What if someone comes and beats your ass up then? are you going to go running to the police? Still, throwing them recklessly can hurt someone. Yes they are, they are respected by masses. You're not. So you're in favor of suicide bombers and murders to reduce the population? the biggest threat to the world is nuclear weapons, and global warming. Thats debatable, anyone can say the same thing about you and calls you as an asshole. I think you should get laid.
That depends how badly they beat me up. Perhaps I shall be unable to crawl, let alone run. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, your remark is quite irrelevant. No authority is required to threaten or slander someone. Why would it be? Authority should never be granted for these actions by others - that leads to state sponsored oppression. Only self authorisation is appropriate. It is best accompanied by full recognition that such actions are likely to carry consequences. For which one must assume responsibility. You seem to have trouble with that concept. I don't give a flying aardvark what the masses think. The masses are bunch of weak willed sheep. And both are by products of our grossly excess population. (Those masses again.) And stop the gross misinterpretation of what I have written: it reveals you as either a fool or a liar. Which is still not barbaric. Come on Muslim. Get real. In what way can someone calling me an asshole be even remotely thought of as barbaric. Don't be so utterly stupid. A take that to mean you have, in essence, no meaningful or effective response to any of my arguments. Learn to offer some resistance or I'll just resort to insulting you.
muslim the biggest threats to this planet are not nuclear weapons or global warming but humanity. for they alone have the power to destroy it or to save it. i wonder which option they will exercise.
The very sane - excuse me, same Harun Yahya who doesn't believe in evolution of any kind, and who's children's da'wa site said that believer children shouldn't play with non-believers or make friends with them? You know, like the Quran says. The same one I called a "punk" in an email and challenged on evolution and who didn't dare respond? That Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar)? Hmm. Zakir? The guy William Campbell demolished a few years back? That Zakir? Then allow me to clarify: the blasphemy law, and sharia in general, is a stupid law, and if you support it in any way then you are a stupid person. I hope this is sufficiently clear? If the law were that someone should be killed for being muslim in a Western state, would that be a good law or a bad law in your opinion? The telling phrases being "back then" and "slander". Show me where one can be imprisoned specifically for insulting the Queen (God Save Her) and the Pope as functions of their state. Also an evil law. Incidentally, do you have any proof? About a month ago, when the Christian convert was going to be sentenced to death. Did you miss that whole shitstorm? We have, of course, no way of knowing how many people are sentenced more routinely by mob justice short-circuiting the more formal legal process; a woman in Niger was recently stoned to death in a long, agonizing ordeal for insulting the ridiculous Mohammed among others: http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/north/nt129062006.html Message noted, and refused. I am entirely free to insult Mohammed, a historical figure I put on moral par with Gengis Khan, as I like. You cannot issue a fatwa against me - they don't apply in my country and my position is, in any event, well founded. We certainly were not talking about whether the death penalty does or does not apply to muslims. We were talking about whether the penalty for apostacy is death in islamic countries, and it largely is. This is wrong; it is evil. I hope you can follow my reasoning. Whether it is the law is utterly immaterial. From the evil apostates? My, my: a fearful bunch the faithful must be. No: your hand, actually. You could bet your life that if a man leaves islam he will be killed for it. So what is your last point meant to illustrate? That the filthy apostate gets what he or she deserves? And round and round Muslim's arguments go. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan - the list goes on and on. Why else is it punished? And what constitutes 'blasphemy'? 'Making partners with god?' That's how islam describes Christianity. So if I, in a pique of good morals, converted away from islam to Christianity, I would be by definition guilty of 'blasphemy'. This is the point that 'Muslim' loses all right to the generosity of free debate. He feels that death is a suitable punishment for blasphemy. Well then - to hell with you and your revolting prophet. What will you do now? It's a stupid law, written by a fool to be interpreted by children.
Add hom attacks. Half of what you said is not even relevant to the topic. No one should be killed for apostate, but unfortunately it happens. And you can’t blame Mohamed or Islam for this the hadeeth which people believe Mohammed said this is based on hearsay. There should be a proper debate about these issues people shouldn’t be given random death threats, it just makes their argument stronger that Muslims are intolerant. This intolerant position is not held by all Muslims its manly held by whabbis my family or I do not follow this school of thought we follow the Hanafi school of thought. I do not support the idea of killing apostates for them being an apostate. You seem to miss my point my argument is this, if there is a law in state say Pakistan for murder and the penalty for murder is the death penalty then this person just for being an apostate should not be exempt from this. Although I would also like to mention I am also apposed to the death penalty too. The topic was about; apostate’s blasphemy is completely different topic, and I do not have enough understanding of it really to debate with you on that. Although I agree with you on the Sharia law issue I don’t think its properly thought throw I think as a law in can work however it needs to be revised for a start there should be no death penalty for apostates or the death penalty for someone having a non Muslim opinion of Mohammed which could be considered offensive as long as the person is not going around using profanities directed at Mohammed and is brining evidence for his claim. The sure there should be no death penalty for this person under sharia law. Am sure if someone went up to the Queen and directed profanities at her or the Pope I am sure legal action would be taken against these people. I once came across it; on the internet I can’t seem to find the article. Or much information on Philippinion blasphemy laws. That was done by an ignorant youth mob not by the government. Also the Christian guy wasn’t sentenced to death, I don’t agree with him being sentenced to death I did not agree with that. It was just a simple request. Ok then I agree with you, I agree with you 100% it’s wrong. Hence why I am apposed to it, you on the other hand are coming of ass promoting it by brining verses from the Qu’ran and hadeeth and claming it’s supported by them – that’s the thing I don’t get about you. So what are you saying apostates don’t commit crime? And that is wrong if he is killed for leaving Islam. No I never said filthy apostate maybe ignorant about Islam, but I wouldn’t go to the extent of calling them filthy. And if they break a law then they should be punished for it. Iran is a Shia nation, Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Whabbi school of thought, Indonesia is hardly a model Islamic country, and Pakistan’s are inherited from the British and I not ruled by Shiara and I also happen to disagree with the death penalty for apostate in these countries. I didn’t mean blasphemy in traditional sense, I meant if for the desecration of the Qu’ran because anyone who does that is just out to create civil unrest. But I mean in a sense of debating in a civil mannar then I am apposed to blasphemy in that sense. Actually do be honest with you I don’t really know about the blasphemy laws and this is just my opinion. Which country actually implements Sharia Law? Can you tell me that? There is not even one Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia Law other then Saudi Arabia which is a contradiction and they are whabbis. Also the Sharia needs to be revised. Maybe Islamic form of Sharia democracy with it being revised. I don’t support it, I am apposed to it, I follow a different school of thought dude I am not a whabbi I follow the Hanafi (Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah) school of thought. I don’t know, it. Do you? This clearly shows you’re intolerant towards Muslims. NO it shouldn’t be punishable by death. I am playing the evils advocate with the evolution argument, I believe in evolution as it doesn’t go against my religious beliefs. OK. What ever you say obviously you’re the only person in the world and are the absolute holder off all truth because are an atheist.
One more time: Any culture that is not robust enough to withstand verbal challenges of any kind is not going to survive long enough to be more than an interesting footnote in future history. To outlaw verbal challenges--or any kind of challenge short of violence--actually makes a culture weaker. It's like a physical organism or an ecosystem. Your body becomes weak if it's not challenged with physical exercise. Your immune system becomes weak if it's not challenged with infections. Ecosystems become weak if they're not challenged with invasive species and extreme weather. A religion, like a political system or any kind of philosophical orthodoxy, becomes weak if no one ever challenges it and suggests that it's wrong. Without that, its members never exercise their reasoning, never test their faith, and lose their understanding of why they were supposed to be right in the first place. Ask most modern Americans why "the American way" is the best way, and you will get some really vapid and disappointing answers. At a time when we are being challenged from so many corners of the earth, our people are incapable or giving reasoned responses to those challenges. This is in fact what happens to almost every major religion after many generations of success. Its adherents lose touch with the intrinsic value of its teachings, and instead fall back into a comfortable life of just accepting it because it was worked out long ago and must be right. When something finally does come along to shake it--and something always does eventually if you wait long enough--they've lost their ability to fight back in any meaningful way except to sputter, "But we've always done it this way because it's been handed down for hundreds or thousands of years. This faith I have in the ways of my ancestors feels so right that it's inconceivable that it could be wrong." If you could ask any of the first couple of generations of Christians or Muslims why their religion is the right one, why we should all succumb to their evangelism, why we should live the way they say we should live, you would get a much different kind of answer than you get from so many of their modern spiritual descendants. Of course they would make reference to their prophet and to their god, but they would also be able to tell you quite engagingly, reasonably, and persuasively why the teachings of that prophet and the commandments of that god are the right way to live. They would not have to resort to threatening you with death in order to convert you. (Or reconvert you.) That is something Jesus would have found abhorrent and I'm fairly sure Mohammed would have agreed with him. People did not just believe in their religion because they had faith in it, they believed in it because it made rational sense. The first followers of Jesus and Mohammed were not able to go around browbeating people into converting. They did not have the charisma that only comes later with a large established congregation and can cause outsiders to have epiphanies, and they did not have the force of arms that comes still later with crusades and jihads and can cause outsiders to defer to authority. All they had was the power of language and the power of reason. When the followers of a religion lose that, their religion is dying. Therefore it is imperative that it not be a crime to speak out against a religion. For either members or non-members or former members. That will only hasten its death. This of course is only true for the believers in the religion. The rest of us have no problem with watching Christianity and Islam crumble into the vacuum left by the dissipation of their rational bases.
Fraggle Rocker: I agree about questioning the premise of a religion; it keeps the religion alive and dynamic rather than a few words handed down from a different millenium. But is mockery and disdain the same as questioning? How about desecration of someone's deeply felt beliefs? Does freedom of expression translate to insults and jeers?
Nice post. I agree. But some people go out of their way to piss people off. I mean it would be equivalent to white Americans saying "blacks are subhuman" you can't go around using such terms on labeling people.
Of course it does. Why should it not? Those can be the greatest challenges. Polite debate is one thing, but when Jon Stewart pokes really well-crafted fun at the establishment, it goes much deeper. The whole concept of "descration" is just pure crap when it's applied only to abstractions rather than physical artifacts that are the result of physical labor and materials. If you destroy a temple or a statue you are destroying the tangible wealth of a civilization. You are destroying a product of the surplus that is one of the defining measures of civilization... a product of the economy of scale and division of labor that qualitatively elevates civilization above village or nomadic life. That is why you can literally "bomb a society back into the Stone Age." But you can't mock or insult a society back into the Stone Age. The labor and capital required to create and support a belief system is trivial. Some teaching, some writing, some time off to get together. You can't do substantive damage to a civilization by poking fun at its institutions or inventing clever new profanity. Disdain is a basic human right. It's the right of refusal. If you keep badgering me to join your church, your fraternity, your political party, or your social movement, and you just won't get the hell out of my face, I have a perfect right to get back in your face. And the definition of "getting in one's face" is way too subjective to try to apply a principle of parity to it. The worst of the Christians claim that just having to share the planet with gay people, adulterers, and others who defy orthodoxy is just so painful to them that they have a perfect right to go on an aggressive crusade to convert those people to their way of life. If I feel exactly the same way about Christians (and frankly I more or less do feel that way some times these days) then I have exactly the same right to go on an aggressive crusade to push them back into the margins of society--so long as I don't resort to violence or violate the other laws of the nation I choose to live in, which in our case offers substantial protection of privacy and peace of mind. If they can go on talk shows and publish op-eds applying really nasty epithets to people who don't believe in the teachings of their church (which have diverged mightily from the teachings of Jesus), then I can certainly print a few cartoons depicting them as nasty people. No major contemporary movement uses as vile, hateful, and frightening a rhetoric in describing people they disagree with as the fringe of Islam. As long as they restrict themselves to speech and print (and don't violate pesky national laws about inciting riots or consipiring to commit crimes), they're free to be as nasty as they want. And we have exactly the same freedom.
Fraggle, I like the use of the past tense. It's much more truthful to the scientific community: "People did not just believe in their religion because they had faith in it, they believed in it because it made rational sense." Evolution: Did you know one out of every few hundred or so people are born with six fingers but they always correct this socalled "deformity" at birth? Hmmm. Evolution in action. Very high percentage among the Amish.
I know someone who has six fingers on both hands but they are proportionate to the rest of the fingers and you could not tell at a first glance that they are six and not five.
There probably is people with six fingers, however it's the "statics" that I am concerned about, that he gives. 1 of few hundred people, my guess is 100 to 200, if this is so, by now I've would have seen "several" if not more than a few persons with six fingers. I've traveled the world, lived in many places, and have yet to see anyone with six fingers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Other than weird videos. click
Damn I stand corrected. A little research and wallah!! http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7756 That's all I ask, some evidence. Neve seen it though.
Well I didn't see it till the guy pointed it out to me. One extra finger on each hand will not attract as much notice unless its deformed or disproportionate.
It's hominem[i/] and you brought them up, not I. Hearsay, nothing. It's from al-Buhkari, which is considered canonical. Do you know how long he laboured to get those quotes? He rejected literally thousands before he could assemble those hadith. They are, correspondingly, considered quite strong. Unless you now think that you alone hold the key to islamic justice, and that it's the other 1.2 billion muslims who are wrong about sharia? Debate? Debate? It is WRONG to kill a man for changing his religion. Period. It is small-minded, hypocritical and unspeakably evil. There is no debate. And are you now telling me Hanafi does not condone the killing of apostates? So. Still sure about Hanafi? There seems to be no difference of opinion among the four schools of islamic jurisprudence at all. One wonders how they came to such an erroneous conclusion when you had the answer all along. Your 'argument' is utterly ridiculous and was created by you as a red herring. I will not mention it again. If the law is that blasphemy is the capital crime, then it is quite easy to lump apostates in with it, since any deviation from islam is also considered apostacy, often by other muslims. First you say it's utterly wrong, then you put conditions of blasphemy on it. Who defines this blasphemy? In whose interest is it constituted? You seem to have little ability to accept evidence even of evolution. How much greater, then, the inacceptance when the religious character of islam is in question? Yes: they would immediately be shot. No? Hmm. Well, for sure you'd never be allowed to insult Jesus in Western justice. What's that you say? "Urine Christ"? Well...fine then. I am unsurprised. But you just said you did! Ugh - make up your mind. And it was refused. I shall speak as I like. Next! No? You don't follow? My argument is inordinately simple: the murder of apostates is amply supported in islamic law; the murder of apostates is wrong; ergo, islamic law is wrong. Done and done. Do you follow now? You are coming from the preposition that islamic law is right. Clearly, as examples show, it is not. Ugh. Red herring AGAIN. Why does he think this would apply? Where have I said this? Madness. And now you're back on supporting the murder of apostates again, since apostacy is illegal in islamic nations - not blasphemy alone, but apostacy, period. Round and round we go; will Muslim have a consensus? Nobody knows. If you don't know, don't argue. This would come as something of a surprise to the 1.2 billion muslims who think that they're living in it - essentially every islamic nation in the world - and to all the religious minorities who live under it. This very clearly shows I'm intolerant to anyone who supports the murder of apostates, however obliquely. What; by saying people should be hung? You've yet to offer anything of any substance on evolution. Inferiority complex much? I wasn't the one who claimed I couldn't defend myself intellectually.
