The problem with this ought to be obvious: who decides what constitutes "malicious" criticism? Islamic spokesmen in non-Muslim countries routinely characterize any and every criticism of Islam, including any accurate depiction of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism, as malicious. It is a central element of their playbook: characterize anyone who dares to speak the truth about these matters as driven by hate, as a profiteer, a liar, etc. etc. etc. They know that if they take that stance consistently -- and they are nothing if not consistent in this -- then they will be able to bamboozle many of the naive and unwary and turn them away from the truth and the truth-tellers.
But they also take this stance because they believe it. The idea that all critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism are evil people driven by hatred is also simply a Qur'anic principle -- which is a chief reason why Islamic spokesmen in the West so consistently take this line. The Qur'an assumes that anyone who opposes or rejects Islam is evil, malicious, and motivated by greed or envy or both. There is no notion of the dignity of the human person as regards the unbeliever, or any idea of the free conscience operating in good faith in rejecting Islam.
And so the problem with this court decision in India is that Muslims will use it to characterize any and all criticism of Islam as malicious, and to get it censored as a result.
"Islam Can be Criticised, But Not Maliciously: HC," from OutlookIndia, January 6 (thanks to Natassia):
Islam or any other religion can be criticised, but a malicious criticism aimed at promoting communal hatred and painting the whole community as villainous is not permissible, Bombay High Court held today.Refusing to interpret Quranic verses, Court however advised that verses must be "correlated", and historical background must be kept in mind when interpreting.
I am all for that. The unfortunate truth of this, however, is that contrary to what this court clearly believes, and contrary to popular belief, the "historical background" of the various Qur'anic teachings on jihad don't mitigate, but rather reinforce, Islamic doctrines involving violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers.
A full bench of the High Court upheld the ban on 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims', written by advocate R V Bhasin. Bhasin had challenged the ban, saying that it violated right to freedom of speech.The book was banned in state government in 2007, on the ground that it contained derogatory remarks about Islam and prophet Mohammad and insulted Muslim sentiments....
All right, but you'll notice that this article at least doesn't say anything about the book being banned because it contained false information about Islam or Muhammad. Islamic advocacy groups like CAIR have not hesitated to protest in the U.S. against material about Islam that was perfectly true, but which contained material they didn't like. See, for example, here.
The truth about Islam is malicious ................. towards all kuffars.
Refusing to interpret Quranic verses, Court however advised that verses must be "correlated", and historical background must be kept in mind when interpreting.
Can these moronic Indian officials get those points to the average islamic terrorists? do ya think it will work?
Bombay High Court says Islam can be criticized, but not "maliciously"
...................
Idiocy. A central tenet of the 7th-century "Pact of Umar"—rules for Infidels living under Islam—forbids non-Muslims from "teaching the Qu'ran". This has traditionally been interpreted as banning non-Muslims from discussing Islam *at all*, lest any of their references be considered critical. This is classic dhimmitude.
more:
The book was banned in state government in 2007, on the ground that it contained derogatory remarks about Islam and prophet Mohammad and insulted Muslim sentiments....
...................
How many books could this be said about, besides "Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims"?
Sherry Jones' 'historical' romance, "The Jewel of Medina", was not only "not malicious" towards Islam, it was bowlderdized and sycophantic.
That did not stop Muslims from issuing death threats to Jones and her publishers, and bombing her British publisher's offices.
Why—when this moronic book was a virtual love letter to "the Prophet"? Firstly, that—whitewashed as it was—it still might lead some readers to feel critical towards the "Prophet" Mohammed for marrying an under-aged girl (she claims Aisha was betrothed at six, married at nine, and that the marriage wasn't consummated until the girl was fourteen—the Hadith state that she was married at six and the marriage consummated when she was just nine years old). It still brings up the issue of little Aisha's tender age in a way that many non-Muslim readers might consider disturbing.
But, really, more basic than this was the fact that a "filthy Kaffir" such as Jones, no matter how sympathetic to "the Prophet", had the temerity to discuss Islam *at all*.
If such a sympathetic—even fawning—book got such a reception, what are the chances that even the most respectful criticism of Islam will ever be considered acceptable?
Islam may be criticized, but not "maliciously." Only sweetly, with the best of intentions.
In the same vein, I am waiting expectantly for the American government, in a joint declaration with the U.N. Secretary-General, to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran may use nuclear weapons, but only "in moderation."
For a concise rebuttal of this nonsense in under 60 seconds you can't much better than listen to Christopher Hitchens at
http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html
starting at 8 mins 30 secs.
Thank you for the link, MBR. Hitchins was great except at the very end when he indicated that Muslims were painted with too broad a brush and that it's an insult to Islam to think that the radicals represent all Muslims. Trouble is twofold with this comment: 1) so-called moderate Muslims have been deafeningly silent in opposing Muslim radicals (where have the huge protests been worldwide by "moderate" Muslims against the radicals?) and 2) Islam is the only religion which in theory condones, indeed encourages, violence to spread its faith. Still, Hitchins did a commendable job defending free speech, as did the other panelists, except that silly woman who spoke first. Worth watching to be sure.
Being honest about Islam and insulting Islam is one and the same.
IslamoNewspeak Dictionary Entry:
"Accurately" shall henceforth mean "Maliciously".
Destroy all previous malreporting copies of the IslamoNewspeak Dictionary.
I guess pointing out that, I know, Islam's monster con artist muhammad was a pervert that was sexually excited by children would be insulting to many Moslems. Not the part of the master creep being a child molester, but, me knowing that, and not accepting it. That's what really offends so many Moslems. My open rejection of their disgusting so called prophet.
It's meant the same as in old-style Communism: of course one was free to criticize, so long as one was criticizing the approach and not the final objective. So, it's permissible to criticize Islam, so long as one is criticizing technique and not the doctrine as a whole.
Sad and malevolent.
Islam Can be Criticised, But Not Maliciously
Is that reciprocal? Does it apply to muhammadans?
...you'll notice that this article at least doesn't say anything about the book being banned because it contained false information about Islam or Muhammad.
In the new, touchy-feely relativistic world we live in, ideas are not evaluated on their truth or falsehood, but whether they are mean or nice. A little falsehood is okay as long as it contributes to the overall grooviness of the collective, and truth is bad if it is considered "mean spirited", whether it is of vital interest or not. Feelings trump all.
From Wellington: Trouble is twofold with this comment: 1) so-called moderate Muslims have been deafeningly silent in opposing Muslim radicals (where have the huge protests been worldwide by "moderate" Muslims against the radicals?) and 2) Islam is the only religion which in theory condones, indeed encourages, violence to spread its faith.
Concise. Or to put it another way, since the central source of islamic doctrine is the Koran, and all muslims presumably consider it authoritative, then it is incumbent on them to oppose interpretations of it by violent jihadists claiming to justify those actions if indeed those interpretations are wrong. Otherwise they voice their agreement by default.
The problem with this ought to be obvious: who decides what constitutes "malicious" criticism?
Easy, unelected technocrats, most of them lawyers, who meet privately amongst themselves to discuss who-knows-what-in-the-hell with each other.
In other words, irresponsible pompous asses, and highly paid ones to boot.
*** Bukhari Vol 2 Bk 24 Nbr 555 ***
Islamic spokesmen in non-Muslim countries routinely characterize any and every criticism of Islam, including any accurate depiction of the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism, as malicious.
Islam is the only belief system in world history whose adherents can be thrown into a murderous rage simply by holding a mirror up in front of it.
*** 47:24 ***
There is no notion of the dignity of the human person as regards the unbeliever, or any idea of the free conscience operating in good faith in rejecting Islam.
With their belief system predicated on such ugliness, the Moslem has no choice but to revert to TurnSpeak.
With their belief system so unbelievable, Infidel technocrats have no choice but to pretend that it is not. That leaves cognitive dissonance, but is at least comforting (in the short term).
*** al-Tabari 9:69 ***
This is especially so on the subcontinent, with an estimated 70 million lost to the Moghul mass murder, and an estimated 20% infection rate all these centuries after.
"Islam or any other religion can be criticised, but a malicious criticism aimed at promoting communal hatred and painting the whole community as villainous is not permissible, Bombay High Court held today."
The high court in Bombay has failed to rule that infidel or muslim criticism of islam even malicious is not provocation for muslims to murder. Also does the enlightened ruling apply only to contemporary religions or does it also apply to religions of the past? If I am allowed to criticize human sacrifice of the ancient Babylonians or Mayans why cannot I criticize with malice human sacrifice practiced by muslims today? Am I now to be punished for criticisizing canabalism in parts of South America or Africa even today?
The truth is the truth. How can the truth be malicious? Isn't it the implicit facts in the truth about islam that makes islam a villaneous community in the opinion of non muslims and for good reason? It is the fact that muslims murder infidels arbitrarily that subjects the muslim community to hate and ridicule. Articulating the truth about such things is a fundamental right of any person of this world. State laws prohibiting such speech violate your fundamental human rights.
"The book was banned in state government in 2007, on the ground that it contained derogatory remarks about Islam and prophet Mohammad and insulted Muslim sentiments...."
LOL!
Islam and FALSE "prophet" Mo DESERVE "derogatory remarks," just as Nazism and Hitler DESERVE derogatory remarks. Hello - that's a no-brainer.
Islam sucks
FALSE "prophet" WARLORD MASS-MURDERER MO sucks
Muslims suck
I can say that as much as I want! That's called "Freedom of Speech." Fascists and Nazis suck, too. FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
Was I asleep while free speech died around the world? India (the biggest victim of ISLAM to date), France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, what the heck happened?
Islam can be criticized, but not "maliciously"
Criticize, sure, but do it nicely OK.
Got that.
"Court however advised that verses must be "correlated", and historical background must be kept in mind when interpreting." Yeah, OK. You mean like how Geert Wilders did in his movie Fitna? It seems to me that he correlated the verses and provided historical (even contemporary) background. This is all BS; FUUCK ISLAM (that's not malicious, is it?).
Thought crime, speech crime ... sharia!
Bombay caves in! The jihaddis win.
Considering what just happened there recently this is an outrage.
================
I'll add that the problem is not just, as RS says above 'who decides what constitutes "malicious" criticism' ... but how would anybody decide?
What is on trial, under this law, is the intention of the alleged offender.
Apparently the Bombay court has the idea that they have some means of determining what people's intentions are.
Hell, I don't know what my own damn intentions are half the time!
Only God knows what sort of telepathic magic the Bombay court is intending to use to reveal the secret hidden intentions of people who say and write things of which the court doesn't approve.
The farthest reach any sensible court might make in that direction would be to try to infer if an action, say, running somebody over with a car, is intentional or not, or whether an act is planned out beforehand. Or was it, perhaps, an accident? Even that's no easy job. And it is only meaningful information in any case, if the act is a crime to begin with.
But to determine whether I tell you that you're a dope because I care about you and want you to mend your ways, or because I dislike you and want to hurt your feelings? This is the stuff of gossip and soap operas, not courts of law.
In any case, emotions can not be crimes.
A crime is to violate somebody's rights.
And nobody has a right to go through life without hearing or seeing things they don't like.
Unless, of course, you're a mohammedan. In which case you are superior to everybody else.
Then everybody has to kiss your butt.
Apparently the Bombay court is freshening up their lipstick.
Hugh,
all the Indians need to do is to take a hint from us Southern gals.
Whenever you hear the phrase "Bless her (or his/their) heart(s)", you know you are on the verge of hearing someone verbally skewer someone else who is not present at the conversation. But it is said SOOOOO sweetly and mildly!
As in...."Well, bless her heart! That baby of hers was uglier than a two-headed catfish when it was born, and it hasn't gotten much prettier since then, poor thing!"
"Refusing to interpret Quranic verses, Court however advised that verses must be "correlated", and historical background must be kept in mind when interpreting." --from the article.
Interesting that the court is issuing opinions that are indistinguishable from the opinions of Muslim jurists and scholars, i.e., that in Quranic tafsir, one must interpret the Quranic verses in relation to other Quranic verses and to the "historical background" provided by the sahih Hadith and Sira. Why does this court give any opinion whatsoever on how Quranic verses ought to be interpreted? Is this now an Islamic court? Are the judges now acting as muftis?
The idea that there is actual "historical background" to the Quranic verses is also absurd. To refer to the hearsay and mythology of early pious partisan Muslim commentators and storytellers as "historical" is preposterous. Moreover, even taking the mythology of the Hadith and Sira at face value, there is no reliable way to be sure that any particular fragment from the Hadith or Sira links up with any particular verse in the Quran; it is all claims; it is all guesswork; it is all probabilistic to an extent that is unacceptable in proper historical analysis.
And as Robert notes, even if people do follow the court's recommendations on Quran interpretation and examine the so-called "historical" context, this does not lead to a better or more moderate interpretation. The most militant Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda, cite the "historical" background of the Quran in justifying their surprise attacks involving horrendous slaughters of non-Muslims. If one were to literally follow the court's instructions, one would turn to the hadith and Sira to find justification for slavery, rape, genocide, terrorism, plundering and theft, mass expulsions, extortions, deception, pedophilia, and so on.
"The 3-member bench of Justices Ranjana Desai, Dhananjay Chandrachud and R S Mohite held that "In our constitutional set up, everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception to it.""--from the article
Ah, everything is open to criticism—except, as the actual ruling shows, Islam. How many books by Muslim authors criticizing Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Judaism, have been banned in India?
“However, court pointed out that in the case of religious scriptures, several interpretations are possible.”
So the court is interpreting…
“"Ayats (Quranic verses) will have to be correlated. Some of the Ayats are indeed strongly worded and appear to have been directed against idol worshippers. Having read the commentaries we feel that perhaps it is possible to urge that they relate to an era when the Muslims were attacked by the Pagans..." the court observed.”
“The court observed”? Rather, the court opined. It is possible to interpret the verses as the court suggests; it is also possible to interpret them as more open-ended and applicable for Muslims today. However, it is also possible to interpret Bhasin’s book as not intended to insult Muslims, etc.; the court is merely inventing, and then arbitrarily using, a negative interpretation of Bhasin’s book to support their decision to ban. Multiple interpretations of the Quran are possible, but only one interpretation of Bhasin’s book is possible, according to these “judges.”
“"An author has a right to put forth a perspective that a particular religion is not secular," court said, but added that in Bhasin's case, "the criticism is not academic. The author has gone on to pass insulting comments" about Muslims, particularly Indian Muslims.”
By this principle, the court would have to ban the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. They contain vitriolic insulting criticism of non-Muslims that is not academic. And the Quran, with the Hadith and Sira, incites killing, rape, and enslavement of non-Muslims.
“"If writing is calculated to promote feelings of enmity or hatred it is no defence to a charge under Section 153-A of the IPC (promoting enmity between communities) that the writing contains a truthful account".”
Again, the Quran would be illegal according to these criteria (e.g., see The Calcutta Quran Petition, an attempt to demonstrate this point). The larger goal of the Calcutta Quran Petition was is not to ban the Quran, but to point out the inconsistency of such laws, which, as applied, favor Islam.
Good points, Kinana.
If books are to be banned on the basis of malicious criticism of one religion or another, then the first to be banned ought to be the Koran and the other Moslem "holy books". They're chock-full of malice directed at Jews, Christians, and polytheists of every stripe.
Enfin un site français avec des vidéos de Robert Pencer sous-titrées, à voir absolument si vous êtes francophone!
http://www.avraidire.eu/tag/robert-spencer/page/2/
And naturally the proponents of jihad are the only people qualified to decide who is" malicious"!!!
Terry
PS IF you've missed Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam Today" and "Why I am Not a Muslim"by "anonymous"(undertandably!) then you've missed a treat!(I read both today)