From this report, police seem more eager to probe the allegations of proselytizing than to track down the attackers. "Faisalabad: Islamic extremists attack Christian community, two faithful injured," from Asia News February 23:
Faisalabad (AsiaNews / Agencies) - A dozen armed Muslims stormed the Grace Ministry Church in Faisalabad, seriously wounding two Christians. Sajid Masih was hit by bullets and is in critical condition in hospital, the man risks having his amputated arm. Another member of the Protestant community, Boota Masih, was pushed from the roof - a height of about six meters - after being struck repeatedly with a rifle butt. The extremist raid was sparked by charges that church was trying to evangelize Muslims in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. The community several times in the past has been the subject of assault and the pastor and his family the subject of death threats. Sources of Pakistan Christian Post reported that Sajid and Boota were transported to hospital for a delicate operation, which lasted over four hours. Doctors have removed a bullet from Sajid's arm, but his condition remains serious and they may decide to amputate the arm that is at risk of gangrene. The bullet pierced the arm and is lodged in his rib.
The attack took place at Grace Ministry Church yesterday and the Christian community is still in shock. Meanwhile, the police, instead of pursuing the perpetrators of violence, have opened an investigation against the Rev. Altaf Khan - pastor of the community - and 20 other faithful. The agents have already arrested the driver Pervaiz Masih, another Christian faithful called Nazish Nadeem, along with two guards, security officers, Rafiq Masih and Shahzad....
Clearly Islam is having a problem with their faithful flocking to convert to Christianity..
Precisely! And anyway, the meek shall inherit the Earth, not a bunch of thugs!
"...the meek shall inherit the Earth, not a bunch of thugs!"
Yes! ..that's comforting to know :)
Where are all the so-called "moderate" Muslims to protest to this barbaric Muslim attack?
http://newstime.co.nz/obama-apologizes-to-afghanistan-over-quran-burnings.html
Dear brothers
The rise of Islam is growing rapidly in Tunisia today where people are not having the freedom to speak. Let us remember Tunisia today in our prayer.
An article about the Arab Spring and the decrease on Seclurism in Tunisia toady.
http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/02/24/arab-spring-brings-the-decline-of-secularism-in-tunisia-2/
Youssef
Rev. Altaf Khan - pastor
*******
No wonder he's under investigation rather than the assailants! Obviously, to Pakistan's establishment, apostasy from Islam is a far more serious issue than violence.
This is very sad. The problem is those Christians living in Islamic counties are on their own. The west will not help them because the western powers doesn't want to anger the Muslims or Islam.
This is very sad. The Christians should leave those dangerous counties at once.
Proselytizing should be a hate crime?
Odd perspective. After all, proselytizing is only talking, perhaps even preaching, but it's only talk. Those being proselytized have the ability to accept or reject the teachings of another belief system, as they choose. How is that hate?
Of course, muslims don't really have a choice, since they may be killed if they dare to leave islam for a sane religion. Now that's hate.
"Comm'on its time to recognise proselytizing as a hate crime to be condemned in equal terms to those that are harming the proselytizers."
What?!!! Is "call the police" the new "no thanks, not interested"?
Is it me, or are people getting stupider and crazier every day?
I am pointing out the fact that proselytizing of religious beliefs is a form of racism and hate crime that should be resisted by all human beings.
What racism? You mean the race of Christianity, or some other race like the Wiccan?
A hate crime is very hard to prove, unless you live in Islamland where anything opposing Islam at all is a hate crime...If Christians are not committing any hate crimes at the moment, someone will accuse them of it anyway, and the deadly riots begin...Maybe the only hate crime should be accusing others of a hate crime...That would stop hate crime quickly...
Fayzal Mohammed:
"Comm'on its time to recognise proselytizing as a hate crime to be condemned in equal terms to those that are harming the proselytizers."
I see. So da'wa, (proselytizing for Islam) which is incumbent on all Muslims is a hate crime then?
Do tell.
Brigitte, it's not you. People ARE getting stupider and crazier every day. The West is flirting with profound evil by not taking a hard line against Islam.
HaHaHaHaHa--What a hoot! Isn't it amazing how they cant resist posting on this site like old Fizzal Mo has. I spiritually burn a Koran in absentia in your dubious honor Fizz old boy. Have a nice day.
The Hal Lindsey program of 2-17-2012 has that "wow factor".(www.hallindsey.com) Wow Hal, One of your best ever! It starts out with a short comment on the movie industry and then the rest is very much on topic. He talks about Hirsi Ali and her article and then a long presentation on this topic. Namely, Muslims killing Christians. Every Christian should get up to speed on this topic. Not recommended for Atheists as I wouldn't want them to grind and gnash any teeth down.
The arrest of Christians following an attack - on Christians themselves and their property - is pretty much standard practise.
Even after the massacre in Pakistan, a few years ago of Christians - where they were attacked in open daylight - after a call from the mosque's minaret to attack and kill Christians - a pogrom which lasted for several days - [captured on youtube] and Christians were burnt alive in their homes. Leading Christians in the community were arrested, while others were placed on the list of suspects. Like the local Bishop!
At least one Muslim was killed during this attack - as he living next door to the Christians who had their homes burnt out - and the Pakistani state awarded his family 3 or 4 times the compensation - than was given to any Christian family suffering similar losses in the same attack.
That's Shari'a folks!!
How do you feel about forced conversions under the threat of death?
You wrote: "...the proselytizing of religious beliefs is a hate crime as well."
So, you are saying that dawah, the proselytizing of Islamic beliefs to the kaffars, which was demanded of his followers by Muhammed, should be a prosecutable hate crime?
I'm really interested to see your reply.
the last time somebody was executed in Iran for apostasy was in 1990 ( almost a quarter century ago )
Compared to what happened in past centuries ( including in christian countries ) , I would consider it a step in the right direction that Iran has not executed anybody for apostasy since 1990
@ Fayzal Mahamed
And probably your family likely became a Muslim to escape from the lower castes - in the Hindu religion.
Where the Muslim converts to Islam are still openly referred to as the un-educated or the ignorant.
The are also extremist Hindus - who would prefer if no one were allowed to leave their religion - and have been successful in their campaigns in outlaw religious conversions in - in some parts of India. [But there has been no indication they wish to take over the world]
If you wish to say that your religion is superior - which is of course at the heart of the Islamic message - and not only that it is superior - but one is made superior by following it - we are getting this nonsense - in the space of newspapers every day - in the name of 'understanding'.
But unlike in the Islamic world they cannot act on it.
You can talk your religious nonsense - but you have no right over others.
We respect religious freedom.
::
I would just like to say a word for the 100 million Indians killed by Muslim invaders and subsequent rulers to make that country Muslim - or bring it under Islamic rule. And note, that it is on this perch you so arrogantly stand on - still grasping for that allusive Islamic supremacy.
What exactly is this "hate crime" you insist be punished?
Hating other people? hating other people's religion?
If so, then how do you practically approach the task of punishing over one billion muhammedans who would be guilty on both counts? Or do you believe that murder, abduction and rape of Christians, Hindu and Buddhists, occurring daily all over the muhammedan world are expression of other than hate emotion - for example religious piety? But then how do you distinguish between the two in case of Islam?
Now I hate murder, torture, rape, cruelty, stupidity, injustice...lie. Should I be prosecuted for that? Well, if not, then I shouldn't be punished for hating Islam, as I most avidly do, either.
After all islam is all these things combined in their most extreme form.
So Peter,
When was the last time the death penalty was executed for moharebeh (waging war against God or people) or mofsed-e-filarz (spreading corruption on the earth)?
Hmmmm. As a Christian, all I have ever done is tell people what the Lord Jesus has done for me, and share the Bible, which is His word, not mine. How is this coercing anyone? How is this making a statement that my beliefs are superior to another's? Sharing the Christian faith is just that: sharing.
Those listening are free to comment, argue, show disgust, walk away. To say this sharing is a hate crime is beyond absurd.
I have noticed over my lifetime that people have become extremely thin-skinned. Someone conversing with you that has differing ideas from yours, is not insulting you. If you feel that way, it is nothing more than evidence that you are very insecure in your own beliefs, and very immature as a human being.
Wish we could have an exchange; all the Muslims in the free world in exchange for the non-Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries. Muslims want to live under Sharia, non-Muslims do not. Seems fair and fitting to me.
There seem to be a knee jerk reaction from many Christians on this forum concerning my opinion that proselytizing of religion is a form of "HATE SPEECH" and should be illegal or at the very least desisted from practicing.
The definition of hate speech from Wikepedia is:
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, disability[3], nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,[4] or other characteristic
In my opinion religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism is a form of racism because the adherents of such religions claim to be MORALLY SUPERIOR to other human beings not on any rational basis but on the basis of their emotional feelings. However, to be a RACIST does not mean you are advocating hate speech. There are plenty of racist out there, some because of their religious beliefs of superiority, others because of the colour of their skin regard themselves as superior to others, some because of their culture regard themselves as superior to other cultures. History testifies there were many racist wars.
If you are a racist and keeping your racist views in your private sphere then there is no law preventing you from being a racist. This is your freedom of choice in any democratic country. Simirlarly to express such racist views in a private sphere is well within your freedom of speech.
However when any person utters such racist views in a public square then it is my opinion that the border between having racist views in private and uttering them in a public podium to propagate those racist views is in my mind when you are projecting hate speech. Therefore the proselytizing of religion is one instance of such hate speech because the proselytizer intends to dispend his or her racist views in a public sphere with the intention to disparage or insult the person who does not hold the same beliefs as the proselytizer.
In Sri Lanka they recently kicked out a number of visiting Muslim proselytizers because they had no right to proselythize. I am in complete agreement with the Sri Lankan authorities.
So to conclude if you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew then you are a RACIST. If you intend proselythizing your RACIST views in a public square then you are committing a hate speech and therefore in many countries this form of speech is a HATE CRIME.
My husband and I watch Hal's show, The Hal Lindsey Report, each week, Guide Inside; in fact, we used to attend Hal's church, Tetelestai, in Torrance, Californaia, a few years back for about two years. Anyway, I agree that The Hal Lindsey Report is a great program, and Hal is one of the few television evangelists out there that warn people about islam so thoroughly. And have you heard of a program called, Jack Van Impe Presents, with his wife, Rexella? We watch their television program each week as well, and Jack also warns viewers about the dangers of islam, along with the dangers of the "Chrislam" movement taking hold in some American churches. Jack speaks on why it's so wrong to try and combine the two: Christianity and islam, and I agree. Yeah they're both great TV evangelists! Take care :)
"Those listening are free to comment, argue, show disgust, walk away. To say this sharing is a hate crime is beyond absurd."
So true, Stand fast in the liberty! ...that's the bottom line. It really is absurd to claim that sharing ones faith here, or anywhere, is a hate crime. Not only has this poster failed at making a valid point, but he clearly doesn't understand the nature of free speech. Perhaps public forums, such as this one, are just too much for one so rigid and controlling.
I have not included this forum as what I regard as public space. So if you wish to proselityze your religious beliefs on this forum, go ahead, it may be RACIST but its not absurd or any form of hate speech.
However I would think twice before before going to a Hindu village in India and stating that "Hindus are idol worshipors going to a Christian hellfire and would be saved by Jesus Christ". That statement may just land you in jail or worse still may inflame a Hindu fanatic who would not spare your life.
You obviously live in your own world where you create your own definitions of reality. You could create a paradigm shift if you can convince others to adopt it, but I really doubt it will happen.
==============================
First, RACISM
Racism is basically acts of unequal discrimination between people based on their membership in a different race. A race is a category of people made on the basis of appearance or ancestry. All 'races' are purely arbitrary creations: they have no real basis in any meaningful fact, especially given the amount of intermarriage. Aside from the vileness of racist behaviour, this fact is a major indictment of racism as a way of thought.
People can change their religion, but baring major medical intervention people cannot change their appearance, and they cannot change their ancestry at all.
Religion is not a race.
==================================
Second, HATE CRIME
You wrote "There seem to be a knee jerk reaction from many Christians on this forum concerning my opinion that proselytizing of religion is a form of "HATE SPEECH" and should be illegal or at the very least desisted from practicing."
Let me give you a knee-jerk American reaction. I put it this way because many non-Christian Americans believe it.
The entire idea of a hate crime for violent acts is abhorrent to many Americans, because it denies the equal application of the law. The idea that a Muslim murderer of a Muslim (for example) could receive a lesser sentence than a Christian murderer of a Muslim is abhorrent. The justice served for the two Muslim victims is unequal and thus an invidious act of discrimination against one has occurred. This is a violation of the American constitutional order.
American law recognizes the present need for "protected groups", but it runs against the overall philosophy of the law, and even here it cannot be applied in the sweeping manner you make. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor actually wrote a dicta opinion once that the day will come when the concept of protected groups will no longer be needed. She is correct.
But of course you are not writing about violent criminl acts, but rather criminalizing free speech. This is an even greater offense against the American constitutional order. It is true that sppech can be used to incite violence, but this definition is drawn very narrowly: the threat must be imminent, and in no way is the speaker blamed under the law for the violence made against him - unless you get a particular Muslin judge in Pennsylvania.
==========================
Finally, MORAL SUPERIORITY.
Moral superiority comes from the life you choose to live. Religions help to guide one's life. The adherents of a religion naturally choose to see their precepts as guiding them to a more moral life. The idea that any public debate over this matter between persons of different religions can legitimately lead to violence is very wrong. People can walk away from a proselytizer. I can assure you that in America people WILL walk away from a proselytizer who is smug or arrogant.
We Americans want to keep it that way.
Also, if you are really an atheist you must belief athesim to be morally superior to religions.
Does that make you a racist by your logic?
Finally, you still have not answered my and pr126's question to you:
In your mind is dawah a prosecutable hate crime?
We're still waiting...
Tom Davis wrote - "You obviously live in your own world where you create your own definitions of reality. You could create a paradigm shift if you can convince others to adopt it, but I really doubt it will happen."
Reply - When I defined hate speech and hate crime I quoted a definition from Wikepedia. I agree that I constructed or used that definition to give credence to my reality but I am certainly not apologetic about using other peoples perception of reality. I go on the basis that my perception of reality is correct unless it is proved otherwise. This is not a how many hands up wins the debate or the perception of what is right or wrong.
Tom Davis wrote:
"First, RACISM
Racism is basically acts of unequal discrimination between people based on their membership in a different race. A race is a category of people made on the basis of appearance or ancestry. All 'races' are purely arbitrary creations: they have no real basis in any meaningful fact, especially given the amount of intermarriage. Aside from the vileness of racist behaviour, this fact is a major indictment of racism as a way of thought.
People can change their religion, but baring major medical intervention people cannot change their appearance, and they cannot change their ancestry at all.
Religion is not a race.
Reply - You seem to have a very narrow definition of racism, one which is defined by race. The definition of racism that I rely on is when a person or a group of persons claim a superiority over another person or a group of persons without having any rational reason for such superiority. This definition is far more broader than your appeal based on race and it also encompasses a mindset.
For example there are claims by many persons that Jews are racist towards the Palistinians. This may or may not be true but the only difference between a Jew and a Palestinian Muslim is not any colour, race, ancestry, blood, etc it is a mindset that claims one person to be a Jew and another person a Muslim.
Tom Davis wrote:
TFinally, MORAL SUPERIORITY.
Moral superiority comes from the life you choose to live. Religions help to guide one's life. The adherents of a religion naturally choose to see their precepts as guiding them to a more moral life. The idea that any public debate over this matter between persons of different religions can legitimately lead to violence is very wrong. People can walk away from a proselytizer. I can assure you that in America people WILL walk away from a proselytizer who is smug or arrogant.
We Americans want to keep it that way
Reply - Why do I get the sense that Tom Davis is claiming that Americans are superior to other nationalities of the world but they are not RACIST. That's laughable.
As to the comment "People can walk away from a proselytizer. I can assure you that in America people WILL walk away from a proselytizer who is smug or arrogant."
Reply - But why should a person walk away from a person declaring some form of hate speech. Is it not better that hate speech be stopped by some sort of legislation? Is it not better that we can controll and train and educate people to understand that all human beings are equal and that any person claiming to be superior to another person desrves censure
Tom Davis also wrote:
Also, if you are really an atheist you must belief athesim to be morally superior to religions.
Does that make you a racist by your logic?
Reply - No I do not think that atheism is morally superior to religions. In fact I think atheism has nothing to do with morality but analogous to a scientific theory.
You could have two competing scientific theories about anything. One of those scientific theories may be right or one may be wrong. It does not mean that the scientific theory that is right is MORALLY RIGHT and the scientific theory that is wrong is MORALLY WRONG.
I hope that clears up the logic why I am not a racist.
Also, if you are really an atheist you must believe athesim to be morally superior to religions.
Does that make you a racist by your logic?
~~~~~
Good point, Tom; yes, by his own logic, it would make him a racist. Although I doubt that he would admit to it ...
I repeat to champ:
Tom Davis also wrote:
Also, if you are really an atheist you must belief athesim to be morally superior to religions.
Does that make you a racist by your logic?
Reply - No I do not think that atheism is morally superior to religions. In fact I think atheism has nothing to do with morality but analogous to a scientific theory.
You could have two competing scientific theories about anything. One of those scientific theories may be right or one may be wrong. It does not mean that the scientific theory that is right is MORALLY RIGHT and the scientific theory that is wrong is MORALLY WRONG.
I hope that clears up the logic why I am not a racist
I'll conclude this topic to prove my point with an analogy:
Imagine a group of Chinese men coming to the shores of Africa with the claim that all Africans are morally inferior or culturally inferior to Chinese but not to worry because the Chinese have invented a medicine that will instantly convert an African to a Chinese thereby instantly making him or her morally and culturally superior.
I would'nt blame any African for immediately chasing the Chinese racist back to China. Why should it be any different for a prolythizer of religious beliefs who is essentially making the same claims of the Chinese analogy.
"No I do not think that atheism is morally superior to religions. In fact I think atheism has nothing to do with morality but analogous to a scientific theory."
Do you consider "scientific theory" to be superior to religion?
No I do not think that atheism is morally superior to religions. In fact I think atheism has nothing to do with morality but analogous to a scientific theory."
Do you consider "scientific theory" to be superior to religion?
It depends what you mean by the term "superior". No I do not regard scientific theory to be superior to religion in any moral sense but I think that intellectually scientific theories are superior to religious explanation to explain a material world. However this is a subjective view and if a person makes more sense of a material world from a religious perspective then he or she is welcome to entertain such religious views but I am free to state that those views do not appeal to me.
The problem comes about when a person declares his or her atheist views or religious views to be MORALLY CORRECT. I will question and state that if the person cannot provide a rational reason for making this statement than all this person is projecting is a RACIST view and by implication an IMMORAL view.
Very interesting replies. Here are mine.
When I defined hate speech and hate crime I quoted a definition from Wikepedia. Yes you did. My comment about making your own definitions applied to your definition of racism.
You seem to have a very narrow definition of racism, one which is defined by race.
Um, that would be the standard definition.
The definition of racism that I rely on is when a person or a group of persons claim a superiority over another person or a group of persons without having any rational reason for such superiority.
That is a little scary, considering that what seeme to be a 'rational reason' might simply be a mental concotion. Real racists always think their reasons for racist beliefs are rational. Your argument has failed to convince me.
I think you would be on better ground if you dropped racism and used words like 'prejudice' to describe the situations you cite.
Why do I get the sense that Tom Davis is claiming that Americans are superior to other nationalities of the world but they are not RACIST.That's laughable.
No, I never implied that Americans are superior to other nationalities, and I do not believe that. I do believe that the American concept of civil liberties is superior to that of other nations. That was my point. Civil liberties in other nations are usually borrowed from the American experience. BTW, it is this widespread belief that has led to a massive reduction of real racism in America over the last 50 years. Which leads to your finding it 'laughable' that Americans as a whole might not be 'racists' - that sir is a prejudicial statement that is ignorant of the realities in America. I live in a 'multiracial' family so I know firsthand that America is among the least racist places on earth.
No I do not think that atheism is morally superior to religions. In fact I think atheism has nothing to do with morality but analogous to a scientific theory.
That is sidestepping the issue. No philosophy or theology (it could be either) of morality can be derived from any scientific theory. Science deals with the material world only and therefore has inherent limitations for the human experience; it may influence a person's moral code but it cannot fully define it. Any atheism will always has a tenent that cannot be disproven, just as any religion or philosophy will. You need to think this through.
I do find your ideas to be interesting.
No I do not regard scientific theory to be superior to religion in any moral sense but I think that intellectually scientific theories are superior to religious explanation to explain a material world.
You are correct.
However this is a subjective view and if a person makes more sense of a material world from a religious perspective then he or she is welcome to entertain such religious views but I am free to state that those views do not appeal to me
I would actually disagree, but in a way you might like. Your first sentence is not a subjective view but is an objective truth. Therefore the use of religious views to describe the material world is protected free speech but may fail to qualify as being compatable with science.
Of course SCIENTIFIC THEORY is superior to RELIGION.
RELIGION requires no PROOF or VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE whatsoever. There is no proof of the existence of Allah, Jehovah or Jesus's dad, or angels, jinn, burning bushes, parting seas or people resting quietly in their graves with the window to Heaven open and fragrant breezes wafting in.
SCIENTIFIC THEORY DEMANDS repeat DEMANDS, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE which will stand up to repeated testing.
However, I do not want to upset anyone and I can attest to the FACT that a cock crows when it sees an angel and a donkey brays when it see the naughty chap wot tries to sleep in our noses. I am also firmly of the opinion that a certain Arabian gentleman, born in 570 CE, really was and is 'insan al-kamil' and 'uswa hasana'. Furthermore he is not being tortured in his grave. The rumours that he peed down his leg, are false. They are put about by evil Islamophobes.
P.S I can assure everyone there really are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Regretably I can provide no proof. But they are there, they are, they are. An angel called Gabriel told me.
Jeez, I feel like I've been sitting in a cafe with Fayzal and champ and enjoying a good meal and a heated but fairly repectful discussion, and you just came over, leanded over the table, and breathed your beer breath in everyone's faces.
Other than that I'm not upset at all.
ahaha!!! ..oh was that beer, I thought that I smelled whiskey on his breath! Very funny, Tom, oh my gosh my stomach hurts from laughing over that one ...
...okay now my eyes are watering from laughing so hard, lol! :-D
Excellent, Tom - your argument and defense of it.
I love it when people make assumptions about us "racist" Americans. I got a couple half-breed Filipino kids, myself, so I guess I'm just as racist as you, Tom!
Go figure.
:)
Sorry for replying so late I had to doze of and refresh myself for round two.
You state :"No, I never implied that Americans are superior to other nationalities, and I do not believe that. I do believe that the American concept of civil liberties is superior to that of other nations. That was my point. Civil liberties in other nations are usually borrowed from the American experience. BTW, it is this widespread belief that has led to a massive reduction of real racism in America over the last 50 years."
I think there is'nt a great difference in how you Tom and I view the world and the realities thereof and our debate seems to be about the linguistics we each use to describe that reality and the morality associated with the reality.
You state that you "believe that the American concept of civil liberties is superior to that of other nations". I think the term "superiority" is misplaced and I would rather use the term "excellence". Yes I agree and I also admire the excellence of the American civil liberties that has led the way for the democracies of the world to partake and admire in. However (BTW)those excellent civil liberties which we all admire are being overtaken by many other countries (including South Africa)that are having a constitution that even America is finding it difficult to imitate. In the rights of abortion, gay rights, abolition of the death penalty and even the freedom of expression the USA seems to be lagging behind.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the USA Supreme Court of Justice made the following comment which is reported in the Time Magazine (20th February) "I will not look to the US Constitution if I were to draft a constitution in the year 2012". She instead urged Egypt to look at the South African Constitution as a model that embraces human rights. (unquote).
So in my linguistics there is no "superiority" and "inferiority" of human beings or cultures or religions or non beliefs etc. I'm reminded of the famous song "there is good and bad in everyone".
Also I understand the objectivity of scientific theory in explaining the material world but for each individual to make sense of his or her place in this material world requires a subjective view. That is while we can discuss science in an objective manner how you view the world can only be arrived at in a subjective manner
I think there is'nt a great difference in how you Tom and I view the world and the realities thereof and our debate seems to be about the linguistics we each use to describe that reality and the morality associated with the reality.
I hope you are right.
However (BTW)those excellent civil liberties which we all admire are being overtaken by many other countries (including South Africa)that are having a constitution that even America is finding it difficult to imitate.
I prefer the brevity of the U.S. Constitution. I think it is better to say "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as the 14th amendment stated in 1868, than it would be to try to list all possible types of persons and all possible ways in which the laws may protect them. This also fits the American conception that each person ultimately retains his rights without the need for the government to protect him, and that the Constitution is mainly intended to protect a person's rights from the government itself.
BTW, I don't approve of much of Justice Ginsburg's legal views. She has spent much of her career misinterpreting the law, and thus her view of the U.S. Constitution is to a degree flawed. So I don't put much value in the comment you cite. Sure, in some textual sense she may have a point, but when you read the U.S. document as it was meant to be read you see how it is supposed to work.
I observe that 'faysal' who claims to be an atheist from South Africa, has successfully managed to distract the entire thread from any real focus on or discussion of the posted article: which tells us that on the basis of a Muslim *claim* that the Christians were 'proselytising' Muslims - and whatever happened to the 'just say no politely' response when you are presented with anything, be it a set of ideas or an item for sale? - ** a dozen armed Muslims** attacked two unarmed Christian men and seriously injured them.
The Christians in Pakistan, like the HIndus and Sikhs, are a tiny, powerless, largely impoverished minority group.
The idea that they represent a threat to be dealt with by armed military force, is blithering nonsense.
And it is entirely possible that they were NOT 'proselytising' at all: just scraping along, keeping themselves to themselves and trying to survive, and that the accusation - 'they're trying to convert Muslims!!! HORRORS! KILL THEM!" - was made against them *falsely* by the Mohammedans, in order to have an *excuse* to attack: because under Sharia, non-Muslims are forbidden to try to persuade or encourage Muslims to leave Islam and adopt a different belief system (and Faysal, if he really IS an atheist, should bear in mind that even mildly suggesting, by rational argument, that a Muslim should become an atheist, would be viewed just as dimly by Muslims, as is Christian evangelism), whereas Muslims are free to attempt to recruit non-Muslims by all means possible - by bribery, by trickery, by threats subtle and not-so-subtle, by making their lives HELL simply for the 'crime' of not being Muslims, and by criminal means up to and including kidnapping minor girls, raping them, drugging them, beating them, and terrorising them into publicly declaring that they have 'voluntarily' 'converted' to Islam...
Faysal seems to think that everybody must remain in whatever belief system their parents happened to belong to: their delicate sensibilities must be protected from ever encountering critique, questioning or even - oh noes! - mockery of whatever set of ideas they start out with.
Freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, *must* include the freedom for people to change from one religion to another, or from atheism to faith, or from faith to atheism, or it is meaningless.
And freedom of speech must include the freedom to publicly discuss, explain, question and criticise - politely, of course - one's own faith **and that of others**, or it is also meaningless. Indeed: real freedom of speech ALSO includes the freedom to make fun of or satirise religions, cults and belief systems - whether that of others, or one's *own*.
As for criticism: not all religions - sets of beliefs and ideas about god, the world and other people and how they relate to each other and how to obtain favour with god/ the gods - are equally beneficial or good (or, for that matter, bad).
Islam's doctrine of jihad, and its mandate for wife-beating, and its endorsement of slavery and lying-for-Islam, and its absolute refusal to practise the golden rule, make it inferior to the world's other religions. If one looks at Mohammedan countries as compared to other countries, they are - as John Quincy Adams acidly observed,a long time ago - characterised by "desolation and delusion". Muslim Pakistan and Muslim Bangladesh, whose inhabitants are ethnically and linguistically similar to those of Hindu-majority India, are well behind India on all social indicators; their populations are poorer, more violent, women are treated worse and live less long, more babies die in infancy, and people are more illiterate. If every Muslim in Pakistan and Bangladesh left Islam and became Hindu, or Buddhist or Christian, Pakistan and Bangladesh would, within quite a short space of time, become much better places in which to live. Not paradise by any means; but they *would* be better places.
Religions like Islam, that promote polygamy, are objectively worse for human wellbeing than religions - most notably Judaism and Christianity - that promote monogamy. The research has been done, and it shows that polygamous societies tend, for example, to be more violent and chaotic, and poorer.
Religions like that of the thuggee cult or the ancient Aztecs, or the cult of Moloch in ancient Canaan, that routinely practised human sacrifice, are surely worthy of contempt, as being inferior to religions that *do not* include practices of that kind.
Religions that permitted the practice of ritual prostitution - e.g. the cult of Aphrodite in Corinth in the 1st century - or ritual orgiastic dismemberment of a randomly selected human victim - the cult of Bacchus as practised in some parts of the ancient Mediterranean - or male self-castration - the cult of Cybele, also in the ancient Greco-Roman world - are, I would insist, objectively inferior to religions - or, for that matter, philosophies - that do not endorse and include such practices.
Critique of such 'religions' was perfectly justified and justifiable at the time.
Critique of Islam is justified and justifiable, and if all Muslims in the world were to leave Islam for just about anything else currently on offer - *including Christianity** - the world would be a safer place for everybody.
To be blunt: I am delighted whenever a Muslim leaves Islam. I am delighted, of course, when they become Christian. But I am happy, too, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq - all of them now secular atheists, having chosen the path of pure reason of the Western Enlightenment - have left Islam.
PS - One of the reasons that Ayaan left Islam was because she had access to books that showed her alternative belief systems. And because a bunch of cheerfully worldly Ethiopian Christian girls *laughed* at her and gently mocked the silliness of some of her Muslim practices. Faysal, of course, would regard those girls as being raaaacist and baaad for making fun of Islam and criticising it.
Yes, he did misdirect the thread form the topic. I did allow it partly because he made the following statement:
"In my opinion religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism is a form of racism..."
He might be a real Islamic troll but this line made me think that he might not be. He may really be what he claims to be, in which case his problem is just the usual moral relativism.
And every line of YOUR post screams NO MORAL RELATIVISM. Very apt. Thank you.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote: "And it is entirely possible that they were NOT 'proselytising' at all"
Reply - Which indicates that maybe, just maybe Dumbledoresarmy is against proselytizing as much as I am against it.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote: " Faysal, if he really IS an atheist, should bear in mind that even mildly suggesting, by rational argument, that a Muslim should become an atheist, would be viewed just as dimly by Muslims,
Reply - I don't know where you got the idea that I am trying to convert any person/s to atheism as I could'nt care less whatever the beliefs system of any person is.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote: "Faysal seems to think that everybody must remain in whatever belief system their parents happened to belong to: their delicate sensibilities must be protected from ever encountering critique, questioning or even - oh noes! - mockery of whatever set of ideas they start out with."
May I suggest to Dumbledoresarmy that he stop thinking on my behalf because I could'nt care less if there were a billion more Muslims or a billion more Christians on earth. People are free to choose whatever beliefs system they wish to follow and are free to change their minds at anytime and follow whatever their hearts desires.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote: "Freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, *must* include the freedom for people to change from one religion to another, or from atheism to faith, or from faith to atheism, or it is meaningless."
Reply - I am in complete agreement and I will go even further to state that if you understand the rights of this freedom to choose it therefore becomes disrepectful and insulting for any person to then state "You are an immoral person because you chose to follow Islam or Christianity or Bhudism". If you respect the rights of people to choose their faith then you also have to respect the choice that any person makes.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote:"And freedom of speech must include the freedom to publicly discuss, explain, question and criticise - politely, of course - one's own faith **and that of others**, or it is also meaningless. Indeed: real freedom of speech ALSO includes the freedom to make fun of or satirise religions, cults and belief systems - whether that of others, or one's *own*."
Reply - Again I am in total agreement with these sentiments but there are limits to this freedom of speech and in my opinion coming to a market square and making racist comments or gestures towards the people attending the market square is beyond the limits of free speech allowed and it crosses over to hate speech which is exactly what "proselythizing" is all about.
Dumbledoresarmy wrote:"Islam's doctrine of jihad, and its mandate for wife-beating, and its endorsement of slavery and lying-for-Islam, and its absolute refusal to practise the golden rule, make it inferior to the world's other religions. If one looks at Mohammedan countries as compared to other countries, they are - as John Quincy Adams acidly observed,a long time ago - characterised by "desolation and delusion". Muslim Pakistan and Muslim Bangladesh, whose inhabitants are ethnically and linguistically similar to those of Hindu-majority India, are well behind India on all social indicators; their populations are poorer, more violent, women are treated worse and live less long, more babies die in infancy, and people are more illiterate. If every Muslim in Pakistan and Bangladesh left Islam and became Hindu, or Buddhist or Christian, Pakistan and Bangladesh would, within quite a short space of time, become much better places in which to live. Not paradise by any means; but they *would* be better places."
Reply - It is statements such as these that makes me think that Dumbledoresarmy is a "closeted racist". While I have no problem with criticism of any aspects of Muslim beliefs or Christian beliefs for that matter, it is the all embracing characterization by Dumbledoresarmy that because there are various aspects of Islamic beliefs that are deemed immoral all Muslims are "inferior" to Christians or other beliefs systems. I think it would suffice to say to Dumbledoresarmy that a lesson in racism and racist propaganda may help as a starting point to see his innner predjudices. Germans were never complimented when they were regarded as "Jew haters", I hope Dumbledoresarmy does not feel complimented when his statements indicates that he seems to hate Muslims.
Here in South Africa I am also extremely critical of many Islamic practices that occurs both locally and abroad. I hope that my criticism of some of the Islamic practices will educate and make Muslims aware of some of the folly and immorality of certain practices and dogma. However I have no intention to project a view that atheism is superior and Islam inferior. I think i am successful if I convince Muslims to abandoned certain practices within Islam. I always think that if so many immoral practices were abandoned in Christianity why not in Islam?
Dumbledoresarmy wrote:"Religions like Islam, that promote polygamy, are objectively worse for human wellbeing than religions - most notably Judaism and Christianity - that promote monogamy. The research has been done, and it shows that polygamous societies tend, for example, to be more violent and chaotic, and poorer."
Reply - I disagree with the research because here in South Africa we have a blend of monogamous Christian marriage and many polygamous marriage. The people in prison for violent crimes, rape, theft etc are 85per cent Christian. Could I conclude from my research that monogamous Christian marriage contribute and promote violent crime in my society. I think that conclusion would be silly.
And for the record I support the right of adults to choose their sexual preferences wether it is polygamy, monogamony, swingers, sex work, anal sex, lesbianism, gay sex, masturbation,adultery etc.
I conclude by stating that nothing has been said on this forum to defend "proselythizing" and I must assume that "proselythizing" is a form of racist hate speech that all caring human beings who understand what human rights is all about should vehemently fight against.
I thought I had defended the right to proselytize. I don't defend rude or arrogant or smug proselytizing. Done with honesty and humility there is nothing wrong with it.
Also, you admit that you are really only against public proselytism. I don't see much of a difference.
Sorry Tom, we seem to have covered numerous topics but I don't seem to recall any mention that you defended proselytizing. However if you have defended proselytizing in a round about way than I seem yo have missed your point.
I also noticed that many of your arguments seem to rest on an authoritive stamp. If for eg. you find proselyting OK than it becomes OK to proselytize on this forum because TOM Davis has approved of it.
Allow me to state that as I regard proselityzing a form of hate speech based on a racist arrogance that the person doing the proselytizing feels he is superior. I therefore approve of the Pakistan authority to legally charge those racist Christians of formenting hate speech and possibly incitement. I also approve of the Indian government making it a crime to proselytize and I approve of the Sri Lankan government from booting out the Muslim proselytizers from their country.
Do I approve of "dawaah" in Islam. Obviously not. It is a hate crime equal to proselytizing by Christians.
Tom wrote "Also, you admit that you are really only against public proselytism. I don't see much of a difference."
That is a false statement. Proselityzing is a form of racism and I would therefore be against proselityzing in all its forms wether public or private. However in any democracy there is nothing preventing you from being a racist in your private sphere and therefore any person is entitled to proselytize. For eg. you could be a racist barber and in your private time will only cut the hair of your white freinds but as soon as you enter the public sphere and declare that you are a racist barber not prepared to cut the hair of any black person you will be charged for a rascist act in any democracy. Therefore there is a big difference.
You got me waay wrong if you thought I in any way shared your desire to define all 'proselytisation' - the sharing of ideas with a view to persuading another person who has different ideas, to adopt the *new* ideas that are being presented - as 'racism' and 'hate speech' and ban it.
If those Christians in Pakistan were - politely and peacefully - explaining their belief system to Muslims in the hope that some Muslims might decide that the Christian God was a more human-friendly God than the Muslim 'allah', then I see NOTHING wrong with that at all. Muslims, of course, do think it's wrong (and you seem to agree with them...). What I was getting at was the possibility that those particular Christians might NOT have been evangelising and that the Muslims were LYING about them- which is very, very probable.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to publicly explain and describe what one believes, and why one believes it; including the freedom to answer, if a person who does not share one's belief, asks questions about what one believes.
If a Muslim asks me what I believe, I will explain that I am a Christian, and will state what I believe. It may be that the Muslim, hearing my account of a loving and gracious God who cares about individual humans, will decide that *my* God sounds more attractive than *his* uncaring, capricious slave-master 'allah'.
Many a Muslim has converted to Christianity after picking up and reading the New Testament, or lucking onto a recitation of Christian scripture broadcast over the radio - free to air, and if he or she doesn't like it, well, easy-peasy to turn the dial to another station!
Explaining what one believes can be done politely and peacefully.
The other person is free to politely say No, and if they say No, then the Christian is actually supposed to accept the No, and move on. (Muslims don't and won't accept No for an answer; if someone says No to da'wa, then they move to stage two - the demand for jizya, submission to Islamic rule as a dhimmi; and if their target continues to say No, then the Muslim - if able - proceeds to JIHAD, in order to exterminate the person who has said No).
You claim not to be a Muslim but your rules if made into law would severely repress freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And you are awfully sensitive about any critique of Islam. If you are what you claim to be - an atheist - why are you so upset when I give what I in fact hold to be a flatly factual description of the fruits of Islam?
As for monogamy vs polygyny: the harsh fact of life is that roughly even numbers of boys and girls are born, in nature, and that therefore, if a minority of the men 'corner' and monopolise most of the available nubile women, by greedily seizing more than one wife, all the other guys miss out altogether, and this tends to promote misery and violence.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/40214
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657
"In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage".
"..Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives...".
@ Fayzal
Quran (8:55) - "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve"
That's hate speech! Calling disbelievers, non-Muslims, 'the vilest of animals.'
There is not another religion in the world that calls those who do not believe in its creed 'the vilest of animals'. None! Only Islam.
Also, you have made the usual mistake of calling any attack on Islam 'racist'. An ideology can never be a 'race'. Christianity is not a race, Buddhism is not a race, so Islam can not be a race.
It's a bizarre thing to say, and wrong!
You're a clown; a baggy trousered, red-nosed, wire-wigged clown!
Buraq stated "Quran (8:55) - "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve"
That's hate speech! Calling disbelievers, non-Muslims, 'the vilest of animals.
Reply - I completely agree with you. In my opinion such an interpretation (it must be an interpretation because the original words of the Quran is in Arabic and you have provided an English interpretation thereof)... in my opinion such an interpretation should be banned.
May I suggest that you Buraq (if you live in America) to form an association with other members of this Jihad Watch forum and use your wonderful constitution to restrict or ban this particular English interpretation of the Quran, bearing in mind that you will not be banning the Arabic Quran but merely an interpretation thereof.
If you succeed in the banning I will commend and praise you because the less we have of this hate speech interpretations than the better it will be for societies worldwide.
BTW if an interpretation of the verse you quoted merely stated the word "immoral" and not use the word animal would you be OK with such an interpretation? I'm curious and hopefully get a response
Oh I forgot to mention that the Bible qoutes gays or homosexuality to be an "Abomination".
According to the various human rights statutes giving equal status to gays and lesbians as equal human beings and not to be descriminated and predjudiced I regard the verses in the Bible as hate speech as well.
If you Buraq succeed in getting the interpretation banned by the US Constitutional Court please contact me and provide me the details of how you succeeded so that i could apply the same principles in getting the interpretation of the Bible banned or restricted.
@ Fayzal
The text I quoted from the Qur'an is not an interpretation, it's a translation from Classical Arabic into English. And it's accurate. In fact, there are many poems written in Classical Arabic that have been translated into many languages. So, there's no problem with translating Classical Arabic into English; you will also find a few lines from a Classical Arabic poem inserted in Al Qur'an! So, Mohammed knew how to plagiarize!
But to your comment about the Bible calling gays an 'abomination.' So what? There are no Christian theocracies anywhere in the world. Only Islamic theocracies. That's why gays are perfectly safe in our free, secular societies, whereas in Islamic theocracies gays are vilified and murdered by the Islamic state.
By the way, it's high time that Al Qur'an was given the same kind of scrutiny that The Bible was given during the Enlightenment. Then Al Qur'an's myriad errors and inconsistencies could be shown to the world.
Buraq wrote: "The text I quoted from the Qur'an is not an interpretation, it's a translation from Classical Arabic into English. And it's accurate."
Reply - you are caught in a classical catch 22 situation, Buraq. If you intend claiming that Prophet Mohammed wrote
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve" then I suggest that you bring an Arabic Quran and reincarnate or resurect Prophet Muhammad to testify that those were the words he asserted. Otherwise all you are left with is one or another translation / interpretation of the Quran in such and such a language. Any legal attorney or clever philosopher will assert that if you want to ban such and such interpretation / translation in such and such language go ahead and ban that interpretation / translation, but what has that got to do with the Arabic Quran.
Your assertion that the translation / interpretation represents the Arabic Quran is just that, it is only your assertion and if you want to go beyond your assertion then please resurect Prophet Muhammad
@ Fayzal
What a weak response! You say that I can only be correct if I resurrect your dead prophet and ask him to confirm the text.
But that's not possible.
However, what is for certain is that 1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth would agree with me, not with you!
I was hoping you'd be one of the more clever clowns; but you're not. Then again, you have very weak materials to work with, Al Qur'an, so I can't expect more, I suppose.
Pakistan: Two Christians injured over rumor of proselytizing; one may lose arm
..............................
As noted by Dumbledore's Army, these Christians may not even have been proselytizing in any recognizable sense; merely existing openly as Christians in a Muslim-majority society is considered "proselytizing".
More:
From this report, police seem more eager to probe the allegations of proselytizing than to track down the attackers...
The attack took place at Grace Ministry Church yesterday and the Christian community is still in shock. Meanwhile, the police, instead of pursuing the perpetrators of violence, have opened an investigation against the Rev. Altaf Khan - pastor of the community - and 20 other faithful...
..............................
This should surprise *no one*. Peaceful proselytizing by Christians in Pakistan is considered a much more serious matter than storming a church and violently attacking the parishoners.
In fact, it is a common occurrance in Pakistan for Christian or Hindu victims to report a crime and then find that it becomes an occasion for the police to harass and further persecute *the victims*.
More:
The extremist raid was sparked by charges that church was trying to evangelize Muslims in an attempt to convert them to Christianity.
..............................
And yet, not only are Muslims free to use Da'wa to convert Christians and Hindus, but they often kidnap, rape, and *forcibly convert* victims. They seldom face much in the way of penalties. And this happens not just in Pakistan, but in Egypt, and Nigeria, and many other reaches of Dar-al-Islam.
Fayzal Mahamed wrote:
Exactly what is proselythizing? In my opinion it is the propagation that one's beliefs are MORALLY superior to another persons beliefs...
..............................
Mahamed does not appear to realize that he is wildly contradicting himself here. Here is claiming that championing a belief is intrinsically "racist"—yet this idea is in and of itself a belief—albeit a rather contradictory and poorly thought out one.
If he considers it preferable that one not engage in "hate speech", is he not claiming that that is because this idea is *morally superior* to hate speech and "racism"?
And yet, this—by dint of his own "logic", would mean he is a "racist" guilty of "hate speech" himself.
And, certainly, there is no reason to suppose that these Pakistani Christians are a different race from the Muslims who attacked them, in any case. "Masih" is a common surname for Indian and Pakistani Christian, stemming from the word "Messiah".
More, quoting Tom Davis:
We Americans want to keep it that way
Reply - Why do I get the sense that Tom Davis is claiming that Americans are superior to other nationalities of the world but they are not RACIST. That's laughable.
..............................
Americans are *not a race*. Famously, we are a nation of immigrants, and are generally linked more by philosophy than by race. Freedom of speech is a core American value, cherished by most Americans. It is not based on race at all.
Moreover, while the United States has some of the most greatest protections of freedom of speech anywhere in the world through the First Amendment, this is hardly exclusively an American value.
It is a Western value—and one largely upheld in South Africa, as well.
More, again quoting Tom Davis:
As to the comment "People can walk away from a proselytizer. I can assure you that in America people WILL walk away from a proselytizer who is smug or arrogant."
Reply - But why should a person walk away from a person declaring some form of hate speech. Is it not better that hate speech be stopped by some sort of legislation? Is it not better that we can controll and train and educate people to understand that all human beings are equal and that any person claiming to be superior to another person desrves censure
..............................
Well, this is just *terrifying*. Doesn't Mahamed realize that his presenting his ideas here could well fall under the same strictures?
In the United States, all speech is generally allowed unless it is specifically incing violence. And Tom is right, "we Americans want to keep it that way".
You may believe that considering the laws of a free country to be morally superior to those an oppressive police state to be "racist"—but a guarantee of free speech for all is the *antithesis* of racism.
More:
Reply - It is statements such as these that makes me think that Dumbledoresarmy is a "closeted racist". While I have no problem with criticism of any aspects of Muslim beliefs or Christian beliefs for that matter, it is the all embracing characterization by Dumbledoresarmy that because there are various aspects of Islamic beliefs that are deemed immoral all Muslims are "inferior" to Christians or other beliefs systems. I think it would suffice to say to Dumbledoresarmy that a lesson in racism and racist propaganda may help as a starting point to see his innner predjudices. Germans were never complimented when they were regarded as "Jew haters", I hope Dumbledoresarmy does not feel complimented when his statements indicates that he seems to hate Muslims.
..............................
What *utter rot*. I can think of few people *less* racist than Dumbledore's Army, who has defended the human rights of people from all over the world, whatever their race, for years and years here—including Asian, Africans, Aborigines, Jews, Arabs, Europeans, Hispanics, and native people of all types.
A small point, yet perhaps salient here given the context—Dumbledore's Army is actually female. Other posters have assumed she was male before, and it is usually a small matter—the same happens to me, given my unisex username. Yet wouldn't that, by his own standards, mark Mahamed as some sort of "racist"—or "sexist", at any rate?
More:
Buraq stated "Quran (8:55) - "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve"
That's hate speech! Calling disbelievers, non-Muslims, 'the vilest of animals.
Reply - I completely agree with you. In my opinion such an interpretation (it must be an interpretation because the original words of the Quran is in Arabic and you have provided an English interpretation thereof)... in my opinion such an interpretation should be banned.
May I suggest that you Buraq (if you live in America) to form an association with other members of this Jihad Watch forum and use your wonderful constitution to restrict or ban this particular English interpretation of the Quran, bearing in mind that you will not be banning the Arabic Quran but merely an interpretation thereof.
If you succeed in the banning I will commend and praise you because the less we have of this hate speech interpretations than the better it will be for societies worldwide.
BTW if an interpretation of the verse you quoted merely stated the word "immoral" and not use the word animal would you be OK with such an interpretation? I'm curious and hopefully get a response
..............................
Firstly, there is *no* reason to believe that this translation of Qur'an 8:55 is inaccurate. I have read numerous translations of this Sura, and they all read in very much the same manner.
A quick search brought these up:
"Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe."
"The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved; they cannot believe."
"For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe."
Here's the authorized English translation:
"The worst creatures in the sight of GOD are those who disbelieved"
Notice that Mahamed does not consider that these translations may, in fact, be correct.
Further, though, imagine what this would do to freedom of expression in general, if a work could *only* exist in its original language, and if translations of any text were banned.
Mahamed is not only calling for the banning of books, he is positively excited over the idea, and wants some tips on how he can ban books himself. Damned disturbing.
And consider where that would leave us specifically vis-a-vis the Qur'an—it would leave us, as under Shari'ah, unable to read the Quar'an at all unless we studied to become scholars of classical Arabic—or unless we only legally allowed "translations" that said scholars found acceptable.
It would leave us—like dhimmis in the Muslim world—unable to read the texts of Islam.
I cannot help but wonder if this is what Mahamed has had in mind after all—his inconsistent verbiage on "racism" notwithstanding...
Buraq wrote: "What a weak response! You say that I can only be correct if I resurrect your dead prophet and ask him to confirm the text."
Reply - Before I begin to address your other statements I have stated before on this forum and I am repeating it to you - I am an atheist living in Johannesburg South Africa - therefore please do not assume as you have done that I am a Muslim.
Buraq wrote:"What a weak response! You say that I can only be correct if I resurrect your dead prophet and ask him to confirm the text.
But that's not possible.
However, what is for certain is that 1.5 billion Muslims on planet Earth would agree with me, not with you!"
Reply - I thought our original argument was to try and ascertain which of certain verses in the Quran constituted hate speech and not by a show of hands (1.5 billion Muslims) who would agree or disagree with me. BTW I'm curious to know how you arrived at the figure 1.5 billion. Was it a questionaire on the internet where 1.5 billion ticked of their disagreement or are you assuming to speak as a representative on behalf of 1.5 billion Muslims. If so, this is your second assumption and two assumptions in three sentences is a bit too much to accept.
Lets begin again in simpler terms. Let us imagine that the US Supreme Court gave permission to Buraq to bring a case of hate speech and to consider banning such hate speech. Just what is Buraq going to present to the US Court?
If it presents the Arabic Quran then the judges are going to ask but what does the verse represent?
If Buraq is going to translate / interpret the verse by himself then the Court will ask by what authority did Buraq translate / interpret such verse. Case lost
If Buraq is going to present an English interpretation / translation from a distinguished Imaam or scholar of the Quran then there are 3 hurdles to overcome:
Hurdle 1 - whether the translated / interpreted Quran is the only version of translation / interpretation. If not or if there is the slightest variation in translation / interpretation with other Qurans - Case Lost
Hurdle 2 - Case lost factually on hurdle 1. However for the sake of academia lets us ASSUME that there is only a single translation / interpretation of the Quran the dillema facing the US Court is to ban the interpretation / translation or the Arabic Quran or both. My bet is that the US Court will ban the English interpretation / translation and leave the Arabic version intact. Case Lost
Hurdle 3 - Even if hurdles 1 and 2 were crossed then the US Court judges will have to ask " Is there the slightest possibility that there could be a different interpretation translation to the Quran and if the answer is Yes then the decision cannot be beyond doubt and therefore Case Lost
Hence my claim that Buraq is in a catch 22 situation.
do you support the death penalty ? and why ?
Fayzal Mahamed wrote, replying to Buraq:
If Buraq is going to translate / interpret the verse by himself then the Court will ask by what authority did Buraq translate / interpret such verse. Case lost
.....................................
What "court" would *this be*, Mahamed? This would only make any sense whatsoever if this *were a Shari'ah court*.
I have several translations of the Old English epic Beowulf—including Francis B. Gummere's rather florid translation from 1910—which is the first version I ever read—and Seamus Heaney's much heralded translation from a few years ago. I also have several translated passages done by a professor of mine at Berkeley.
While I consider Heaney's the best and closest in spirit to the original, there are several fine translations avilable—and probably a few rather poor ones.
But they are all valid and—perhaps more importantly—all *perfectly legal*.
I probably have enough grasp of Germanic languages and Old English myself to bang out something generally serviceable—I wouldn't, since I'd be reinventing the wheel in a poorer form—but I certainly legally *could*.
And it is the same with any other piece of literature, *including* the Qur'an*. Neither Buraq nor anyone else needs special "authority".
More:
If Buraq is going to present an English interpretation / translation from a distinguished Imaam or scholar of the Quran then there are 3 hurdles to overcome:
Hurdle 1 - whether the translated / interpreted Quran is the only version of translation / interpretation. If not or if there is the slightest variation in translation / interpretation with other Qurans - Case Lost
.....................................
What utter crap. I cited several English translations of a Qur'anic passage above. All are essentially the same in meaning, but vary slightly in word choice and placement. This in no way invalidates a translation—not in the scholarly sense, and *certainly* not in the legal sense.
Also note his implication that the Qur'an may *only* be translated by an Imam—a Muslim. Again, this is pure Shari'ah. Some of the most respected scholars of Classical Arabic are, in fact, anon-Muslim.
More:
Hurdle 2 - Case lost factually on hurdle 1. However for the sake of academia lets us ASSUME that there is only a single translation / interpretation of the Quran the dillema facing the US Court is to ban the interpretation / translation or the Arabic Quran or both. My bet is that the US Court will ban the English interpretation / translation and leave the Arabic version intact. Case Lost
.....................................
In that case, you are an utter ignoramus. The US courts would—and *have*—let all versions stand, and have *refrained from banning books* entirely.
While Fayzal Mahamed posits himself as an atheist living in a free—or mostly free—country, he certainly is employing oppressive Islamic norms here.
Is he himself an apostate from Islam? Did an ancestor apostasize? It is almost certainly one or the other, given his name.
But even if his claims about himself are true, it is clear that he still adheres to the same ugly crushing of freedom of speech—and belief that the state should enforce such tyrannical censorship—that most practicing Muslims subscribe to.
Graveimage wrote: "While Fayzal Mahamed posits himself as an atheist living in a free—or mostly free—country, he certainly is employing oppressive Islamic norms here.
Is he himself an apostate from Islam? Did an ancestor apostasize? It is almost certainly one or the other, given his name."
Reply - I find it difficult to understand why so many Christians like Graveimage are obsessed about a persons faith and the origins thereof.
If a person said to me he or she is a Christian then I will accept and respect the persons faith at face value and will not enquire who were the pagan ancestors of the Christians before the advent of Christianity i.e. year 1. Surely such an enquiry could be construed as a sign of disrepecting another human being.
I'm often met with an enquiry by many Muslims as to how I became an atheist or if there was some disaster or problems in my life that I turned away from Islam. I will always reply that I will share that information if the Muslim first inform me of which disaster or problem made them become a Muslim. I think those making the enquiry got the message because they normally walk away without answering me.
Fayzal from Mayfair, SA wrote:
I find it difficult to understand why so many Christians like Graveimage...
............................
This is absurd—I never said I was Christian.
Your disdain for free speech and eagerness to censor translations of the Qur'an is very much in line with Shari'ah strictures.
Perhaps you are some other sort of enemy of freedom, though. Certainly, there are plenty of them out there.
@ Fayzal
There are 3 defenses made by Muslims concerning the flawed, plagiarized, man-made text known as Al Qur'an; misunderstanding, misrepresentation and mistranslation.
The fundamental weakness in these excuses is, of course, that a Divine Revelation for all of mankind is so hermetic and difficult to understand only a select few can translate/interpret its meaning and inform us knuckle-dragging idiots of what the real meaning(s)is/are.
And Fayzal of S Africa numbers himself among the elect few, unsurprisingly.
However, if Allah is the creator of worlds, then why didn't He deliver this revelation in dozens of languages? Why is this revelation so wrapped up in mystery and garbled, flawed Arabic that only Fayzal of S Africa and a few others know what the real meaning is.
It's that, or Fayzal's talking through his butt and trying to pull the wool over infidel eyes.
Furthermore, there have been a myriad number of native speaking Arabs who are also scholars of classical Arabic who, over the years, have all agreed on the meaning of Mohammed's plagiarized, man-made text.
We don't need Fayzal of S Africa to confirm whether they were right or not.
He's a lying clown! Atheist, may ass! He's a Muslim.