not even sure where emotional harm goes. If you make fun of a torture victim over his torture, can any charges be filed? I mean, sure, you'll probably get beaten to a pulp by the entire neighborhood , but I mean legally.

 

I agree somewhat with the first part about that religion gives a direction. I doubt it gives direction to dysfunction. I don't like the word 'dysfunction' as it is too charged, not to mention that it is highly misleading (and somewhat smug): Thinking in those terms one could be led to believe that those poor, unwashed Muslims simply suffer from the misfortune to get Islam on top of their already existing misery, and as a result of that they're frustrated and Islam makes them mad. You didn't say that, but that is where the 'poverty' line leads to.

I strongly disagree with that part of the argument. I definitely don't buy that poverty drives Muslim fundamentalism, not in the slightest. To me that doesn't explain how a millionaire like Bin Laden becomes a terrorist. As if, in Saudi Arabia, as the son of one of the wealthiest guys in the country, he sure experienced poverty a lot. Hardly. Face it: Terrorists, left or right, usually are members of the well educated and (relatively) wealthy bourgeoisie. They come from good families. They could make a living if they wanted to. It is higher education that leads to politicisation. Comparatively uneducated people like the pious and zealous Taliban are content with controlling Afghanistan; they are largely a from one ethnic group - they're Pashtun's - and pursue basically ethnic goals and express them in religious terms. Al Qaeda is quite different, it is a pan-Muslim organisation that transcends ethnic groups and as such profoundly political, as it is still profoundly religious at the same time. Hamas is a Palestinian nationalist organisation with limited regional aims, that also expresses it's politics in religious terms, and that is still highly religious. Every of those organisations has its own interests and direction.

Religion not so much gives direction to 'disorder' but rather a common language, framework and vocabulary to express political beliefs. That also explains the vastly divergent insights each group takes from the Koran. I find that explanation far more compelling than the dysfunction argument.

 

Yes, pretty much. I had a similar discussion on another forum.

Islam is inherently violent and discriminatory, just ask any dhimmi living in an Islamic theocracy. Just read up about the lesser Jihad, Dar al-Salam and Dar al-Harb. The fact that Islam is inherently violent doesn't trouble me so much, after all, which religion isn't inherently violent? All branches of monotheism are brutal, although the coercive nature of Christianity has been toned down in the last few centuries due to the wimpification of the West and secularisation. The same can't be said for Islam.

My problem isn't with Islam per se. What troubles me is when Muslims direct violence and what essentially constitutes 'hate speech' towards non-Muslims (read: The West, of which I and my countrymen are part of), all while the so-called progressives close their eyes to this fact while humming and hawing and accommodating their natural enemy, and ostracising and punishing native 'dissenters' who dare speak out. It's really sick, like a female lion patting a hyena on its head as it tears apart her cubs, while biting any fellow lions who attempt to leap to the cubs' defense.

That is essentially what is occurring in the Netherlands. Wilders simply pointed out that political Islam is a very real threat to the Dutch way of life, and now he's being persecuted for the 'sin' of attempting to warn his own people of the danger right in front of their eyes. I re-iterate, that is *disgraceful*.

There is an easy way to correct this heinous crime against nature. Just de-muzzle us and let us fight back, as nature intended. The next time a Muslim riots or sodomises a Caucasian with a pool stick, don't blame the 'inequities' of the West. Blame the perpetrator. And allow us to acknowledge that political Islam is (and has always been) a threat to the Western World, and drives many hate crimes against Caucasians by Muslims.

And allow us to put our foot down, to fight back and re-assert our European identities. Charles Martel, John III Sobieski, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Isabella I of Castile, Richard Lionheart and many other European heroes fought to preserve a Western identity and to push back the violent Islamists, and now appeasers are going to undo all of their work by just allowing them to walk in and set up their own little segregated communities, slowly poisoning and changing society from within.

What a disgrace.