OIC pushing for global anti-(Islamic) blasphemy law

Yes, to each his own- I'll leave the thread open for now, let it die of natural causes if interest disappears, and I'll kill if it stays majnoon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't mean to hate on anyone.

Agreed.

The antagonism of Muslim populations in US/Israeli and allied foreign policy is the greatest flashpoint and source of political violence in the world today.

The OIC leaders are not in enviable positions. The world is very shifty ground for them, because their societies are suffering in turmoil.

The Resolution we are discussing makes no new laws.

The OIC is appealing for a reduction in incitement for conflict in the world. The Resolution does not change any legislation in the member states. The Resolution calls on Members of the United Nations to combat defamation of religion, in accordance with their respective sovereignty and legislatures.

That is what this resolution spells out in its text.

That is what this resolution spells out in its text, and in acknowledging the inalienable human rights declared in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Zionism is not a human right. I have no difficulty recognizing the equal human rights of Jewish people.

No, I don't think that's logical; you've taken my words far out of context.

Sorry- I missed your evidence. Will you please summarize it again??

I'm sorry, but we have exhausted Sam's patience here. No doubt that of other readers too.
Let's all make a new effort to be more succint, and to leave more opportunities for others to respond without long Q&A exchanges. I've tried to respond briefly to questions and challenges here, but we've been flinging too many at once for easy and clear reading.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Takes two to tango. Plus there are many other mass conflicts in the world that get less hype but might arguably be just as large in scale, including the simmering civil war within the Muslim world itself.

Yes, and it's time they accepted some responsibility for their own fate instead of passing everything off on foreigners.

At minimum, the resolution changes the lens through which existing human rights legislation is to be seen, which has the same effect.

I can't have much of a debate with you about this if you don't even read or address the OIC Wikipedia postings I cited in post #181.

I agree, the resolution is against defaming respected leaders such as this guy and this guy, much-needed protection from those who would falsely attempt to deny their religious entitlements.

You completely missed the point of the message. So please do read the Wikipedia citations in post #181, and note the content about the OIC's complaints that human rights are a Jewish invention to protect Jews from persecution, and that existing human rights legislation should be secondary to Sharia at the UNHRC.

Actually that was my quote originally, I was asking you to cite where I spoke of Muslim baby-beaters. If you read all my posts carefully, you will see that you're the first one in this thread to suggest the idea. All I said was that Human Rights legislation doesn't mean whatever the heck individual countries think it should mean, nor is that the intention behind the OIC's gamesmanship. There's an agenda, and I suggest you read my posts so you can inform yourself all about it.

Weren't you pissed off at GeoffP just recently for supposedly arguing in circles?

Don't worry, I have tons of patience. SAM said she was going to bring the goods like I did, but so far all she's brought are anecdotes. All fun and games whenever she bashes the Napoleonic West for its barbaric adventures on other peoples' lands, but suddenly when you start asking her tough questions about her own people, she goes back on her word. I already called it, you can question, but you can't question. Just like Maoist China. Hey SAM, I've got a fresh water acquifer I'd like to sell ya!

I'd love for SAM to collect all her thoughts and grievances into one thread so we can get everything on the table and see what she's all about, but she refuses to engage. You can hardly blame me for that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anecdotes are what Bukhari collected. He had no way of knowing if they were true or false - all he did was to dismiss those whose chain of transmission was weak [which was independent of their accuracy or lack thereof]. What academic scholars have done is sifted through the anecdotes and narrators and analysed them in relation to the historical record. So when you prop up Bukhari remember there is reason the Hadiths are called tradition while the work of the Hadith scholars is called history

Feel free to point out where in any of my dismissals of the western "civilisation" I have resorted to popular opinion over the academic record.

Meanwhile when or rather if you ever move beyond tradition to history, do let me know and I will freely provide the resources I use for my own research. Otherwise if all you want to do is indulge yourself in defaming me as well as Islam, then you're on your own. Note that the "drag queen" who you believe was a distraction is representative of the Muslims who are not just educated and tolerant, but also progressive. Note that these are the Muslims who view western values with contempt, not the uneducated fundamentalists who are easily won around. These are the people who belong to the developing communities who are coming into their own. They speak your language better than you do, know your culture and society inside out as well their own. So when you speak of debating the openness of Islamic society, remember these are the people you will engage with and whom you have to convince of your sincerity in wishing to do so.

Clinging to a tradition they have dismissed will not get you there.

 

Reviewing the thread, it seems to me that from the outset GeoffP's purpose here was not to sharpen understanding of the actual Resolution against defamation of religion.

It seems to me that GeoffP's intent (and likely that of others who joined in his criticism) has been to promote islamophobia by stigmatizing the Resolution and the UN generally as being part of an insidious conspiracy to force disproportionate, exceptional, and inappropriate protection and status for Islam around the world. The impression I get is of a subtext, inferring that there is an insidious movement withing Islam today for world domination, and that this perceived Islamic agenda of tyranny must be opposed from creeping into our lives through statements like this Resolution.

I do not deny that there are fringe elements among Muslims who are zealots, but I strongly oppose the specious stigmatization of invitations to tolerance such as this Resolution as instruments of Islamic oppression. I tried to show that the actual language of the Resolution, and it's non-binding legal power do not in reality constitute an improper institution or advancement of an oppressive or coercive ideology nor policy attributable to Islam, nor to any particular religion. In response, there was nothing but distraction from the text and its actual legal force and context- a voluminous diversion into many tangents in order to pile on the appearance of evidence for a purported conspiracy to advance unfair and exceptional protections for Islam through the language and influence of this Resolution.

As a moderator, I could have sanctioned that as trolling, especially considering the quantity of specious tangents introduced without addressing the text of the Resolution and its legal context. I chose to be lenient to a fault, so as not to provide grist for accusations of impartiality.

As a member, I thought it important to challenge islamophobia here, as I believe it is important in our world today to challenge it wherever we encounter it, because islamophobia is central to so much conflict and suffering in the world today.

Unless the opponents of the recent UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religion can address the text, and address the non-binding nature of it, then it seems to me that their argument has fallen apart here, and there is not much value in continuing with endless rebuttal of their distractions from the basics here. I encourage opponents of the Resolution to make a brief summary of their criticism of the actual text, acknowledging the reality that this is a non-binding Resolution. Or, just let it go, since we've each adequately expressed our views, and any observers of the discussion already have ample evidence of which parties have approached and understood the Resolution and its legal context most directly and objectively.

 

As I've said, you've been wrong before.

Hype, I thought I'd worked this through already with you: the Resolution is directed at Islam. You've acknowledged it, or at least avoided bringing it up, for several posts now, so I'd assumed - perhaps naively - that the issue was fixed. Now it is not? It is abundantly clear that the Resolution has Islam in mind. If you're going to argue understanding, you have to have a broader view of an issue. If you only want to argue the wording of the Resolution, then in point of fact it is you and not I who is in conflict with the OP - which, you may recall, is mine own.

Perhaps it would be useful to ask what protections already exist at the UN on these issues. Presumably such might be found in the UDHR? (And not so much the CDHRI, par example.) What then is the necessity of the Resolution? Solemn reminder? Political tool? Well, assuredly not the latter: why, no one has ever advanced a biased claim at the UN of all places, have they? You are forcing me back onto circular treatment of the same issue, hype.

Let's stop and examine your ridicule here: what are you calling a 'conspiracy'? A collaboration among several distinct elements with a common goal? How would we differentiate that from the actual construction of the Resolution, which was indeed a collaboration among several distinct elements (members of the OIC) with a common goal (fill in the blank according to preference)?

Let's also ask how my position is "Islamophobic". (BTW: you're supposed to capitalize Islam, hype. Tiassa was very firm about sanctioning anyone not doing so. Just a reminder.) I am perhaps criticizing the philosophy of Islam? No? How about its theology? Still no? Darn. How about Muslims? Am I lumping them into a common category to attack? No again? Ah, I give up. But wait: am I attacking the transit of conservative theology into international politics? Wait! I am doing that! All right! Now you've got me!

Except that isn't "Islamophobic" but rather "Islamistophobic", at best. Or perhaps "antisecularophobic." Ooh, evil. Or are you saying instead that the suppression of free speech - since, as we have both agreed up to now, enforcement and pursuit of the failure to attend the spirit of the Resolution is really up to the proclivities of any nation-state having signed to the Resolution - is Islamic? That is, found in its core texts and theology? That seems a little Islamophobic, hype. Subtle difference there.

Barring the bracketed text, this is in fact an object of Islamic law in essentially every Islamic nation: the disproportionate protection of Islam, unless Christians or secularists wield such overwhelming power in Pakistan and Indonesia that only execution, caning and will stop their inhuman outrages. (The above being extremely kuffrophobic.)

Well, when their next Resolution explicitly mentions non-Muslims as a rationale for the proposition of same, let me know and I'll be sure to tone down my accusations of hegemony.

 

I forgot to mention: try it. Again; I'd assumed we'd cleared this matter up. PM if you'd rather not put it on the boards.

 

There's nothing to squabble about, Geoff- all clear at my end.

 

I'll have the Squabble with broiled potatoes, please.

Well, I regret to say that there is, if you persist in your unbelief:

Hype, I cannot change your opinion of me - nor you my opinion of you. I cannot even force you to support allegations against me, or withdraw them. However, I can refute such an opinion in the commons quite effectively, and I will. I assume your post, above, means that you have withdrawn from our common understanding and returned to your (mis)characterization of my position and operation.

In point of fact, you likely could not have done, since it was neither trolling nor specious, unless context has suddenly ceased all importance. I wonder if that's in the Codex of Pirat'ous Moderation somewhere. Or at least that sanctions would have been overturned on review.

Hardly to a fault, since at no time did I confine OP argument to the Resolution explicitly, and since the context of the Resolution is hardly independent of its intent, or at least not in any normal context.

Ach: petards, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Call me an infidel if you like.

 

Deluded would be description enough.

Now, since you're back on the Islamophobia trait, could you explain yourself?

 

From Post #204:

Since I am being accused of defamation and poor scholarly work, I am entitled to defend myself. I decided to look at SAM's side of the story, despite her use of difficult-to-access resources. As I said, all she has done is state summaries and anecdotes based on her personal recollection of the resources she cites, themselves largely based on research she did for previous Sciforums arguments.

So instead of only referring to Sahih al-Bukhari, I decided to look at some of SAM's most trusted scholars.

From Post #123:

So I decided, why cite from Sahih al-Bukhari and other widely trusted resources from the Muslim world? Let's refer to some of SAM's sources instead, like Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari.

Source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm#s3

Oops, did I do that?

Then I went digging around at http://islamqa.com. Checkmate.

Edit: The content in the previous URL labelled "checkmate" has been mysteriously taken off the web. I don't know if it's temporary or what, but I'm pretty sure it's been around a long time, and within a few hours of my citation, it's gone. So here's a link to the original page from Google's cache instead, a snapshot taken on 10 Dec 2010 17:36:32 GMT.

Thanks for the tip, SAM. Remember what I said about trainwrecks. Let's take it to the Religion forum, where we can have a more comprehensive dialogue, rather than cluttering this thread with embarassing insights. Do I have your explicit permission to get it started?

Why do so many Islamic countries punish those who question this caliph? Why do you not speak out against this? Why does the UNHRC not speak out against this? I have another question for you, SAM: Who made your horse blinders, and what stock exchange are they listed on? I smell a great opportunity to buy.

Well, as one of uncountably many examples, you just stated the following in a recent post in the Politics forum:

So there you have it, in your own words. How about you lay off for a change, so the Big Bad Wolfy West doesn't have to come blow your house in?

Are you ready to debate me in the Religion forum, or are you just gonna keep shooting yourself in the foot here instead?

 

The ones I run into seem pretty clueless about major aspects of my culture - IIRC every self-described Muslim on this forum has claimed the hijab cannot be an oppression of women because it is voluntarily worn, for example. So Western feminism is not even above the horizon, in that world.

That may be so - I think it's problematical - but no such careful Western definition is going to matter in practice. We have many examples of Muslims claiming defamation on this forum, the claims (about Rushdie, Dawkins, the literal Quran, etc) form recognizable and consistent patterns, and the bet would be that such "defamation" is the intended target of this resolution.

 

Let's proceed from here one question at a time (to avoid further fisking please).

Yes, I could / shall explain myself, on any points that you care to raise pertaining directly to the Resolution we're discussing- One at a time.

 

Good - how was my consideration of the Resolution Islamophobic? That was the last issue, and the most offensive one.

 

The Resolution does not afford Islam with exceptional protections from defamation, as compared with any other religion. To suggest that it does as you have argued above can only arise from a fear of Islam in my estimation, considering that irrational fear most often motivates such labored and flawed constructs.

 

Well, it seems very strange that after sitting up there for so many months/years, within a few hours of me citing islamqa.com, the relevant article and quotations have mysteriously vanished. Dunno whether it's some kind of bug, or maybe they have something to hide from outsiders, but here's a link to a Google-cached version of that webpage, so you can still see it.

Once again, I shall post the relevant quotation cited from that page (which also contains many other dandies), along with a bit more of the quotation for purposes of context:

 

Moderator Note: I have issued CptBork a formal warning for aggravated posting of off-topic and distracting material ("trolling").

 

I will contest your warning with the relevant authorities. I am citing a text SAM herself told me to read, and I will not allow islamqa.com to hide their writings, assuming that's why the page suddenly vanished.

 

That's fine- Please review my previous moderator notes in this thread. I've pasted them below for your convenience. The comments I made as moderator do not all apply directly to you, but I hope that they may help you to understand the sort of posts that I have been discouraging here at considerable length and visibility.

At this juncture, you have merely received a warning that carries no demerits as a member. It carries only an incrementally higher emphasis than all the warnings I have previously issued here as moderator.

If you have any questions about what I'm trying to discourage here, please ask me.

If you have questions about my authority to insist on applying the standards of the forum rules pertaining to off-topic posting, then please inquire of my colleagues. You can find a staff directory in the sticky thread at the very top of this subforum: List of Moderators/Forum Rules & Regulations.

Thank you for your attention to my moderating efforts here.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Moderator Note: Let's address these basics of intelligent discussion if necessary, but get back on topic soon, please.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moderator Note: I sense some possibly excessive topical leeway here.

Sam's fashion show was lovely, and I myself commented on it. But it was much more suitable for Art & Culture. I thought she made up for her tangent by succinctly responding to my (also somewhat tangential) query about the relevance of Haditha to the price of tea in China understanding of the UN Resolution we (who enter this thread) are ostensibly here to read about and discuss.

Yet still now, we're delving deeper into Hadiths on what does not appear to me to be any sort of quest for illumination of the intent, meaning, and likely influence in the world of the Resolution in question (CptBork). Nor is it clear to me why we should be seeking guidance in the Hadiths over this, since we have good reason to expect that the exercise would not even occur to most Muslims. What I suspect is instead going on is an attempt at defamation of Islam. Now, I realize that this was not a binding Resolution. I realize that the recognized authority of the UN over our posting here is debatable.

I am issuing this fatwa friendly reminder for all who contemplate interacting in this thread to please get back on topic, or do not post in this thread. Thank you for your kind consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm closing this thread for 5 minutes to give anyone presently active in this thread and interested in HRC 13/16 a chance to read my last moderator note, and consider other existent or new threads for separate discussions not pertaining to the recent Resolution on Defamation of Religions. We'll be right back after this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note: Thank you. Now I hope won't need to rattle the padlock, or other officious equipment again here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note: Not here. Take it to the Religion Forum. The "legitimacy of the Quran" is not a suitable subject of discussion here. From here forward, I'll issue sanctions (not UN ones) for non-compliance. Aggravated off-topic posting is grounds for deletion of your posts, account suspensions, and bans here. This is my last general warning- I will now start flagging individuals down, deleting posts, sanctioning as I see fit for ignoring the Forum Rules and a series of my warnings, pertaining to off-topic posting in this thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note:

Yes, CptBork.

Please discuss the "openness of Islam" and other theological concepts elsewhere.

You are welcome to quote anything here in a separate post. The way that I do that is:
Right-click a quote button to open a reply in a new browser tab.
Copy the content of a reply box to clipboard;
Then paste those contents into a new post, where desired.
Multiple quotes from multiple people can be arranged this way in a single post of your own.
This may involve using multiple browser windows for source, destination, and reply/quote elements.

I am still holding out hope that there can still be useful discussion here of the purpose, meaning, and implications of the recent UNHRC Resolution against defamation of religion (and of other Resolutions and UN reports on the same). I hope that there remains some interest in the topic raised, otherwise I would have already closed this thread.

Thank you for your consideration. I'll leave the thread unadulterated for now, and if it proceeds on topic, maybe it will be worth a cleanup by a moderator. I was leaning toward just closing this thread and forgetting about it. This is one course of moderator action that is customary around here when a thread has gone completely off the rails.

Don't forget you can ask things like this in PM to moderators too- although maybe this short sidebar will be helpful to others.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note:

This thread will not mirror the defamation condemned in the Resolution, if I can help it. I am satisfied if the discussion stays germane to World Events and does not stray far into the distinct domains of the Religion forum. For example, if the conversation drifts into challenge and defense of the morality or legitimacy of Muslims and Islam, I will sanction challengers and defenders alike for ignoring my guidance here. Let me try and explain it more clearly:

Discussion of the meaning and purpose of HRC 13/9 is appropriate here.

I do not consider discussion of the meaning and purpose of Islam to be appropriate here, nor that of any other religious faith. Either take such discussion elsewhere, or do not engage in it at all.

I understand how it is often tempting to rebut an off-topic or tangential post in situ. Still I insist that probing religious systems of belief here is more appropriate to the Religion forum.

This means that if one wishes to pursue such a tangent while I am being so insistent as a moderator, one may link to a separate thread in a more appropriate subforum here and continue your discussion away from this thread, without any objections from me.

Consider also the Ethics, Morality, and Justice subforum and the Forum Search tools if you seek to converse about topics not directly related to the meaning and purpose of HRC 13/9 in the context of World Events.

I regret that I do not have time to re-route posts in a comprehensible way into subfora where I do not have (or seek) moderator privileges. I am instead insisting that future posts in this thread focus on the Resolution and not more generic challenge/defense of Islam, of which we already have voluminous examples elsewhere.

I do find it ironic that in discussing a UN Resolution condemning defamation of religion, we are experiencing difficulty avoiding the actual behavior that the Resolution condemns. There are UN Resolutions condemning all sorts of disrespect, insult, and harm to a multiplicity of human groupings: Nationalities, sexes, creeds, races, etc. There is no call for acting out such conflicts here in order to intelligently discuss any UN Resolutions that call on world citizens to cool it over a flashpoint in the psychological terrain of global human interaction.

So cool it: Don't engage in religious exegisis here; Do it somewhere else because I have ruled it to be OFF TOPIC.

Thank you.

-Sister Mary Elephant hypewaders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note:

Exploring your (or my, or anyone else's) understanding of Islamic beliefs is out of bounds for this topic. I've already tried to explain why with mod hat on, now I'll try with it off, because it fits a little too tightly, and makes it hard for me to think:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note: I wield considerably more power than the United Nations in this thread, so be warned.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Hat: This is a warning for trolling: You are perpetrating aggravated circular questioning that interferes with the discussion in this thread. But I'm feeling lenient and letting you off on your own recognizance, which I (maybe naïvely) trust.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mod Note: There is a higher standard that is enforced by the staff here, when it comes to making personal attacks towards fellow members- For example, accusing another of being anti-arab or a Hitlerite. There are other online forums where bigotry and personal attacks are more tolerated, and where such sentiments can be vented without warnings, sanctions, and banning. Not here. Attempts to drag us into the gutter at SciForums will result in banning.
-----------------------------------------------------------