[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by wheelworks

Umm it doesn't even need a clever argument to be recognized either. It's just the truth. When the truth is spoken, then it is recognized. Simple as that

If the truth of Islam was so self-evident, then everyone would be Muslim. Even in the Qur'an, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) makes arguments. He directs arguments to non-Muslims, Muslims, the Ahl ul Kitab, the Angels, etc concerning different issues. The theologians of the past made it clear that we shouldn't believe in our deen based on blind faith.

[zeyneddine]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

If the truth of Islam was so self-evident, then everyone would be Muslim. Even in the Qur'an, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) makes arguments. He directs arguments to non-Muslims, Muslims, the Ahl ul Kitab, the Angels, etc concerning different issues. The theologians of the past made it clear that we shouldn't believe in our deen based on blind faith.

in addition, the quran itself says in a number of instances to look for the signs, the evidences presented by Allah and within the Quran so that one makes his/her CHOICE to follow the religion based on reason, rather than blind faith.

unfortunately, not only do kuffar refuse to see these evidences, but a large number of muslims also choose to adhere to their faith based on blind belief rather than their own study.

[Foxhole]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Yes. People living in America shouldn't burn the American flag or the Qur'an.

In which nations is it OK to burn the Quran?

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I don't like the approach being proposed by these 'leaders'. Litigation will only antagonize everyone and will end up wasting resources in the communities. It will burn more bridges than it will build.

Why not use both methods?

Da'wah and outreach on one hand to reach out to those who are receptive, and legal action to reply to those who insist on spreading hatred?

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Foxhole

In which nations is it OK to burn the Quran?

If you're asking me personally, then I would really prefer the Qur'an not to be burnt in any nation, because I hold it to be a sacred text.

However, if I try and take my personal feelings out of it, I think nations in which there is no significant minority of Muslims have no inherent duty to protect the Quran if they choose not to.

Countries, such as those in North America and Western Europe have sizeable minorities of Muslim citizens, and I feel that their religious sensitivities should be taken into account. Likewise I also think that other minority groups' sensitivites should be taken into account.

[Foxhole]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

If you're asking me personally, then I would really prefer the Qur'an not to be burnt in any nation, because I hold it to be a sacred text.

However, if I try and take my personal feelings out of it, I think nations in which there is no significant minority of Muslims have no inherent duty to protect the Quran if they choose not to.

Countries, such as those in North America and Western Europe have sizeable minorities of Muslim citizens, and I feel that their religious sensitivities should be taken into account. Likewise I also think that other minority groups' sensitivites should be taken into account.

Ah, the time-honored 'sizable minority' principle.

Just to be safe, we should also make it illegal to burn any of these, OK?

That should be easy to do.

OK, I'm being flippant but you get my point. Did you ever wonder why those uber-influential Jews can't get Holocaust denial laws in the US? Because they know that the free speech tradition is so deeply ingrained in the American legal system that there is simply no way.

I've often told my friends that if Congress actually passes a flag-burning law, I'll go out and burn one myself. (They have in the past, but they've all been shot down by the Supreme Court.)

Making it illegal to desecrate the Quran is the very best way to make that desecration happen.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Foxhole

Ah, the time-honored 'sizable minority' principle.

Just to be safe, we should also make it illegal to burn any of these, OK?

That should be easy to do.

OK, I'm being flippant but you get my point. Did you ever wonder why those uber-influential Jews can't get Holocaust denial laws in the US? Because they know that the free speech tradition is so deeply ingrained in the American legal system that there is simply no way.

I've often told my friends that if Congress actually passes a flag-burning law, I'll go out and burn one myself. (They have in the past, but they've all been shot down by the Supreme Court.)

Making it illegal to desecrate the Quran is the very best way to make that desecration happen.

You're entitled to your views, Foxhole, and whilst I disagree, I do see where you;re coming from. Maybe our experiences and culture (yours being North American, and mine European) are slightly different which is influencing our views. I think a good way to protect things people hold sacred (whether that be a religious text or a national flag) is the law. Laws make things clear (in theory anyway). They draw a line in the sand and say you can do/say/act up to here but no more. At the very least there should be a public debate about these kind of things.

We have free speech in Britain aswell, but what good is free speech if it's deliberately hateful? If we take free speech to it's fullest, someone can call me a dark-faced camel jockey and tell me to "go home". What has been achieved out of that free speech demonstration, other than to upset me, and prove to any bystanders that the other person is hateful? Has anything productive been achieved? I'm all for critical evaluation of ideas, much like we do on message forums like this one, but just hurting people for the sake of free speech serves no purpose. If there is some practical reason that a Qur'an needs to be burned then so be it, but doing it just for the sake of it, or to antagonise people that hold it sacred, serves little purpose in my view, and there is no harm in having a law stating that.

[Foxhole]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

You're entitled to your views, Foxhole, and whilst I disagree, I do see where you;re coming from. Maybe our experiences and culture (yours being North American, and mine European) are slightly different which is influencing our views. I think a good way to protect things people hold sacred (whether that be a religious text or a national flag) is the law. Laws make things clear (in theory anyway). They draw a line in the sand and say you can do/say/act up to here but no more. At the very least there should be a public debate about these kind of things.

We have free speech in Britain aswell, but what good is free speech if it's deliberately hateful? If we take free speech to it's fullest, someone can call me a dark-faced camel jockey and tell me to "go home". What has been achieved out of that free speech demonstration, other than to upset me, and prove to any bystanders that the other person is hateful? Has anything productive been achieved? I'm all for critical evaluation of ideas, much like we do on message forums like this one, but just hurting people for the sake of free speech serves no purpose. If there is some practical reason that a Qur'an needs to be burned then so be it, but doing it just for the sake of it, or to antagonise people that hold it sacred, serves little purpose in my view, and there is no harm in having a law stating that.

Always a good suggestion.

It's past my bedtime. Have a great day, Jammy!

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Why not use both methods?

Da'wah and outreach on one hand to reach out to those who are receptive, and legal action to reply to those who insist on spreading hatred?

Because the legal system isn't the proper venue to stop spreading the hatred. Resorting to the awesome power of the state will be counter productive. Free speech is free speech. Its not in the interest of anyone for the government to restrict if. If you don't like the speech that a person is making, then you respond to it with better speech. Thats how its done in democracies.

I think there are more better ways to engage the cartoonists such as by pointing out the hypocrisies of their philosophy. Place the moral burden on them and get them engage in some inner reflection.

Litigation isn't going to stop anything and it'll antagonize social relations. Its better to just respond in more creative means. That'll definitely be harder and it requires more intelligence, but its the better path, in my opinion.

[jinnzaman]

I'd like to interject for a brief moment in the discussion between Foxhole and Jamroll. I may be biased as an American, but I do feel that the constitutional jurisprudence on liberties is pretty well maintained. We maintain a fair system of secularism as opposed to the seemingly discriminatory practices that exist in most European countries. In terms of free speech, the Constitution protects it because there's a high propensity for government to take advantage of regulation of speech for its own ends that will produce tyranny. However, we also recognize the limits of free speech as well. Our Constitution protects hateful speech and that it is true. But it does not protect speech that is obscene, inciting. A person may not run into a theater and shout 'fire.' So thats one thing we as American (or Western) Muslims have to recognize. The speech in our respective countries may be highly critical of Islam, but when it becomes truly inflammatory and people start engaging in acts of violence against Muslims (or any other minority), it is only then that the awesome powers of the state should be called on to protect us. Until then, its a dog eat dog world and the best argument will have to win the day. Its a cop out to call on the state like a bunch of whiny babies. We need to grow a pair of steel balls and just duke it out (intellectually). Thats how its done.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Because the legal system isn't the proper venue to stop spreading the hatred. Resorting to the awesome power of the state will be counter productive. Free speech is free speech. Its not in the interest of anyone for the government to restrict if. If you don't like the speech that a person is making, then you respond to it with better speech. Thats how its done in democracies.

I think there are more better ways to engage the cartoonists such as by pointing out the hypocrisies of their philosophy. Place the moral burden on them and get them engage in some inner reflection.

Litigation isn't going to stop anything and it'll antagonize social relations. Its better to just respond in more creative means. That'll definitely be harder and it requires more intelligence, but its the better path, in my opinion.

I agree with Jinnzaman.

The law is driven by public policy. Judges will interpret the law in a way which accords with public policy and the interests of the state.

Therefore if you want a particular outcome ensure that the business community, media and public are well aware that there will be consequences for their state if they continue a hate campaign against Muslims

[IbnMardhiyah]

Jinnz, Legal

Admittedly both of you are in the field of law while I am not, but - my question still remains, despite what you have presented so far.

If these countries are signatories to any UN law that bans hate speech or enforces human rights, then why can't we go to the Hague or the ICC to enforce those laws? And this would be done as a last resort.

Otherwise, if your outreach efforts fail, if your efforts to induce self-introspection fail, then what's your alternative? You're not in any capacity to make war to defend the dignity of God and His Messenger, so why not utilize existing laws to show people you mean business? Otherwise they'll laugh at your outreach failures and continue making fun.

[sumiyia]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'd like to interject for a brief moment in the discussion between Foxhole and Jamroll. I may be biased as an American, but I do feel that the constitutional jurisprudence on liberties is pretty well maintained. We maintain a fair system of secularism as opposed to the seemingly discriminatory practices that exist in most European countries. In terms of free speech, the Constitution protects it because there's a high propensity for government to take advantage of regulation of speech for its own ends that will produce tyranny. However, we also recognize the limits of free speech as well. Our Constitution protects hateful speech and that it is true. But it does not protect speech that is obscene, inciting. A person may not run into a theater and shout 'fire.' So thats one thing we as American (or Western) Muslims have to recognize. The speech in our respective countries may be highly critical of Islam, but when it becomes truly inflammatory and people start engaging in acts of violence against Muslims (or any other minority), it is only then that the awesome powers of the state should be called on to protect us. Until then, its a dog eat dog world and the best argument will have to win the day. Its a cop out to call on the state like a bunch of whiny babies. We need to grow a pair of steel balls and just duke it out (intellectually). Thats how its done.

agreed.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Jinnz, Legal

Admittedly both of you are in the field of law while I am not, but - my question still remains, despite what you have presented so far.

If these countries are signatories to any UN law that bans hate speech or enforces human rights, then why can't we go to the Hague or the ICC to enforce those laws? And this would be done as a last resort.

Otherwise, if your outreach efforts fail, if your efforts to induce self-introspection fail, then what's your alternative? You're not in any capacity to make war to defend the dignity of God and His Messenger, so why not utilize existing laws to show people you mean business? Otherwise they'll laugh at your outreach failures and continue making fun.

I'm not aware if the US is a signatory to any UN law that bans hate speech.

Courts in the US would probably never issue an injunction against newspapers for printing caricatures like the Danish cartoons unless there was an overriding governmental interest on the level of a national security interest (such as releasing classified information). The cartoons are artistic expressions and a court would caution itself from restricting speech that, albeit hateful, is necessary to the public discourse. If the speeches called upon Muslims to be executed or raped, then it would transgress that boundary and fall into the category of inciteful speech and could thus be regulated.

The legal system should be the last resort for our community, we should exhaust alternative remedies. If these cartoons are calling the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) a terrorist, then instead of banning that speech and antagonizing people and coming off as a bunch of fascists who hate freedom and criticism, we should just organize events that high light his true personality.

You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water.