Jihad

Yes you are.

Spoiler

 

As always I appreciate the response, Mathias. The State of Islam needs someone like you to speak up and take a stand. I don't know what your profession is but you need to consider lobbying for an organization dedicated towards the integration of positive Islamic values and stereotypes into low socioeconomic regions. Down with scapegoating! Even the women can be taught to have higher standards in men by watching more Western movies - don't stick to someone who constantly talks down to you and tries to oppress your passions and urges. That's what leads to them settling for cousins, locking themselves in the house all day, wearing burkha's, etc. The religion must be picked apart and liberalized when being taught... otherwise there is no hope (contrary to what they're led to believe) for it's followers in low socio economic regions.

 

Let's not forget about the sneaky methods some Western Muslim girls use to circumvent this - I won't have sex until I'm married, but we can do anal. Or turning burkha headresses into fashion statement and committing actions completely hypocritical to what they stand for. I remember a Muslim girl who classified things into little and big sins... haraam or halaal I believe? In retrospect it was quite comical how she would justify her behavior... and in some cases she was much more wild than she needed to be BECAUSE of the uncertainty of the extent to follow her religion in the West.

Once someone takes the initiative the gets the ball rolling, things can really pick up quickly. Especially when you're talking about the State of Islam which so many people are passionate about. Often we keep introspecting or looking at things from a far, hesitant to go head first into the belly of the beast because of all the potential hurdles and complications we perceive can arise. But it's got to start somewhere, and I have actually talked with a number of "reputable" people on the state of religion and you're as qualified as anyone to take initiative, or more importantly, judge and select viable candidates.

 

I'm laughing out silently right now.

 

How does one, "laugh out" silently? Is that like the tree falling in the woods thing?

 

So you are against special laws passed to ban hate speech, which is the case in countries like Germany and Britain? Keep in mind that some studies have clearly shown a connection between hateful speech and a spike in violence against the ethnic group being targeted. Words can be WEAPONS, and too many times blood is shed over it.

Even America is moving in the direction of punishing for hate speech and hate crimes, because they are REAL and they exist. These merchants of hate are absolutely no different than that Awlaki guy in Yemen whom the CIA is now authorized to kill with its unmanned drones flying over the region. That guy preaches and counsels violence with his WORDS, he does not carry an AK47 around the battlefield to kill Americans, yet he is probably more dangerous than the guys who actually carry out the attacks because he recruits and infects people's minds with rage and anger and encourages violence.

Think about it: merchants of hate are, on average, more harmful than terrorists themselves. It is the guys who create the narrative and encourage it that should be hunted first and foremost, the USA understands this now.

 

I understand, and I am not saying it is an easy process, but CLEARLY some countries feel the need to censor or even criminalize some aspects of free speech which they view as threatening to social cohesion or the greater good which, lets face it, no society can exist without (civility, that is). My entire point was to illustrate that many of those touted first-rate democracies like Germany and Britain and now even the USA HAVE, in fact, enacted or are on the road to enacting special legal codes addressing so-called hate speech or requiring special handling for so-called hate crimes. Several studies in the social sciences support these steps as a general positive contribution to freedom and even freedom of speech. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but the more you think about it, the more you realize that free speech and the freedom to act as you please cannot be absolute, and that barriers are constantly erected to 'manage' these freedoms within reasonable bounds without inhibiting them too much. Consider the following example, and I am trying to step out of an American-centric view which it seems like many people here subscribe to, assuming it is one standard that can applied globally, which it cannot.

If you are a Rwandan or even an Iraqi, you are keenly aware of the ethnic genocide that took place in your country in recent years or even months. However, you are trying to build a democratic SOCIETY (emphasis on society, since the state of nature is clearly undesirable, where freedom is absolute). To help stem the tide or threat of old hatreds turning your country back into a slaughterhouse, you enact laws that prohibit hate speech or propoganda targeted at a specific ethnic group, and you establish a legal code to punish for it as a deterrent. Clearly, based on the unique histories and needs of those various countries, they would need to enact laws that protect their society and help maintain the peace and the ability of all the different ethnic groups to co-exist peacefully. Only an idiot (and a dangerous zealot, at that) would argue that Rwanda or Iraq should grant a free speech pass to any idiot getting on the radio denigrating another ethnic group or asking for people to be arrested or killed or their mosques and churches bombed. Some forms of free speech are linked to incitement and violence, and yes I think those should be restricted.

Another quick example of this is Germany and its unique history with Nazism and anti-Semitism, so they enact laws regarding Holocaust denial given their unique history. It is perfectly understandable and, I would wager, the smart and right thing to do given their society. Free speech is not absolute ANYWHERE in the world, I think that is the problem with this discussion is the faulty assumption by some that it is absolute and that Muslims or some other ethnic groups are trying to limit criticism of their own religions where no such limitations exist elsewhere. Even in the USA, which is arguably the freest on the free speech metric, there is the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception made to free speech. So my counterargument to free speech zealots is quite simple: once an exception, any exception, is made, then you can no longer claim that there is no legal precedence. Free speech is either absolute or it is not. Clearly it is not in most (all?) countries.

I appreciate the passionate defense of the cartoonist and frankly I did not find much of what he did all that offensive and for a while did not really get what the fuss was all about, but suffice it to say I hold in equal contempt (actually much more so) those few journalists who are back in my beloved homeland of Egypt that decide to denigrate and incite the Coptic Christian masses by their irresponsible and incendiary remarks regarding the church in Egypt or some of its leading figures. On at least one occasion that I can remember, I hold those people directly responsible for the ensuing violence in some parts of the country. Riling up people and then stepping back, holding your hands up and saying with a smug smile on your face, "I am not doing anything, as you can plainly see!" is very much a cowardly thing to do and deserves, at the very least, our contempt.

Ethnic sensitivities are nothing to mess around with. Just ask the Iraqis or any other nation which has had the misfortune of experience ethnic violence at any level. It won't be as funny anymore when you watch your country dissolve and your whole world coming apart. Just keep in mind that some people actively try to promote and provoke this very thing into existence, not every free speech practitioner is innocently trying to educate and teach, hidden agendas abound everywhere you look, just look carefully.

So again, I do support some (small) limitations on free speech, which again IS ALREADY THE CASE!!! Sorry for the caps

No argument there, I agree. We should be very careful blowing the protests and few riots out of proportion. I think the single largest gathering and biggest incident on record was some 300 protesters gathering in the Syrian capital and attacking a couple of embassies. Even there, and knowing Syria, spontaneous protests almost never occur without government approval and participation in a covert way. Spontaneous protests just don't happen in Syria. So even assuming that violence was exercised by 1000 Muslim protesters all over the globe, that is almost a non-happening absent the media hype and the tendency of media coverage blowing things waaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. I would venture to argue that most Muslims were secretly upset with the portrayal of their prophet or the general disrespect they feel is coming from their Western counterparts, and they may have voiced their displeasure in a peaceful manner such as organizing boycotts and the rest. It remains true that violence was VERY limited and violent protests were VERY small and limited in effect. I am thinking the organized economic boycotts of Danish products had their desired effect, however, and no one (except for a noted Islamophobe) can argue that Muslims have no right using their economic or purchasing power as a form of peaceful protest when they feel wronged by someone or even a whole country. Westerners can also easily vote to disapprove of autocratic and terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle East if they decide to stop purchasing oil or some other commodity which is exported by the Middle East. You have the right to vote with your Dollar, and given the global interdependence of our economies now, it seems like the most effective way to do things and affect change.

I know this is more of a side note, but I strongly disagree with your underhanded or unspoken assumption here that Western values are inevitably the 'global' values which will exist. I would have bought into your thesis had this been the early or mid 1990's, but it no longer is and the West is CLEARLY on the decline and, for the first time in recent memory, on the defensive. Countries like China and India and Brazil and a lot of other rising powers, which will eventually overtake or at least be as significant to world politics as the USA and Europe, have a different take on civilizational dialogue, and they do not try to justify the disrespect or denigration of religious symbols in the media, and their governments hardly sanction those things. Their thesis is likely what will end up dominating the global narrative as we move into this century, and this is ALREADY reflective in the UN body and its member nations. I think free speech zones are getting smaller and restrictions are already piling up, and old world values are already starting to creep in and force the issue. That is why I would beat on eastern old world values to dominate global dialogue before this century is up, I would not bet on Western values winning the day or becoming the norm for global dialogue. Sorry about the dissertation here, just thought this might be an interesting point to raise up.

On your other point regarding using counter-speech to hateful or divisive speech by presenting a counter-narrative, I fully agree and I would prefer that approach to anything else, a market of ideas as it seems, but with one caveat: I support, based on country by country basis and entirely up to the people in each country, some limitations places on free speech, since we already agree that it is NOT absolute, as evidence shows. I am not saying ban the bashing of religion or even these specific cartoons (which I regard as not all that offensive or relevant to hate speech), but I am saying SOME line will need to be drawn, and it is up to each society to decide where that line is drawn.

Well I am tired, I typed too much tonight!

 

Unfortunately, hate speech is a symptom and restricting it is a cosmetic effect at best. In spite of Germany's draconian speech laws, they have something of a Nazi revival going on among disaffected youths. Restricting free speech would have made Rwanda much worse (the Hutus had a legit grouse), and done squat for Iraq (curbing hate speech does nothing for a multi-generational conflict). You can't legislate every problem away.

 

Hate crimes being punished is great. Hate speech being punished, not so much.

I'm against the US authorizing the CIA to kill that guy, but there is also a difference between hate speech, and speech that urges violence.

 

In Islam, are there any restrictions on freedom placed on men that are not placed on women?

 

No, both the genders are assigned different roles, and equity between the two is firmly stated in the Quran. For example, the contentious issue of veiling comes from the principle of modest dressing for both sexes in the book but it is not mandated anywhere for women to don the garb many Westerners view as oppressive.

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

[Book] Gender Equity In Islam

 

he asked for freedoms, not marriage obligations. In India, you get a lot of those same requirements (granted it depends on how progressive the families are in terms of whether they actually follow that stuff) but still the question is about freedoms and not financial obligations.

 

He and I both answered durvasa's question. Few, if any. Both genders have the same restrictions or codes to live by.