|
Post by Liberian Girl on Oct 26, 2018 6:56:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 26, 2018 14:52:36 GMT
^^The hijab is the headscarf that covers women's hair. If Iranian women are forced to be fully covered, chadors or niqabs are the go to garments. Anyways, it's disgusting most women born in predominantly Muslim countries are oppressed and criminalized like that if they don't want to wear the hijab. That's why I was baffled when Nike came out with the sports hijab for Muslim athletes to compete better, most people from Western countries, obviously were cheering for it and I was deemed as intolerant and ignorant by some fellow atheists for saying Nike wil normalize and cash in over a symbol of oppression.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 26, 2018 15:54:32 GMT
This is outrageous. Basically blasphemy law in defense of Islam. In an allegedly secular, 21st century Europe! And then they wonder why the alt-right and populists get more and more support.
www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749
So the protection of religious feelings trumps the basic human right of freedom of speech and expression? What kind of "right" is "the right of others to have their religious feelings protected", anyway? I mean freedom of religion, that's good. But the right to have one's religious feelings protected? WTF? Based on that you cannot criticize any religion. Someone always may feel offended. And Muslims especially feel offended at the slightest criticism of their religion.
"The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship"
So what? Why can't someone have the opinion and say that Muhammad (or Jesus or any other religious figure) was not worthy of worship? WTF is that?
"adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam"
Did they write this with a straight face in defense of a religion? Since when are religions themselves based on facts? And that Muhammad had sex with a child is written in Islam's very own holy scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 26, 2018 16:13:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Oct 27, 2018 10:55:31 GMT
I felt so disgusted and sick when I read the news about the woman imprisoned for saying Muhammad was a paedophile.
She was saying something actually written in their own scripture: He took a girl the age of 6. It's awful and they're defending this!
Talk about shooting the messenger!
This is like me being jailed for saying Jesus turned water into wine. It's taught, it's in scripture. Are we ignoring Muhammad because it's inconvenient to muslims?? Why special treatment to muslims, then?
It really annoys me.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 27, 2018 11:39:57 GMT
I felt so disgusted and sick when I read the news about the woman imprisoned for saying Muhammad was a paedophile. She was saying something actually written in their own scripture: He took a girl the age of 6. It's awful and they're defending this! Talk about shooting the messenger! This is like me being jailed for saying Jesus turned water into wine. It's taught, it's in scripture. Are we ignoring Muhammad because it's inconvenient to muslims?? Why special treatment to muslims, then? It really annoys me. To be clear, she isn't jailed. She was fined for some 500 euros. But the bottom line is the principle. You cannot criminalize free speech. You cannot put religious sensitivity above the basic right of free speech. By these standards you are not allowed to criticize ANY religion because someone's sensitivity might be offended. BTW, here is the full verdict: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187188&fbclid=IwAR3UvKq82eWtWmWTBeYQCdEq14T0t8L9lQvGuYZaQI0Z7VhC__6DvjIlKS8They go into a lengthy discussion of whether Muhammad can really be called a pedophile, since "only" one of his wives was a minor. So basically the Court made it about how you define pedophilia and whether Muhammad can be called that and they decided he cannot since "only" one of his wives was a minor and it doesn't represent a pattern in his sexual tendencies. So they basically challange the truthfulness of this woman's claims. I am sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous on so many levels. The irony of defending a religion (something that's never been proven true in the first place) by saying the critic did not prove her statements about a religious figure. They also say she should have mentioned that child marriages were common at the time in European dynasties as well. Perhaps, but those people aren't held up as examples to follow for today's people. Unlike Muhammad. That was the whole point of the woman. In some Muslim countries until today child marriages are allowed citing exactly Muhammad's example (see Iran, for example). From the verdict: What the actual fuck? This is basically a blasphemy law.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Oct 27, 2018 12:59:52 GMT
Thanks for correcting me on that. I realise I was mistaken now about imprisonment. But you're right - it's still absolutely shocking that she was fined. Even more shocking that it highlights that we're all having to be considerate of a stupid blasphemy law.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 27, 2018 14:12:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Aug 14, 2022 3:41:50 GMT
The "religion of peace" has done it again, what it is surprising is that Salman Rushdie managed to live unharmed for so long.
Even though his condition is not that critical as before, his agent commented he will likely loose an eye derived from the stabbings he received.
The fatwa, if I understood correctly, is the call for the assassination of "blasphemers" of Islam or the Prophet as Salman Rushdie did when he wrote the Satanic Verses in 19889.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 14, 2022 4:41:45 GMT
Interesting that you can be banned from Twitter for "misgendering" someone, but genocidal and murderous incitement by Iran's leaders are all okay for Twitter. If Trump could be banned, why isn't Khamenei? I wish Salman Rushdie a speedy recovery. And yes, Islam still has a huge problem adapting to the 21st century. You have every right to not like a book and protest it, but murdering people for it is barbaric. BTW let's not forget, that Rushdie wasn't the only person violently attacked for this book. A Japanese translator of the book was murdered by Islamists in 1991: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_IgarashiThey also attempted to assassinate a Norwegian publisher for it in 1993 (he survived): en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Aug 14, 2022 12:09:17 GMT
This is outrageous. Basically blasphemy law in defense of Islam. In an allegedly secular, 21st century Europe! And then they wonder why the alt-right and populists get more and more support.
www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749
So the protection of religious feelings trumps the basic human right of freedom of speech and expression? What kind of "right" is "the right of others to have their religious feelings protected", anyway? I mean freedom of religion, that's good. But the right to have one's religious feelings protected? WTF? Based on that you cannot criticize any religion. Someone always may feel offended. And Muslims especially feel offended at the slightest criticism of their religion.
"The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship"
So what? Why can't someone have the opinion and say that Muhammad (or Jesus or any other religious figure) was not worthy of worship? WTF is that?
"adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam"
Did they write this with a straight face in defense of a religion? Since when are religions themselves based on facts? And that Muhammad had sex with a child is written in Islam's very own holy scriptures.
And yet she wasn't even talking about religious feelings or beliefs. But was focused on the actions of a man old enough to be the 6 year old child's grandfather in marrying her. Even if an adult is still in a relationship with child past the age of 18, it doesn't change the fact an adult having intercourse with a prepubescent child is still regarded as a paedophile today. Since it was solely about Muhammad's actions, protection of religious beliefs and feelings is irrelevant. Bizarre ruling.
|
|