It is fairly self-evident that people in the past were prevented from putting forth their views regarding any dissent to the established rule. It was also found that in many cases where people were allowed to express their opinions, often improvements were found that otherwise would have been missed.
To speak out for their own rights people were given the power to speak freely so as to express their concerns so when considering their fate the authorities would have the facts surrounding their situations.
Fast forward many years later … And we find ourselves abusing a law that had come to be in order to safeguard humanity … It is now being used as a weapon to inflict harm on the sentiments of others. If you look at the stark difference between the intent of the act from what it is now being used for … You will see that instead of for defending ones own rights … Freedom is being used to infringe upon the faith and beliefs of others, through taunts, slander and mocks. Someone needs to review this act and put therein a caveat that the act is to be used in specific ways. Derogatory ways not being among them.
with the good we have to take the bad as well sometimes in order to protect a greater good.
that is when there is no way to fix the "good" which is bringing with it the "bad", why not revisit the rule which psyah mentioned, when it is very much doable?
when this logic is applied to the "blasphemy law" everyone happily says yes, why the hesitation about "fixing" the so called freedom of speech?
Everyone should be bound to respect other religions. So far, I noted that freedom of expression is free from ethics and all kinds of constraints and regards.
And in reality freedom of speech is one thing, but then there is "propagating evil" (fitnah mongering). The various forms of media pick up a particular "free speech" example and push it out to us - they do this because it makes them money. You end up getting "negative" hate rhetoric being propagated and "positive" support and speech to improve humanity fall by the way side.
Freedom of speech is not to be confused with Hate Speech. That is different and of course on all levels of common sense - wrong.
Onto this freedom of speech thing.
If this "rule" gives someone the right to insult Islam but also gives me the right to talk about Islam...then I am all for it. You know why? Because I have faith in myself and what I am. I know what is right and that Allah swt is on my side and that is enough.
I also know that our Prophet (saw) lived through much more persecution than we have gone through and if HE can be tolerant............then so can I.
Freedom of speech is not to be confused with Hate Speech. That is different and of course on all levels of common sense - wrong.
Onto this freedom of speech thing.
If this "rule" gives someone the right to insult Islam but also gives me the right to talk about Islam...then I am all for it. You know why? Because I have faith in myself and what I am. I know what is right and that Allah swt is on my side and that is enough.
I also know that our Prophet (saw) lived through much more persecution than we have gone through and if HE can be tolerant............then so can I.
Peace Sister Reha
You are truly good at handling what many other Muslims find so delicate a matter, that is your strength. However, my argument does not stem from how we are supposed to react to hate speech. I agree with you in principle. If every Muslim does how you do ... But we can speak of RasoolAllah (SAW) and ourselves, but we cannot speak on behalf of others ... we know they will react.
No, my point was more deep rooted than this ... My point was to look at the core reason for the Freedom of Speech Act itself and what its intent had been. Without undoing that intent is it possible to amend the Act that will disable its use as a weapon to incite hatred? If so, should this amendment not be done?
You are truly good at handling what many other Muslims find so delicate a matter, that is your strength. However, my argument does not stem from how we are supposed to react to hate speech. I agree with you in principle. If every Muslim does how you do ... But we can speak of RasoolAllah (SAW) and ourselves, but we cannot speak on behalf of others ... we know they will react.
No, my point was more deep rooted than this ... My point was to look at the core reason for the Freedom of Speech Act itself and what its intent had been. Without undoing that intent is it possible to amend the Act that will disable its use as a weapon to incite hatred? If so, should this amendment not be done?
How can it be possible? How many mouths can you control psyah bhai? How many people will we possibly throw in jail for breaking a law that says "you can say this but you can't say that".
Opinions are opinions, whether they're good or bad. The freedom to say what you want comes with the knowledge that you're now living in a world where you get to say and do what you want but so do others.
The concept of freedom is an absolute...one cannot be mildly free to do or say as they wish. It is either one or the other.
How can it be possible? How many mouths can you control psyah bhai? How many people will we possibly throw in jail for breaking a law that says "you can say this but you can't say that".
Opinions are opinions, whether they're good or bad. The freedom to say what you want comes with the knowledge that you're now living in a world where you get to say and do what you want but so do others.
The concept of freedom is an absolute...one cannot be mildly free to do or say as they wish. It is either one or the other.
Well it's a good question ... First of all the law amendment that I am speaking about is already effective in the UK. The same type of freedom of speech is not present here. It seems to be working.
The concept of total freedom is indeed an absolute - which is why it is a lie ... there is no absolute freedom, various governments will draw the line somewhere. The US government will not tolerate the freedom of hackers to copy their confidential information and divulge it to other countries. It is the endeavour to be consistent that I am talking about.
If we profess to freedom then we should allow others to respond to the freedom we have exercised. If we say something that harms the sentiments of others then we should not complain when they react to it - with the freedom they wish to exercise. Rather we should not use "freedom" to rally support. We should use the idea of "concern" to be the motive ...
We should not be free - but we should be given concern and we in turn should have concern ... because by having freedom we do not necessarily have concern in that freedom and in the long run we get bitten back for the freedom we exercised.
Morality has been compromised - Some argue that morality cannot be enforced. Others say that if the outwardness of immoral actions is not curtailed then the outcome will be a catalyst for further immorality ... So it is a matter of putting measures in place to prevent immoral behaviour versus measures that are in place to have ones rights heard.
Everything has a caveat - Even the phrase "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Clearly this does not apply to a masochist.
How can it be 'doable' when we can see that many Muslims themselves also want the right to say things about other sects or religions which their followers might find insulting.. If we say the leaders of Ismailis or Ahmadiyyas are 'false' isn't that also insulting to them? Can't have our cake and eat it.. Better to educate ppl thru words and actions rather than trying to silence those we don't agree with imo..
How can it be 'doable' when we can see that many Muslims themselves also want the right to say things about other sects or religions which their followers might find insulting.. If we say the leaders of Ismailis or Ahmadiyyas are 'false' isn't that also insulting to them? Can't have our cake and eat it.. Better to educate ppl thru words and actions rather than trying to silence those we don't agree with imo..
Peace Deeba1234
As I said earlier. It is already being implemented in the UK. There are fewer cases of open hate speech and it is not about being taken to prison necessarily, but at least having grounds on civil law suits to present a caution to the would be hater. And it works both ways. We can say according to so and so - something is false and this is unlike making a film to mock another people. Surely you can see the big difference.
I don't have a problem in someone saying he does not believe in Islam or the authenticity of our dear prophet, but I do have a problem of them making jest of him (SAW). Surely, if we love him (SAW) it should annoy us, whether we show that annoyance in the form of anger or not merely shines on how mature we are being. Then if it is okay for someone to say such things then he should be ready to face the array of responses that come his way too. If that is the sort of world you want then perhaps we are not focussing on the betterment of humanity at all.
The concept of total freedom is indeed an absolute - which is why it is a lie ... there is no absolute freedom, various governments will draw the line somewhere. The US government will not tolerate the freedom of hackers to copy their confidential information and divulge it to other countries. It is the endeavour to be consistent that I am talking about.
Those are laws psyah bhai. Those are government laws of the land...of their country. To not only protect them but also the citizens of that land.
If I am at work and someone mocks my faith, they can get fired for it.
If I am out in the mall and I make fun of someone's faith........nothing happens to me. Someone might escort me out but that's it.
Those are laws psyah bhai. Those are government laws of the land...of their country. To not only protect them but also the citizens of that land.
If I am at work and someone mocks my faith, they can get fired for it.
If I am out in the mall and I make fun of someone's faith........nothing happens to me. Someone might escort me out but that's it.
How is racism dealt with in the US? In the UK it is an offence ... Religion for Muslims is more important than our own race ...
There is clear reason why such behaviour is allowed to exist against Muslims ... And that is to serve a greater more sinister New World motive ... When we understand that ... then we can move on ...
Freedom or freedom of speech is an oft repeated slogan in the US ... It carries no meaning and policies within the US clearly contradict those slogans ... The sooner the US public realise that too the better.
Don't forget that freedom of speech also allows one to talk up their religion.
When Muslims say that Islam is the only true religion and Allah is the only God, that implies that other religions are false and all other concepts of God are not correct.
Should I consider that as an insult to my religion ?
Don't forget that freedom of speech also allows one to talk up **their **religion.
When Muslims say that Islam is the only true religion and Allah is the only God, that implies that other religions are false and all other concepts of God are not correct.
Should I consider that as an insult to my religion ?
"their" religion? what about "other" religion?
And your reasoning is flawed about how Muslims stating their faith saying yours is false.
When you say I have multiple gods, or Jesus is God, you are also saying that Islam is false because it has only One God. :) Getting my drift?
And your reasoning is flawed about how Muslims stating their faith saying yours is false.
When you say I have multiple gods, or Jesus is God, you are also saying that Islam is false because it has only One God. :) Getting my drift?
Hindus do not say Shiva is the only God, but Muslims do say that Allah is the only God. Moreover, Hinduism does not have the concept of infidels or non-believers which Islam has. Make sense ?
Coming back to the topic, freedom of speech allows you to say that Allah is the only God even though I may not believe it and it may hurt my religious sentiments :)