| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
This is a positive step, particularly when the Organization of the Islamic Conference and others are trying to criminalize "insults" to Islam in the West.
"Saudi Arabia: Stop Trials for ‘Insulting’ Islam," from Human Rights Watch, May 13 (thanks to Twostellas):
(New York, May 13, 2008) – Courts in Jeddah should dismiss cases against a Saudi web critic and a Turkish barber charged with “insulting” Islam, an unequivocal violation of freedom of expression protected under international law, Human Rights Watch said today.The Saudi man used his website to criticize the religious police while the Turkish barber is accused of cursing the name of God.
“Criminalizing speech on grounds that it is insulting might appease some people, but it violates the fundamental human right of free speech,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Saudi government uses these laws primarily to silence its critics.”
On May 5, the prosecution service in Jeddah charged Ra’if Badawi with “setting up an electronic site that insults Islam,” and referred the case to court, asking for a five-year prison sentence and a 3 million riyal (US$800,000) fine. Unknown persons have hacked Badawi’s website multiple times, and have published his phone numbers, work address, and a threat on the hacked site: “Oh you retard, you are in the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him. Underline ‘Muhammad’ with a thousand lines before a thousand swords are put above your neck!” Prosecutors have not investigated the hackers or the death threats against Badawi.
The prosecution service had detained Badawi in March 2008 for one day to interrogate him about his website, which he uses to detail abuses by the Saudi religious police and to question the predominant interpretation of Islam. After being threatened with arrest for his online activities and receiving personal threats of physical harm, Badawi fled Saudi Arabia two weeks ago.
“Saudi assertions of increased freedom of expression ring hollow in light of the systematic silencing of critics who dare to speak their minds publicly,” Whitson said....
Indeed.
Posted by Robert at May 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Saudis are such insufferable hypocrites.
Among other examples; they buy 737's and have them tricked out as flying strip bars, buying
"high-class" hookers to partner them into the "Mile High Club."
They are not a pious people.
They are a pissy pestilence.
Posted by: undaunted![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 15, 2008 10:43 AM
Pakistan has Penal Code 295-C, under which any one insulting Islam and Mohammad will be sentenced to death. There is no requirement for a witness, only accusation is plenty to charge a Non-Muslim.
I encourage everyone to Google 'Blasphemy Law of Pakistan'.
Here is verbatim of 295-C:
295-C.
"Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
at May 15, 2008 10:43 AM
"Courts in Jeddah should dismiss cases against a Saudi web critic and a Turkish barber charged with “insulting” Islam, an unequivocal violation of freedom of expression protected under international law, Human Rights Watch said today."
-- from the article above
Those who work at Human Rights Watch, at Amnesty International, and at all similar groups, both those now safely in the hands of apologists for Islam (google "Irene Khan") and those as-yet safe from the more blatant apologists, should have their members carefully compare the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, which has been presented as an Islamic "equivalent" to the former, but in major and important ways undermines the most important guarantees of individual freedom in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And all those who teach courses on human rights in law schools should take both documents and have their students compare them. This may be especially necessary in those law schools that have made the fateful error, or the faculty have naively done so, in a hasty attempt to be modish, to hire Muslims (or apologists such as the disgraceful Noah Feldman) to teach "Islamic law," having misunderstood that "Islamic law, or the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, is not "law" in the Western sense but part of theology, or rather of a Total System, and owes its legitimacy not to man-made legislation, nor to its supposed accordance with Western natural-rights philosophy, but solely to its according with what, long ago, Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults decided was the fixed meaning of the Qur'an, in which the Will of Allah is expressed, and not the will of the people -- who in Islma are merely "slaves of Allah" who must be schooled in the habit of mental submission.
Posted by: Hugh at May 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Those who work at Human Rights Watch, at Amnesty International, and at all similar groups...should have their members carefully compare the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, which has been presented as an Islamic "equivalent" to the former, but in major and important ways undermines the most important guarantees of individual freedom in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Hugh,
Doing so might make for a good college course in comparative law, but it won't go any farther. The idea that the UDHR should take precedence over the CDHR will be interpreted as "imposing our system on Islam". It will be seen as an expression of Western superiority over ancient cultures that don't share its views on women and religion and the sanctity of human life. Islam will be seen as "under attack", the code words for jihad.
at May 15, 2008 11:49 AM
Human Rights Watch calls on Saudis to stop trials for "insulting Islam"
Why don’t they (Human Rights Watch) ask the sun not to shine, why don’t they (Human Rights Watch) ask the wind to stop blowing, I would bet there is a better change of those two things happening then saudis listing to some stupid kaffirs.
at May 15, 2008 12:09 PM
"Human Rights Watch calls on Saudis to stop trials for "insulting Islam"
I doubt that Human Rights Watch will have any impact on the Saudi's, or any other Islamic country. As usual, they'll ignore any protests, and continue on their merry way enforcing the barcaric laws of their barbaric religion.
What might work is when the Western media reports every little act of barbarism committed by Muslim countries in the name of Islamic law.
But so long as the media ignores the crimes being commited in the name of religion by Muslim countries, they have no incentive to stop commiting them.
When you think of the trivial things that get reported by the media in the West every day, you have to wonder why they consider these kinds of atrocities not worth reporting.
at May 15, 2008 12:30 PM
Oh, Islamozoids? Muhammad is not a name but a title; it's Arabic for "Praised One." The real name of your favorite Arabian murderer, thief, rapist, liar, and all around psychopathic bad guy, was Ubul Kassim (undying worms be upon him).
Are the Pakistanis as protective of the name of Allah as they are of the "name" Muhammad? If they aren't, then they should all be executed as blasphemers who have idolatrously exalted the Holy Prophet's "name" over Allah's!!!1!!1!
(If I were Allah, I'd be even more insanely jealous than usual over this major faux pas by the Pakis, who aren't even Arabs, for crying out loud!)
at May 15, 2008 12:50 PM
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
Posted by: joeblough at May 15, 2008 1:39 PM
Some are real hillarious..(but can't help as Mos. are basically duffers and cowards..thats why they jihad)
"Are the Pakistanis as protective of the name of Allah as they are of the "name" Muhammad? If they aren't, then they should all be executed as blasphemers who have idolatrously exalted the Holy Prophet's "name" over Allah's!!!1!!1!""..
It is a fact .How Pakis (means 'pure ones')could forget to omit the name of Allah in their book of criminal code.Its a grave mistake. The matter should be reffered to 'experts' in Saudi Arabia Supreme court for judgement. Mr Nawaz Sharif may be summoned to S.A.
Posted by: Kash225 at May 15, 2008 1:48 PM
"Unknown persons have hacked Badawi’s website multiple times,"
Errr, he should really have read up on security then. Multiple times seems a tad sloppy to me.
Posted by: Ian at May 15, 2008 4:04 PM
Human Rights Watch's critique should extend to the entire Muslim world....but I suppose bashing the House of Saud is less politically offensive.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 15, 2008 5:36 PM
Hmmm...I wonder what the penalty is if the accused declines to pay the fine...Oh, wait...
Posted by: Eastview at May 15, 2008 6:31 PM
Never mind Saudia Arabia. Look what's happening in Canada, under its "human rights commissions." Mark Steyn, award-winning author, and publisher of the best-selling "America Alone," will soon be found guilty of "offending" Muslims and will be forbidden from printing in Canada ever again. The human rights commissions of Canada, as Steyn says, are the new Fatwa enforcers. Check out Steyn's site and find out for yourself: http://www.steynonline.com.
Posted by: Farah at May 15, 2008 10:16 PM
If anyone want's to insult Mohammad or Islam -- or for that matter, tell the truth about them -- you'd better get it out of your system now, because it's only a matter of time before we go the way of Canada and Western Europe in punishing speech as a hate crime.
When the American people sat back and allowed their government to pass the first hate crime legislation, they willfully surendered one of their most basic rights -- free speech anmd free thought. Now that they've become accostomed to being punished for one set of hate crimes, it's time to rachet up the definition to a new set of hate crimes, and that can be anything, including speech offensive to Muslims.
I would like to blame this loss of freedom on the politicians, but when it gets right down to it, the American people are the ones to blame. They bought into the idea that you can eliminate hate by punishing people that harbor hateful thoughts. How can we expect to remain free when the citizentry can't see beyond the end of their noses.
So get it out of your systems now while you can still avoid prosecution for expressing you opinions.
Posted by: rational at May 15, 2008 11:09 PM
In other words:
-lie to us, and hide your barbarity better.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2008 1:44 AM
rational,
This is a democracy. We'll get the government we deserve and we'll deserve the government we get. The people would rather watch HBO than get involved in preserving their freedom. They'll soon learn that HBO is here BECAUSE someone preserved their freedom. It (along with sites such as this one) can't exist in a society that is not free. Freedom must be exercised or it withers. Use it or lose it. We'll just have to learn that lesson the hard way. Our descendants (if they even come into being) will curse us for generations if we make the wrong choice.
at May 16, 2008 8:35 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)