New international survey shows broad Muslim support for harsh Sharia punishments

“There’s really no such thing as just Sharia, it’s not one monolithic Continuum – Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles, it’s understood in many different ways…” — Reza Aslan

Not really. Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: in “Sharia Ãœber Alles” at the American Thinker, May 4, Andrew Bostom summarizes a new international survey’s findings about the broad support in Muslim countries for the harshest Sharia punishments.

Despite a number of (deliberately?) mitigating biases, both methodological and interpretative, the latest Pew Research Forum report, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” released April 30, 2013, confirms the broad appeal of the totalitarian Sharia, Islam’s religio-political “law,” across Islamdom.

The data were pooled from surveys conducted between 2008 and 2012, representing, as touted by Pew, “a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe.” Collectively, the surveys included “more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims.” Pew did acknowledge this important caveat about Muslim populations not surveyed because, “political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.” Notably excluded countries were Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and Iran — all Islamic states, governed by the Sharia, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan under Sunni Islam, the third, Iran, being the world’s largest Shiite Muslim state.

Responses to four related questions on the Sharia, comprise the surveys’ salient — and pathognomonic — findings. The questions were, “Do you favor or oppose making sharia law, or Islamic law, the official law of the land in our country?”, and these three internally validating (and equally edifying) queries, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion?” Summary data from the nations with the five largest Muslim populations (as per 2010) surveyed, Indonesia (204 million), Pakistan (178 million), Bengladesh (149 million), Egypt (80 million), and Nigeria (76 million), revealed:

“¢ 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77% supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends — 84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.)

“¢ 37% of Indonesian Muslims, 85% of Pakistani Muslims, 50% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 70% of Egyptian Muslims, and 45% of Nigerian Muslims favored Sharia-based mandatory (“hadd“) punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”

“¢ 42% of Indonesian Muslims, 86% of Pakistani Muslims, 54% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 80% of Egyptian Muslims, and 37% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery

“¢ 16% of Indonesian Muslims, 75% of Pakistani Muslims, 43% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 88% of Egyptian Muslims, and 29% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

Furthermore, the Pew survey results confirm the abject failure of the U.S. midwifed Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the much ballyhooed “(Bernard Lewis doctrine.” Instead, the negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have been realized. Specifically, the Pew data indicated:

“¢ 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies

“¢ 55% of Iraqi Muslims and 81% of Afghan Muslims favored Sharia-based hadd punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”

“¢ 57% of Iraqi Muslims and 84% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery

“¢ 42% of Iraqi Muslims and 79% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

There is much more. Read it all.

Pakistan: Islamic supremacists warn that it's "un-Islamic" for women to vote
Sharia in action in Iran: Stoning emphasized in new Islamic Punishment law
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Sharia law o14.1 A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:

    1. has reached puberty
    2. is sane
    3. is acting voluntarily
    4. and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (1.058 grams of gold) (“Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)”) or …

    Vs.

    The pure evil word of Allah:

    5:38 “(thiefs) cut off his or her hands”
    (5:39 thieves who repent must still be punished tpo Bukhari)

    Allah doesn’t care the gender, worth of the stolen good(s), and the age of the thief.

    (video) “human” Shari’ah vs. evil Qur-ân
    http://schnellmann.org/human-sharia-vs-evil-quran.html

  2. says

    Isn’t it “funny” how if (according to hacks like Reza Aslan) “there is no such thing really as sharia” it always means pretty much the same thing wherever and whenever it is implemented: amputations, persecution of religious minorities, inequality of rights for women and minorities, and sundry other injustices?

  3. says

    Ignorance of the threat posed by the militants reminds me of people who walk into a seimically active volcano or live beside one and refuse to move.

    The Tsarnaev brothers appeared to be gentle and their non-practicing Muslim friends who appeared uninterested in jihad PROTECTED their jihad from the authorities.

    We must henceforth assume that all Muslims, whether practicing or non-practicing are ALL jihadists.

  4. says

    If the Pew Center is correct, and in addition, if other survey companies get similar results, then with opinions like those and given what shariah is, these numbers show that most Muslims are savage.

    I thought elites liked science. So, elitists, what should be done?

  5. says

    I think the move to ban the Qur’an is misguided. It’s like saying we should ban Mein Kampf or the Marquis de Sade. How are we to know about dangerous ideologies or sick ideas unless we can read them?

    Besides, it isn’t possible to ban the Qur’an. It’s available all over the internet.

    Of course, Caliph Omar wanted to keep the Qur’an out of dhimmi hands. He believed Muslims should read and memorise it, while the dhimmia would forfeit their protection if they taught it to their children.

    Do we really want a situation where book-burning drives the Qur’an underground so that Muslims are still reading it but other people can’t obtain a legal copy?

    There is, perhaps, a case for banning the Qur’an from certain institutions, e.g., prisons. If it can clearly be shown that the Qur’an was a significant influence in inspiring a crime, that criminal should not be allowed to access a Qur’an while he is in prison.

    But I wouldn’t ban it from schools. I’d use it as a Clear Thinking exercise.

  6. says

    This article is a ‘keeper’.

    I would advise people to follow the link, make a complete copy of the original (with link, and record the date of viewing and copying, as one does in academic bibliographies, these days), and store on your home computer and/ or iphone / whatever, for ease of replication and distribution.

    Hey, link/ like Mr Bostom’s article, if you have a Facebook page…very quick way to potentially educate your internet circle.

    *I* have made a copy not only of Mr Spencer’s presentation of the article here, with link, but also the whole of the original plus its original link.

    I will be sharing a copy of it with my parish priest; accompanied by the Barnabas Fund summary booklet ‘What is Shari’a?’ which complements it perfectly.

    If you are an active adherent of any non-Muslim faith – e.g. Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist – why not do the same for *your* local religious leader, whoever s/he may be? If you’re a Jew, give it to your rabbi. If you’re a Christian, your priest/ pastor/ minister. If a Hindu, take it to whoever’s in charge at the temple you usually frequent for puja, etc; same deal for Buddhists, rock along to your local shrine or monastery and give it to the bloke in charge.

    I *also* encourage all Australians lurking or posting here to make sure that *every person* standing for election or re-election later this year in the federal electorate to which s/he belongs, receives this document, as well as the ‘What is Sharia?’ background-briefing pamphlet from Barnabas.

    The two items together are – shall we say – eye-opening for anyone with even a glimmer of commonsense.

  7. says

    New international survey shows broad Muslim support for harsh Sharia punishments
    ……………………………..

    I there is a statistics of unmitigated evil, this is it. Muslims reveal themselves for the savager barbarians that they are.

  8. says

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

    AMERICANA who also posts as MUXLIM suddenly appeared here on JW in the last several weeks. I strongly believe *IT* to be a paid troll, *Paid* for each post IT makes. I also believe IT is a Muslim, or Muslim sympathizer, or at least an infiltrator to sow seeds of dissent, distraction and division. I have observed IT engage and enrage many regular posters here, in a short period of time, with banal counter-intuitive arguments. IT has annoyed “Champ”, “George”, “Miriam Rove” and many others. In an argument with Champ IT claimed to be a “Female”, which is why I call “IT” IT as IT’s writing style is distinctly masculine in nature.

    It is remarkable the amount of drivel IT has produced in a few short weeks and the number of posters IT has offended; and the actual number of IT’s posts is far beyond normal. IT claims to be from the Boston area but with “strong” British connections and British experience (now enhanced to include many international connections and influential family and other connections). IT is constantly morphing and Chameleon- like adopting and adapting to and with IT’s interactions here to become all things to all entities. The truth matters little to IT. IT salts its nonsense with half-truths and dis-information to elicit controversy, thus occasioning responses it can in turn, respond to in an ever-burgeoning morass of garbage. *BUT* IT is paid for each of these so the more we engage IT, the more it profits.

    IT tries to position itself as supporting the counter-jihad position but has a host of non-viable platforms, which clearly demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic tenets of Islam or it is just deliberate obfuscation. IT’s basic argument is that Islam needs to self-reform and establish an international forum of “moderate” Mullahs to call for reform. Fat chance that. The quintessential non-starter.

    IT writes long puerile sections while trying to pretend IT is in agreement. IT”s intent is to draw posters into endless debate about issues that have no traction thus diminishing the value and information in the article thread. All Classic communist agitate/propaganda techniques.

    Ignore IT.

    Don’t waste your time engaging IT in any way. Trolls are paid for EACH post. This is why they begin arguments. The more the merrier, from their perspective. If there is no engagement, they move on eventually. Persona is difficult to camouflage. I will keep an eye for additional new monikers.

    Click here http://goo.gl/lwSsI for the profile, behaviour and tactics of a PAID TROLL.

    Max.

    ***PAID TROLL ALERT***

    AMERICANA *** BURQA TROLL *** AMERICANA

    MUXLIM *** BURQA TROLL *** MUXLIM

  9. says

    Gee, where is Americana in this thread? He doesn’t come in here, because he can’t spin anything even subtle in the favor of “modern Muslims”.

  10. says

    Sharia is Allah’s laws, all of them, not some of them…Mahoundians who reject sharia, or any part of it are apostates…or, not quite Mahoundian enough…Islam without sharia is lawless…Mahoundians should not forget that Allah is judge, jury and executioner…Those Mahoundians that were not 100% for sharia, will have to explain that one to Allah…Good luck with that…

  11. says

    One has to ask, did the populations asked about the desirability of sharia law and punishment for “offences”, know anything about what constitutes a crime and the sort of punishment meted out in in more civilised societies? If they were not at least acquainted with other ways of doing things their opinion is completely invalid because they have not compared systems to come up with an opinion. I really suspect the validity of this research, but would be happy to be corrected.

  12. says

    Be cautious, Rich. Rabid junk yard dogs never like their illusion of authority to be questioned. Ever. He will call you a “cockroach” and accuse you of being a jihadi, but you may never question him, and you will be found guilty of all manner of trespasses should you have the temerity to do so.

  13. says

    Looking at these poll numbers, the fact that none of them are 100% pro-Sharia indicates that the Moslems are going soft. On the other hand, given Islam’s unique quality of endorsing lying (taqiyya), maybe the no-voters we’re fibbing.
    Let’s hope the Moslems are going soft, even the 15% in Pak. A soft Moslem might turn down the flame under the boiling pan of the frog metaphor. Somebody better tell Barack the good news, and John Brennan, too.

  14. says

    I agree w/Rich that challenging the hate speech content of the Qur’an in a court of law might prove a very environment-rich target. It would be hysterically funny if we got a *redacted** version of the Qur’an w/all the killing of infidels deleted PERMANENTLY out of a court case!

    Just popping into this thread since I was challenged as to my absence. “Hi” and “Bye!”

  15. says

    Ah, no, you’re oversimplifying what goes on in a court of law. If you’ve selected the perfect defense attorney who crafts a superior case and who goes about proving your case (whatever it may be) w/expertise and passion and based on appropriate law, your POV may very well prevail over a politically well-connected and clearly biased prosecutor who may better seem to suit the prevailing societal legal take. That’s what makes the progressive accretionary forward progress of our laws so fascinating. It’s **sort of** a roll of the dice but not really. Not given how much skill and passion goes into describing one’s case FOR or AGAINST… and the rebuttal coming from the other side.

  16. says

    And I shall also repeat to you Sir, that “hate speech” laws are an odious infringement on the rights of Free people and should be opposed just as vigorously as Sharia.

    “Hate speech” laws do NOTHING to advance Individual Freedom and in fact have proven to be a bulwark and a battlement to protect a brutal and murderous Ideology – namely Islam.

    It matters not if a sizeable list of countries have “hate speech” laws or even if some of my foolish countrymen should somehow institute such laws in the U.S. – I shall oppose them for the abomination that they are.

    I stand for Freedom of Speech. As did the founders of my country, I will defend it with my life.

  17. says

    I believe that you know what Freedom of Speech is.

    I also suspect that you are a tiny bit chagrined that you do not have it in full measure in your country.

    In that regard, you have my sympathy. I advise you to exert yourself politically, so that you may obtain it for yourself and your countrymen.

    But to be clear, Freedom of Speech is the right to offend, to denigrate, to ridicule –
    I tell you Sir, it is the right to openly and loudly blaspheme!

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
    ― George Orwell

    “Hypocrites get offended by the truth.”
    ― Jess C. Scott,

    “To view the opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundation of democracy.”
    ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Letters from Burma

    “Beware: open-mindedness will often say, ‘Everything is permissible except a sharp opinion.”
    ― Criss Jami

    “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    “Without freedom of speech there is no modern world, just a barbaric one.”
    ― Ai Weiwei

    “The only truth is that we cannot speak the truth . The only acceptable viewpoint is that we cannot express a viewpoint.”
    ― Murong Xuecun

    “He was learning that to win a fight like this, it was not enough to know what one was fighting against. That was easy. He was fighting against the view that people could be killed for their ideas, and against the ability of any religion to place a limiting point on thought. But he needed, now, to be clear of what he was fighting for. Freedom of speech, freedom of the imagination, freedom from fear, and the beautiful, ancient art of which he was privileged to be a practitioner. Also skepticism, irreverence, doubt, satire, comedy, and unholy glee. He would never again flinch from the defense of these things. p. 285″
    ― Salman Rushdie, Joseph Anton: A Memoir

    “We must relentlessly and unyieldingly protect freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.”
    ― Bryant McGill, Voice of Reason

    “If you’re not going to use your free speech to criticize your own government, then what the hell is the point of having it?”
    ― Michel Templet

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    Truth will ALWAYS be offensive to those who seek to suppress it.
    -Davegreybeard

  18. says

    Rich wrote:

    I believe that Geert Wilders wants to ban the Quran. I’m not sure what action he is taking about it….

    Diana wrote:

    I think the move to ban the Qur’an is misguided. It’s like saying we should ban Mein Kampf or the Marquis de Sade. How are we to know about dangerous ideologies or sick ideas unless we can read them?

    Besides, it isn’t possible to ban the Qur’an. It’s available all over the internet.

    Of course, Caliph Omar wanted to keep the Qur’an out of *dhimmi* hands…
    ………………………………

    Rich, Geert Wilders is often misunderstood in this matter. Mein Kampf actually is banned in the Netherlands, and Wilders said that since this was so, the Qur’an should be banned as well.

    He was *not* calling for the banning of the Qur’an, but making the rational argument that the Qur’an is as foul”and as dangerous”as book as is Mein Kampf.

    I agree with Diana”I believe we all need to read the Qur’an and the other texts of Islam, to see for ourselves the vile tenets of that appalling creed.

    I own several copies of the Qur’an myself, with my copious notes in the margin”forewarned is forearmed.

    Besides, if the Qur’an were to be banned’something that is very unlikely in the West in general, and basically impossible in the United States with the First Amendment” Jihadists would just flout the law and have them, whereas decent, law-abiding Infidels would never be able to learn enough to defend themselves.

    After all, the next time some unctuous Taqiyya artist claimed that Islam is the “religion of peace”, who could say him nay?

  19. says

    After all, the next time some unctuous Taqiyya artist claimed that Islam is the “religion of peace”, who could say him nay?

    That just shows why you are among the sensible graven.

    I think people should remember that under shariah, infidels are not allowed to read the Qur’an. Bat Ye’or has discussed that and so has Mark Durie.

    Long before Muhammad said,”war is deceit,” Sun Tzu said it fist. He also said that one must know one’s enemy. That would include reading the enemy’s books.

  20. says

    Is name calling necessary? You should never call a fellow anti-jihad enthusiast brainless…The real brainless are dhimmi kuffar…

  21. says

    Rich wrote:

    If the Quran was judged as hate-speech with incitement to violence and calls to disobey the laws of the land, even if not banned, the criticism about it would be able to be studied and taught in schools, which is impossible now.

    People would learn much more about the true nature of the Quran and Islam than they do now where its criticism is effectively banned.
    …………………………

    Rich, with respect, “hate speech” laws are more often used *against* Anti-Jihadists than against Jihad.

    We’ve seem this madness in Britain, in Canada, in France, in the Netherlands and in Germany (and no doubt many other places) where defenders of freedom have been dragged into court and sometimes censured, while actual Jihadists are free to rant about ‘blood running in the streets’.

    Elisabeth Sabeth-Wolf (sp?) in Germany, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Brigitte Bardot in France, Tommy Robinson in England, and Mark Steyn in Canada are all peaceful critics of Islam who have suffered persecution on just this basis. Meanwhile, Imams and other pious Muslims openly call for the slaughter of Infidels.

    “Hate speech” laws are not, by their very nature, apt to be equitably prosecuted, so it falls to the political bias of the prosecutors”which, right now, is very much against those who stand for freedom.

    Actual “hate crime” prosecutions are rare in the United States, and never (or almost never, I am not familiar with the entire history of case law) on the basis of speech alone.

    As for the Brandenburg test, it has to be remembered that this was instituted to *limit* government’s ability to restrict the First Amendment to the basis of the incitement of immanent lawless action. The case actually involved the affirmation of free speech rights of the ugly Ku Klux Klan.

    We Americans generally consider our free speech rights sacrosanct”even when the speech in question is utterly abhorrent.

    Don’t take that as my minimizing the danger of the contents of the vile Qur’an and the other texts of Islam.

    Going back to your position, it is hard to imagine how criticism of the Qur’an could be taught if the Qur’an itself were banned. How could any law-biding person confirm for themselves that the criticisms were accurate?

    I believe that Robert Spencer has the right idea, with his *exposing* the contents of the Qur’an. See his incredibly informative “Blogging the
    Qur’an” series.

  22. says

    “If the Quran was judged as hate-speech with incitement to violence and calls to disobey the laws of the land, even if not banned, the criticism about it would be able to be studied and taught in schools, which is impossible now.

    People would learn much more about the true nature of the Quran and Islam than they do now where its criticism is effectively banned.”
    ***********

    Firstly, all countries that truly value individual freedom, such as the United States of America, do not engage in the dangerous games of banning books or “hate speech”. Some of us will fight to the death to protect those God given rights.

    Secondly, the very reason you may find criticism of Islam “effectively banned” is precisely because of the very prescription you advocate.

    Those who support the banning of books (Quran) and the prohibition of “hate speech” are promoting tyranny – and they are the enemy of all of us who seek Freedom.

  23. says

    What illusions of authority are those? The only person with authority around here is Spencer…
    Max did not call Rich a cockroach or a jihadi…
    You are twisting what he said…

  24. says

    Rich, you’re barking up the wrong tree. The Qur’an is *not* going to be banned in the United States.

    And urging the United States to model herself *on Jordan*, a place that *winks at Honor Killings*, is perhaps ill-advised in any case.

    But more than this, we would be all the more unable to defend ourselves if this *were* going to happen. We need to be able to learn about our enemy”and familiarizing ourselves with the ugly texts of Islam is the best way to do that.

    And all these places that supposedly ban hate speech allow Muslims to continue to preach Jihad.

    Who can forget pious Muslims in Britain carrying signs reading “Behead those who insult the Prophet”? Somehow laws supposedly barring hate speech have done nothing to prevent *that*.

  25. says

    “Firstly that is not at all true. In my country, New Zealand, where we value individual freedom just as much as yours, hate speech is unlawful.”

    ******************************************

    So, please tell me, Rich, you being a freedom loving New Zealander, precisely what defines “hate speech”.

    Then, once you have defined the term, please explain to this ignorant American, exactly how the banning of it advances the cause of Individual Liberty.

  26. says

    Rich wrote:

    If the quran were banned then the criticism of the Quran, the reasons why it was banned would be a subject for education. You don’t have to imagine it – it would be possible.
    ………………………….

    Rich, would these just be general references to its being violent? Or would you actually quote from the Qur’an? It does not appear that you could if that book were banned, and so any criticism of the Qur’an would be both vague and *legally unprovable*.

    More:

    And urging the United States to model herself *on Jordan*, a place that *winks at Honor Killings*, is perhaps ill-advised in any case.

    I don’t get it. How would bringing a case for hate speech and incitement to violence against the Quran be modelling the United States *on Jordan*?
    …………………………

    Rich, you specifically listed Jordan as one of the places that so laudably bans hate speech. This is in your own post:

    “Firstly that is not at all true. In my country, New Zealand, where we value individual freedom just as much as yours, hate speech is unlawful.

    In Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Council of Europe, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, *Jordan*, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom also, hate speech is unlawful.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    [*emphasis mine”GI]

    More:

    davegreybeard “So, please tell me, Rich, you being a freedom loving New Zealander, precisely what defines “hate speech”.”

    I can give you examples:

    Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”…
    …………………………

    Rich, under your own proposed laws, you would be unable to quote the Qur’an in this manner.

    By the way, *this* is how much pious Muslims want to prevent people they consider Infidels from reading the Qur’an, unless they believe it is for purposes of Da’wa:

    “Indonesia: Muslim mob screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ storms Ahmadiyah village, damages dozens of homes over Qur’an recital”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/muslim-mob-screaming-allahu-akbar-storms-ahmadiyah-village-damages-dozens-of-homes-over-quran-recita.html

  27. says

    You have defined “hate speech” as YOU see it, but unfortunately NOT as virtually 100% of prosecuting attorneys, judges, politicians, etc. see it. Kinda leaves you hangin’ out there doesn’t it – sort of like living in a dream world as you would like it to be, but certainly not as it is.

    As Graven so articulately explained it:
    “Hate speech” laws are not, by their very nature, apt to be equitably prosecuted, so it falls to the political bias of the prosecutors”which, right now, is very much against those who stand for freedom.”

    And so it will always be – “hate speech” laws are just a tool for those in power to enforce their particular whims on the subject populace. They are an odious infringement on the rights of Free people and must be vigorously opposed at all cost.

    You see, we have a TWO FRONT ideological war; one against our Islamist enemy and the other against their Leftist allies and enablers. “Hate speech” laws enable Jihadis and must be OPPOSED, not supported.

    Let me define the term for you, Rich:

    “hate speech” is just Leftist Speak for “blasphemy”.

  28. says

    “In your emotional post the only people you seem to be defending are the Jihadists. Its time to use ones intellect and not ones emotions.”

    **********************

    Ah yes, “intellect” over emotions, so very “Humanist” of you.

    Same facts different conclusions, you and I.

    So, let’s try a little cold, “intellectual analysis” shall we?

    Given the fact that the vast majority of applications of a “hate speech” frequently (very frequently) serve the interests of Islam. And also, there is no accepted definition as to when and on whom they should be applied; these laws are wide open to abuse for political purposes.

    From this, I conclude that “hate speech” laws should be opposed at all turns because they limit freedom, corrupt our government and aid our enemy.

    I find your suggestion that we somehow co-opt these laws to use against Islam, unrealistic in the extreme. I also know that even if we DID succeed in changing the culture, by seizing political power, so that we COULD use these laws against Islam, at the next turn of politics our enemies would use those same laws AGAINST US.

    Try a mental exercise and compare “hate speech” laws with blasphemy laws. If you are honest you will admit that they are very, very similar creatures. And if you further examine the application of these laws you will find that they both are enforced in an irrational manner and used for all sorts of corrupt purposes.

    But you, the rational one, propose to use “hate speech” laws, as a weapon against Islam, which is HIGHLY unlikely, but somehow you’ve got faith that this can be accomplished, and besides you WANT it to be so.

    So, who is it that’s not thinking clearly again?

  29. says

    Davegreybeard wrote:

    So, let’s try a little cold, “intellectual analysis” shall we?

    Given the fact that the vast majority of applications of a “hate speech” frequently (very frequently) serve the interests of Islam. And also, there is no accepted definition as to when and on whom they should be applied; these laws are wide open to abuse for political purposes.

    From this, I conclude that “hate speech” laws should be opposed at all turns because they limit freedom, corrupt our government and aid our enemy.

    I find your suggestion that we somehow co-opt these laws to use against Islam, unrealistic in the extreme.
    ………………………………

    *Excellent *analysis, Dave. And I find your comparison of “hate speech” laws to blasphemy laws to be quite accurate, as well.

    I believe that going further down the banning of “hate speech” path would be suicidal and would just enable Jihad.

    And Rich’s idea that the Qur’an could be copiously quoted, but only to criticize it, would not “ban” the Qur’an, but would put ideological strictures on anyone who owned or cited the book.

    I don’t believe that going down *that* path would lead to anything good.

    For one thing, it would bar well-meaning people who want to see if the Qur’an is as bad as they think from ever being able to read it. I had my suspicions when I first read the Qur’an in about 2003, but I decided to approach the book with an open mind.

    Under Rich’s proposals, I would never have been allowed to read the Qur’an (which, incidentally, far exceeded my worst fears as to what a foul tome it was).

    Moreover, pious Muslims are past masters at lies”with the application of a little Taqiyya, they would be able to amass all the Qur’ans they wished for late-night Jihad Qur’an study, while most law-abiding Infidels would be cut off from legal ownership.

    As always, hope you are well, Dave.

  30. says

    “Americana” wrote:

    I agree w/Rich that challenging the hate speech content of the Qur’an in a court of law might prove a very environment-rich target. It would be hysterically funny if we got a *redacted** version of the Qur’an w/all the killing of infidels deleted PERMANENTLY out of a court case!
    …………………………

    Wouldn’t “Americana” just *love* that? Law-abiding Infidel Americans would believe that the Qur’an was a fine book of the “Religion of Peace”, while Jihadists could pass around the real thing with minimal risk.

    More:

    Ah, no, you’re oversimplifying what goes on in a court of law. If you’ve selected the perfect defense attorney who crafts a superior case and who goes about proving your case (whatever it may be) w/expertise and passion and based on appropriate law, your POV may very well prevail over a politically well-connected and clearly biased prosecutor who may better seem to suit the prevailing societal legal take…
    …………………………

    We have, in fact, seen just this many times””hate speech” cases that the prosecutor does not expect to win, but where the defendant has to spend enormous amounts of time and money on their defense”as well as deal with the bad press that even an accusation of “hate speech” brings.

    Just look at the grotesque case of Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, and the Western Standard, dragged into a Canadian “human rights” court on “hate speech” charges for daring to criticize Islam”the defendants handily won that case, but the Western Standard was driven out of business as a result”the editor simply could not afford to both defend himself and keep the paper runnng at the same time.

    Mark Steyn has chronicled both his own experiences and those of others in similar straits. And the situation may be even worse in much of Europe, where such laws are regularly used to harass those defending freedom.

  31. says

    Thanks for the support Graven.

    I do appreciate your common sense and well reasoned responses. I find your posts frequently clarify my thoughts a bit.

    Would be fun if we could figure out how to get together with Duh Swami some time don’t you think?

    Take care my friend.

  32. says

    Thanks for the support Graven.

    I do appreciate your common sense and well reasoned responses. I find your posts frequently clarify my thoughts a bit.

    Would be fun if we could figure out how to get together with Duh Swami some time don’t you think?

    Take care my friend.

  33. says

    At this point, Rich, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I would like all free Infidels to read the Qur’an and the other texts of Islam so they understand what we are up against.

    Education and exposure, I believe, will trump censorship in preserving our freedoms every time.

  34. says

    I wasn’t being “snarky” I was being truthful.

    You claim that you have more freedom in your country than I do in mine. Yet you admit that “hate speech” laws (in your country) limit your freedom to tell the truth about Islam. Plainly, our First Amendment clearly allows more freedom of speech for me, than the “hate speech” laws in your country allow you in yours.

    But why is it that you are so purposely contentious and obfuscatory about this? It is not about whose country is more limiting of freedom. And it certainly isn’t about your silly example of yelling “Fire!” in a theater, that you keep throwing out, to cloud the issue and derail a meaningful discussion.

    The issue is defeating Islam. To accomplish that we need the FREEDOM to speak the truth about it.

    Any laws that limit the freedom to speak the truth DIRECTLY aid our enemy. You have such laws in your country, called “hate speech” laws, yet you are just fine with that.

    Why do you support laws that aid the Jihad?

  35. says

    Ah, very, very rational Rich.

    Who has called Max Modine a “brainless Idiot” and likened Duh Swami to “supercilious assholes, self-appointed swamis and idiots”, wrote:

    **********

    “All western nations already have laws that ban hate speech, calls to violence and discrimination on basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation.

    We can apply those laws to bring lawsuits for banning the Quran…”

    AND

    “If the Quran was judged as hate-speech with incitement to violence and calls to disobey the laws of the land, even if not banned, the criticism about it would be able to be studied and taught in schools, which is impossible now.
    People would learn much more about the true nature of the Quran and Islam than they do now where its criticism is effectively banned.”

    **********

    So, if criticism of Islam and the Quran is “effectively banned” (YOUR words) then something in New Zealand must be banning it – “hate speech” laws, as you mention above perhaps?

    But THEN,
    when the question of relative freedom between the U.S. and New Zealand was broached

    YOU WROTE:

    **********

    “I do not admit that hate speech laws in my country limit our freedom to tell the truth about Islam.

    We do not have hate speech laws. Hate speech is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1993. We have Human rights laws.”

    **********

    Wups, no “hate speech” laws here, never said that, no siree!

    So, not only are you irrational – the Quran will NEVER be banned.

    You are also a bit of a slimy fellow, who slyly changes his stated positions to better advance his argument.

    Very slick.

    But some of us are paying attention.

  36. says

    “Davegreybeard I give up. You have a hard time comprehending anything and get most things by the tail.”

    **********

    Yeah, I know.

    Bet I’m in pretty numerous company.

    Must be tough, you possessing a mind of such exceeding brilliance, and having to deal with a world full of idiots.

  37. says

    Rich, there’s nothing ignorant about Davegreybeard.

    I believe you are generally well-meaning, but the fact is that “hate speech” laws have *never* worked for those fighting against Jihad, nor for any defenders of freedom”nor, by their very nature, are they ever likely to.

    I don’t believe that pursuing prosecution of Islam on “hate speech” grounds is ever likely to prove fruitful”and is, in fact, by giving credence to such laws, just likely to strengthen their use against us.