Moderate Muslims
Aaria Ahmed December 10, 2002
#322 Posted by Ali87 on December 23, 2002 11:10:02 am
#320 by AlephNull on December 22, 2002 10:19pm PT
Typical Bhraman convulsion.
yet you dont see a muslim going for the nearest camel for his health drink. Perhaps you are the kind who drink AlephNull Cola a la Moraji Desai (To those who are not in the loop, Morarji Desai ex prime minister of India used to drink his own Urine beliving it to have curative properties)
++++
Typical mullah manoeuvre
++++
Characterstics and belif of a Mullah: One who belives all humans are equal. One who insists that all read arabic and read for him self what the Quran says and understand it for himself. Proof is millions of Muslims read Quran in the language it was revealed. Any one can become a mullah.
Charactersitics of a Bhramin/Pandit/Panda/RSS Chaddi wala/Pesudo Liberal :: 3% of the poupulation from the last 5000 years who kept Sanksrit for themselves(Now the Hypocirtes want to democratise Sanskrit, they dont know what they are in for if that happens) Perpetauated and still continue to do so a inhuman Caste system which relegated a large percentage of the population to Inhuman status. Who wouldnot even let the shadow of a Dalit come across theri path. The purveour of ````Freedom of Speech`` for 5000 years (sic.)
Now why did not bother to reply to your inane tirade?? Because it is typical Pandit speak!! Same techniques and clever sophisitry of 5000 years. But this the world(or whatever part of it was) is no longer your releam. The Anger and agnst of the followers and admirers of Sangh Parivar(I do not sucbribe to VHP --but may be BJPor RSS or Bajrangdal ,, very convinent--or may be ``I dont need to reveal my agenda at all as long as my goals are met``) is because you are frustrated about this lack of control on others not what muslims did or not did to you.
Anyway a specious argument which is neither new or clever either. (what else can you expect from a Pandit-- when will he realise those days are gone forever.)
So I wont bother replying to it only Ill exercise my freedom to ubridled copying..........
``Let us start with Germany. In 1991, Guenter Deckert, leader of the ultra-right-wing National Democratic Party organized a lecture at which an American speaker claimed that the Auschwitz gassing of Jews never took place. Deckert was prosecuted and convicted for arranging the lecture under a statute prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. In March 1994 he was tried again. Finally, he was given only a suspended one-year jail sentence and a light fine. The judges were criticized by other judges for the light sentence. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the light sentence and ordered another trial. The public was outraged by the series of events and the law responded. In April 1994, the German constitutional court declared that denials of the Holocaust are not protected by free speech. In order not to be outdone, the German Parliament passed a law declaring it a crime punishable by 5 years in prison to deny the Holocaust whether or not the speaker believes the denials``
``In Austria, one can get a prison sentence for denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In 1992, the government modified the language of the law such that it would be considered a crime ``to deny, grossly minimize, praise or justify through printed works, over the airwaves, or in any other medium the National Socialist genocide or any other National Socialist crime.````
``In Denmark, when a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper describing homosexuality as ``the ugliest kind of adultery``, she and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosecution``
``In Japan, a 250,000 circulation magazine, Marco Polo, carried, in its Feb. 1995 issue, an article claiming to present the new historical truth and argue that Nazi gas chambers are historically dubious. The reaction to the article was swift and severe. Major industrial firms such as Volkswagen and Mitsubishi cancelled their advertising in protest. The publishing house of Marco Polo withdrew all copies of the February issue, announced that it was dismissing Marco Polo staff, and shut down the magazine itself.``
In Australia, any unfair written material that could be described as inciting racial vilification is banned by the 1989 Anti-Discrimination act. The writer and the publisher of such material may be exposed to damages of up to $40,000.
``In Britain, laws against blasphemy still exist only they protect christianity``
`` Ironically, a Pakistani movie ridiculing Rushdie and the whole affair of the Satanic Verses was banned from Britain.``
``In France, the French national assembly, in 1990, passed new laws to toughen the existing measures against racism, ``The measures also outlaw revisionism -- a historical tendency rife among extreme right-wing activists which consists of questioning the truth of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II.`` Many intellectuals were disturbed by the words ``measures`` that ``outlaw ... questioning`` included in the French legislation``
``
``In June 1995, Princeton University professor, Bernard Lewis, was fined $2,062 for having denied that Armenians were victims of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in this century. Moreover, Lewis was ordered to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde and warned that he risked further judicial action if he repeats his denial on French soil. Professor Lewis did not contest ``the terrible human tragedy of the deportation`` of the Armenians. But he considers that there was no ``systematic annihilation`` and that most of the victims died of ``famine, disease, exhaustion or cold.`` That is why, in an interview published by Le Monde in November 1993, when he was asked why Turkey still refused ``to recognize the genocide of the Armenians`, Lewis replied: ``You mean why do they refuse to recognize the Armenian version of that event``
``they tried to prosecute Lewis under the Loi Gayssot, passed in 1990, which makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense. But it was pointed out to the Armenians that the communist deputy Gayssot had restricted his new law to those denying the truth of the Nazi persecution of the Jews``
``At the university of Michigan, a student said in a classroom discussion that he considered homosexuality a disease treatable with therapy. He was summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing for violating the school`s policy of prohibiting speech that victimizes people on basis of sexual orientation. The case has generated a lawsuit in federal courts. Another student who denounced Dr. Martin Luther King as a communist has been sentenced by his university`s judicial board to thirty hours of community service``
``House speaker Newt Gingrich has dismissed a House historian when it was brought to his knowledge that she has once written: ``The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and is not presented``
``In the summer of 1995, The War Veterans Lobby (one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington) has lobbied successfully to remove all the material describing the tragedies caused by the American atomic bombs thrown on Japan in 1945 from a World War II exhibition in Washington. Several historians protested the move as enforcing a kind of ``patriotically correct history`` which has no thing to do with the ``real history.`` ``
``Oxford University Press rejected Professor John Vincent`s book, A Very Short Introduction to History, which it had previously welcomed. The reason was that Vincent had not been politically correct. He had used the word ``men`` instead of ``people``, referred to historians as ``he`` thereby excluding women historians, etc``
``Michael Jackson`s latest album generated a wave of protest because some of the words therein were deemed racist by some American Jews. Charges of anti-semitism prompted Jackson back to the studio to get rid of the offensive words``
``In Canada, CTV Television network on its popular morning show ``Canada AM`` has, on Oct. 15, 1994, hosted Josef Lepid, a leading Israeli political commentator, who, on the air, called for ``a decent Jew in Canada`` to assassinate Victor Ostrovosky (a former Israeli intelligence officer and author of two books exposing Israeli intelligence secret operations). The incident received conspicuous silence in the Canadian media. The very same commentators who had clamored for Rushdie`s right of free speech uttered no words in support of Ostrovosky`s same right.``
``A couple of years ago, a British historian was giving lectures in Canada in which he denied the Holocaust. He was arrested and deported by the Canadian authorities. Also, a school teacher was relieved of all teaching duties because he taught his students to disbelieve that the Holocaust has ever happened``
``In North America, one would `only` lose one`s job for disbelieving in the Holocaust. This `leniency` is perhaps due to the fact that American jails are overcrowded.``
``For example, Alexis de Tocqueville described America (at a time when America was considered the freest place in the world) by saying: ``I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America``
``freedoms are neither unlimited nor unconditional. Opinions which might irritate powerful groups, important interests, or significant segments of the population are silenced by many `nonviolent` means. George Orwell in his article, The Freedom of the Press, has eloquently described the status of Western press: ``Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark without the need for any official ban...[the] press is extremely centralised and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.````
``Let us now try to honestly address the ticklish question of free speech. Should there be freedom of speech? Certainly. Absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. Why? Offensive speech have disastrous consequences affecting individuals and the society at large. It leads to the spread of hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. For example, how many human beings would accept others to accuse their mothers of being whores ? Should the society protect the freedom of speech of the accuser or the freedom from offensive speech of the accused ? If one whole group in the society is denigrated as `niggers` by another group, should the society protect the freedom of speech of the offending group or the freedom from speech of the offended group ? If non-Jews accuse Jews of conspiring to exterminate all other races, whose freedom should be protected ? If men describe women as sources of all evil, whose freedom should be protected ? When a group of women, whom one billion Muslims revere more than their own mothers, have been gratuitously defamed by Rushdie as whores, whose freedom should have been protected ? In general, societies have little to lose and so much to gain by proscribing outrageous speech``
These Pandits dont get it do they?..... Apparently the health drinks dont cure forced amenisa nor cure cataract of hatred.
Typical Bhraman convulsion.
yet you dont see a muslim going for the nearest camel for his health drink. Perhaps you are the kind who drink AlephNull Cola a la Moraji Desai (To those who are not in the loop, Morarji Desai ex prime minister of India used to drink his own Urine beliving it to have curative properties)
++++
Typical mullah manoeuvre
++++
Characterstics and belif of a Mullah: One who belives all humans are equal. One who insists that all read arabic and read for him self what the Quran says and understand it for himself. Proof is millions of Muslims read Quran in the language it was revealed. Any one can become a mullah.
Charactersitics of a Bhramin/Pandit/Panda/RSS Chaddi wala/Pesudo Liberal :: 3% of the poupulation from the last 5000 years who kept Sanksrit for themselves(Now the Hypocirtes want to democratise Sanskrit, they dont know what they are in for if that happens) Perpetauated and still continue to do so a inhuman Caste system which relegated a large percentage of the population to Inhuman status. Who wouldnot even let the shadow of a Dalit come across theri path. The purveour of ````Freedom of Speech`` for 5000 years (sic.)
Now why did not bother to reply to your inane tirade?? Because it is typical Pandit speak!! Same techniques and clever sophisitry of 5000 years. But this the world(or whatever part of it was) is no longer your releam. The Anger and agnst of the followers and admirers of Sangh Parivar(I do not sucbribe to VHP --but may be BJPor RSS or Bajrangdal ,, very convinent--or may be ``I dont need to reveal my agenda at all as long as my goals are met``) is because you are frustrated about this lack of control on others not what muslims did or not did to you.
Anyway a specious argument which is neither new or clever either. (what else can you expect from a Pandit-- when will he realise those days are gone forever.)
So I wont bother replying to it only Ill exercise my freedom to ubridled copying..........
``Let us start with Germany. In 1991, Guenter Deckert, leader of the ultra-right-wing National Democratic Party organized a lecture at which an American speaker claimed that the Auschwitz gassing of Jews never took place. Deckert was prosecuted and convicted for arranging the lecture under a statute prohibiting incitement to racial hatred. In March 1994 he was tried again. Finally, he was given only a suspended one-year jail sentence and a light fine. The judges were criticized by other judges for the light sentence. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the light sentence and ordered another trial. The public was outraged by the series of events and the law responded. In April 1994, the German constitutional court declared that denials of the Holocaust are not protected by free speech. In order not to be outdone, the German Parliament passed a law declaring it a crime punishable by 5 years in prison to deny the Holocaust whether or not the speaker believes the denials``
``In Austria, one can get a prison sentence for denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers. In 1992, the government modified the language of the law such that it would be considered a crime ``to deny, grossly minimize, praise or justify through printed works, over the airwaves, or in any other medium the National Socialist genocide or any other National Socialist crime.````
``In Denmark, when a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper describing homosexuality as ``the ugliest kind of adultery``, she and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosecution``
``In Japan, a 250,000 circulation magazine, Marco Polo, carried, in its Feb. 1995 issue, an article claiming to present the new historical truth and argue that Nazi gas chambers are historically dubious. The reaction to the article was swift and severe. Major industrial firms such as Volkswagen and Mitsubishi cancelled their advertising in protest. The publishing house of Marco Polo withdrew all copies of the February issue, announced that it was dismissing Marco Polo staff, and shut down the magazine itself.``
In Australia, any unfair written material that could be described as inciting racial vilification is banned by the 1989 Anti-Discrimination act. The writer and the publisher of such material may be exposed to damages of up to $40,000.
``In Britain, laws against blasphemy still exist only they protect christianity``
`` Ironically, a Pakistani movie ridiculing Rushdie and the whole affair of the Satanic Verses was banned from Britain.``
``In France, the French national assembly, in 1990, passed new laws to toughen the existing measures against racism, ``The measures also outlaw revisionism -- a historical tendency rife among extreme right-wing activists which consists of questioning the truth of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II.`` Many intellectuals were disturbed by the words ``measures`` that ``outlaw ... questioning`` included in the French legislation``
``
``In June 1995, Princeton University professor, Bernard Lewis, was fined $2,062 for having denied that Armenians were victims of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in this century. Moreover, Lewis was ordered to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde and warned that he risked further judicial action if he repeats his denial on French soil. Professor Lewis did not contest ``the terrible human tragedy of the deportation`` of the Armenians. But he considers that there was no ``systematic annihilation`` and that most of the victims died of ``famine, disease, exhaustion or cold.`` That is why, in an interview published by Le Monde in November 1993, when he was asked why Turkey still refused ``to recognize the genocide of the Armenians`, Lewis replied: ``You mean why do they refuse to recognize the Armenian version of that event``
``they tried to prosecute Lewis under the Loi Gayssot, passed in 1990, which makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense. But it was pointed out to the Armenians that the communist deputy Gayssot had restricted his new law to those denying the truth of the Nazi persecution of the Jews``
``At the university of Michigan, a student said in a classroom discussion that he considered homosexuality a disease treatable with therapy. He was summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing for violating the school`s policy of prohibiting speech that victimizes people on basis of sexual orientation. The case has generated a lawsuit in federal courts. Another student who denounced Dr. Martin Luther King as a communist has been sentenced by his university`s judicial board to thirty hours of community service``
``House speaker Newt Gingrich has dismissed a House historian when it was brought to his knowledge that she has once written: ``The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and is not presented``
``In the summer of 1995, The War Veterans Lobby (one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington) has lobbied successfully to remove all the material describing the tragedies caused by the American atomic bombs thrown on Japan in 1945 from a World War II exhibition in Washington. Several historians protested the move as enforcing a kind of ``patriotically correct history`` which has no thing to do with the ``real history.`` ``
``Oxford University Press rejected Professor John Vincent`s book, A Very Short Introduction to History, which it had previously welcomed. The reason was that Vincent had not been politically correct. He had used the word ``men`` instead of ``people``, referred to historians as ``he`` thereby excluding women historians, etc``
``Michael Jackson`s latest album generated a wave of protest because some of the words therein were deemed racist by some American Jews. Charges of anti-semitism prompted Jackson back to the studio to get rid of the offensive words``
``In Canada, CTV Television network on its popular morning show ``Canada AM`` has, on Oct. 15, 1994, hosted Josef Lepid, a leading Israeli political commentator, who, on the air, called for ``a decent Jew in Canada`` to assassinate Victor Ostrovosky (a former Israeli intelligence officer and author of two books exposing Israeli intelligence secret operations). The incident received conspicuous silence in the Canadian media. The very same commentators who had clamored for Rushdie`s right of free speech uttered no words in support of Ostrovosky`s same right.``
``A couple of years ago, a British historian was giving lectures in Canada in which he denied the Holocaust. He was arrested and deported by the Canadian authorities. Also, a school teacher was relieved of all teaching duties because he taught his students to disbelieve that the Holocaust has ever happened``
``In North America, one would `only` lose one`s job for disbelieving in the Holocaust. This `leniency` is perhaps due to the fact that American jails are overcrowded.``
``For example, Alexis de Tocqueville described America (at a time when America was considered the freest place in the world) by saying: ``I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America``
``freedoms are neither unlimited nor unconditional. Opinions which might irritate powerful groups, important interests, or significant segments of the population are silenced by many `nonviolent` means. George Orwell in his article, The Freedom of the Press, has eloquently described the status of Western press: ``Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark without the need for any official ban...[the] press is extremely centralised and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.````
``Let us now try to honestly address the ticklish question of free speech. Should there be freedom of speech? Certainly. Absolute freedom of speech? Certainly not. Why? Offensive speech have disastrous consequences affecting individuals and the society at large. It leads to the spread of hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. For example, how many human beings would accept others to accuse their mothers of being whores ? Should the society protect the freedom of speech of the accuser or the freedom from offensive speech of the accused ? If one whole group in the society is denigrated as `niggers` by another group, should the society protect the freedom of speech of the offending group or the freedom from speech of the offended group ? If non-Jews accuse Jews of conspiring to exterminate all other races, whose freedom should be protected ? If men describe women as sources of all evil, whose freedom should be protected ? When a group of women, whom one billion Muslims revere more than their own mothers, have been gratuitously defamed by Rushdie as whores, whose freedom should have been protected ? In general, societies have little to lose and so much to gain by proscribing outrageous speech``
These Pandits dont get it do they?..... Apparently the health drinks dont cure forced amenisa nor cure cataract of hatred.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#320 Posted by AlephNull on December 22, 2002 10:19:23 pm
Ali87 #315
Typical mullah manoeuvre.Even more pathetic than I anticipated ...
{Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)}
This supposedly in response to my arguments in favour of free speech and against restrictions specifically to placate Muslims, with reference to the Rushdie case, etc
Were I to answer in the same mode as our prodigy of a mullah, I would fish out my well-thumbed volumes of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or whatever and point to the hadith where the Prophet Mohammed advises consumption of the urine of milch camels for its restorative properties - ending with a gibe against the uncouth barbarism of Allah`s Rasul and his followers including our prodigy.
Or on the contrary I could maintain that the Prophet of Islam himself has indicated the medicinal virtues of camel urine; and while camels are few and far between in India, the urine of the cow - an artiodactyl cousin of the camel - is no doubt an equally potent elixir; and therefore the cow-urine-imbibing person in question was merely doing his best to follow the advice inherent in the hadith in question and our mullah prodigy would be well-advised to follow suit.
But all of this misses the point. There is no connection between the alleged tonic virtues of ungulate urine and any of the arguments about free speech that preceded it. Our savant of a mullah brought it up solely to distract from the main thrust of the preceding discussion, and because he has no counter to any of my arguments. A clear indication of complete intellectual bankruptcy ...
Typical mullah manoeuvre.Even more pathetic than I anticipated ...
{Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)}
This supposedly in response to my arguments in favour of free speech and against restrictions specifically to placate Muslims, with reference to the Rushdie case, etc
Were I to answer in the same mode as our prodigy of a mullah, I would fish out my well-thumbed volumes of Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or whatever and point to the hadith where the Prophet Mohammed advises consumption of the urine of milch camels for its restorative properties - ending with a gibe against the uncouth barbarism of Allah`s Rasul and his followers including our prodigy.
Or on the contrary I could maintain that the Prophet of Islam himself has indicated the medicinal virtues of camel urine; and while camels are few and far between in India, the urine of the cow - an artiodactyl cousin of the camel - is no doubt an equally potent elixir; and therefore the cow-urine-imbibing person in question was merely doing his best to follow the advice inherent in the hadith in question and our mullah prodigy would be well-advised to follow suit.
But all of this misses the point. There is no connection between the alleged tonic virtues of ungulate urine and any of the arguments about free speech that preceded it. Our savant of a mullah brought it up solely to distract from the main thrust of the preceding discussion, and because he has no counter to any of my arguments. A clear indication of complete intellectual bankruptcy ...
#319 Posted by AlephNull on December 22, 2002 10:19:22 pm
Ali87 #315
Concrete-bound mullah mentalities cannot comprehend abstract arguments in favour of free speech even when they are explained in the most excruciating detail. Instead they will bring up various examples of other like-minded insecure fanatics and prudes to bolster their own demands for restricting free speech.
{A few years back the same Miss Universe contest had to beat a hasty retreat from the great cosmopolitan Bangalore because the hindu Pandas/RSS chaddiwalas and The Naked chillum smoking sadhus of VHP threathend this contest for precisely the same thing as in Nigeria. Only the govt was sensible there and withdrew garuntees of security and said to the company organising that they will not be responsible if any thing happens. the swimsuit round was shifted to maruitaus or schyleles or some place like that. there was talk of shifitng it to bombay. I dont rembeber what exaclty happend but the show was a flop.}
If the mullah were to read carefully, he would note that I said
``In any case, whenever the Indian government restricts publication of some controversial work for fear of public disturbances, that is simply a recognition of India`s current lack of maturity as a society capable of taking controversy in its stride. But India is incomparably closer to permitting unfettered free speech than the whole benighted Muslim ummah.``
I clearly indicated that the West is much closer to the ideal of unfettered free speech.
Anybody has a right to demonstrate peacefully against beauty contests if they think they`re demeaning to women or an insult to great ancient Hindu culture or whatever. That is as much an exercise of free expresion as organizing or participating in a beauty contest. The bottom line is that nobody was shot or had his head broken; nobody immolated herself; no fatwas were issued, etc. Today you`ll find beauty contests being held even in second- and third-string cities in India - a welcome loosening up of uptight attitudes, IMO. If you don`t approve, nobody`s forcing you to attend or watch them on TV.
{Similarly MF hussain who drew Sita without any cover on her breasts (like all goddess are potrayed in most temples) about 15 years back and was taking around his exhibition for the upteen time a couple of years back, his show was ransaked.. by groups who did not like the naked depiction of sitia miyya..}
So the Shiv Sena thugs and the VHP goons are to be taken as a standard-setters whose behaviour is to be emulated or used as a justification by Muslims? Lots of people have remarked that their prudish philistinism is indicative of a Semiticization of Hindu attitudes. Now the wheel comes full circle. Utterly pathetic ...
And still no cogent arguments in favour of restricting free speech specifically to placate mullah sensitivities. Great going, mullahs.
Concrete-bound mullah mentalities cannot comprehend abstract arguments in favour of free speech even when they are explained in the most excruciating detail. Instead they will bring up various examples of other like-minded insecure fanatics and prudes to bolster their own demands for restricting free speech.
{A few years back the same Miss Universe contest had to beat a hasty retreat from the great cosmopolitan Bangalore because the hindu Pandas/RSS chaddiwalas and The Naked chillum smoking sadhus of VHP threathend this contest for precisely the same thing as in Nigeria. Only the govt was sensible there and withdrew garuntees of security and said to the company organising that they will not be responsible if any thing happens. the swimsuit round was shifted to maruitaus or schyleles or some place like that. there was talk of shifitng it to bombay. I dont rembeber what exaclty happend but the show was a flop.}
If the mullah were to read carefully, he would note that I said
``In any case, whenever the Indian government restricts publication of some controversial work for fear of public disturbances, that is simply a recognition of India`s current lack of maturity as a society capable of taking controversy in its stride. But India is incomparably closer to permitting unfettered free speech than the whole benighted Muslim ummah.``
I clearly indicated that the West is much closer to the ideal of unfettered free speech.
Anybody has a right to demonstrate peacefully against beauty contests if they think they`re demeaning to women or an insult to great ancient Hindu culture or whatever. That is as much an exercise of free expresion as organizing or participating in a beauty contest. The bottom line is that nobody was shot or had his head broken; nobody immolated herself; no fatwas were issued, etc. Today you`ll find beauty contests being held even in second- and third-string cities in India - a welcome loosening up of uptight attitudes, IMO. If you don`t approve, nobody`s forcing you to attend or watch them on TV.
{Similarly MF hussain who drew Sita without any cover on her breasts (like all goddess are potrayed in most temples) about 15 years back and was taking around his exhibition for the upteen time a couple of years back, his show was ransaked.. by groups who did not like the naked depiction of sitia miyya..}
So the Shiv Sena thugs and the VHP goons are to be taken as a standard-setters whose behaviour is to be emulated or used as a justification by Muslims? Lots of people have remarked that their prudish philistinism is indicative of a Semiticization of Hindu attitudes. Now the wheel comes full circle. Utterly pathetic ...
And still no cogent arguments in favour of restricting free speech specifically to placate mullah sensitivities. Great going, mullahs.
#318 Posted by ssdhillon on December 22, 2002 1:28:47 pm
#315 by ali87 on December 22, 2002 7:39am PT
++++++++++++
Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)
+++++++++
As opposed to people who marry their own blood. Too much inbreeding does have disastrous results. So which cousin sister did you marry???
Parts of the miss universe competition were moved abroad because a lot of women`s/Religious organization thought it was degrading to women. The competition still went on. Why does it matter if it succeeded or not.
Compare this to Nigeria. The muslim idea of a protest is killing hundreds of people and destruction of their own country.
About MF Hussain....He painted Hindu goddesses in the nude. However he is still a very popular painter in India. His paintings cost a fortune. Imagine if he had painted a nude picture of prophet Mohammad or his wife. There wouild have been fatwas on his head. Jehadis like you would have been spitting blood.
About Amitabh...If he sucks as a businessman that is not my problem.......Obviously you will not blame Amitabh for his poor business skills. That is the typical jehadi problem. It is never their fault.
+++++++++
I dont know why these jerks even take the effort..... do they think we are the dalits who will be satisfied with their sutpid mistycial mumbo jumbo..
+++++++++
The dalits are much more smarter than muslims. They are not blowing themselves up because Osama/Mullah Omar said so.
++++++++++++
Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)
+++++++++
As opposed to people who marry their own blood. Too much inbreeding does have disastrous results. So which cousin sister did you marry???
Parts of the miss universe competition were moved abroad because a lot of women`s/Religious organization thought it was degrading to women. The competition still went on. Why does it matter if it succeeded or not.
Compare this to Nigeria. The muslim idea of a protest is killing hundreds of people and destruction of their own country.
About MF Hussain....He painted Hindu goddesses in the nude. However he is still a very popular painter in India. His paintings cost a fortune. Imagine if he had painted a nude picture of prophet Mohammad or his wife. There wouild have been fatwas on his head. Jehadis like you would have been spitting blood.
About Amitabh...If he sucks as a businessman that is not my problem.......Obviously you will not blame Amitabh for his poor business skills. That is the typical jehadi problem. It is never their fault.
+++++++++
I dont know why these jerks even take the effort..... do they think we are the dalits who will be satisfied with their sutpid mistycial mumbo jumbo..
+++++++++
The dalits are much more smarter than muslims. They are not blowing themselves up because Osama/Mullah Omar said so.
#317 Posted by ssdhillon on December 22, 2002 1:28:47 pm
#313 by AmericanExpress on December 21, 2002 11:57pm PT
++++++++++
Do you think Edison needed Free speech to invent ELECTRICITY .Do you think Graham Bell or Henry Ford Or Wrights Bros or any inventor needed free speech????????
+++++++++
Edison did not invent the electric bulb in a vaccuum. It took centuries of free thought for science and technology to reach a level where these discoveries were possible.
+++++++++++
In Science & technology Russia which was most cloased iron curtain you can imagine made equal or even more progress than U.S.A.
++++++++++++
It was the lack of freedom that lead to the downfall of the Russians. They made a lot of progress in technology. No progress in economics because of a lack of free thought.
++++++++++
Do you think Edison needed Free speech to invent ELECTRICITY .Do you think Graham Bell or Henry Ford Or Wrights Bros or any inventor needed free speech????????
+++++++++
Edison did not invent the electric bulb in a vaccuum. It took centuries of free thought for science and technology to reach a level where these discoveries were possible.
+++++++++++
In Science & technology Russia which was most cloased iron curtain you can imagine made equal or even more progress than U.S.A.
++++++++++++
It was the lack of freedom that lead to the downfall of the Russians. They made a lot of progress in technology. No progress in economics because of a lack of free thought.
#316 Posted by harimau on December 22, 2002 9:33:02 am
Ref Zero Balance #312 11:57pm PT
[In Science & technology Russia which was most cloased iron curtain you can imagine made equal or even more progress than U.S.A.
Do you think Edison needed Free speech to invent ELECTRICITY .Do you think Graham Bell or Henry Ford Or Wrights Bros or any inventor needed free speech????????
``I agree with AdephNull that progress is made by people who think different. Without that we would still be beleiving that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I can give you tons of examples if you want. ...........``}} ]
But Galileo needed free speech in order to be able to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Copernicus needed freedom of speech to say that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around. Just because today`s governments do not censor speech regarding scientific issues doesn`t mean that it has always been so. The only travel through space would have been Prophet Muhammad riding his horse to go to Heaven if we were told not to study astronomy because the findings contradicted the Bible or the Koran.
Even in godless the Soviet Union, Lysenko made a mockery of biological sciences by propagating his stupid theories and getting his opponents thrown in jail.
Coming to the 21st century, I don`t think the Quaid-e-Azam University is conducting rigorous analysis on interest-free banking and its effects on the economy because there is no freedom of speech as far as riba is concerned.
[I rest my case SIMPLY]
Nope. You rested it a little bit too early.
[In Science & technology Russia which was most cloased iron curtain you can imagine made equal or even more progress than U.S.A.
Do you think Edison needed Free speech to invent ELECTRICITY .Do you think Graham Bell or Henry Ford Or Wrights Bros or any inventor needed free speech????????
``I agree with AdephNull that progress is made by people who think different. Without that we would still be beleiving that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I can give you tons of examples if you want. ...........``}} ]
But Galileo needed free speech in order to be able to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Copernicus needed freedom of speech to say that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around. Just because today`s governments do not censor speech regarding scientific issues doesn`t mean that it has always been so. The only travel through space would have been Prophet Muhammad riding his horse to go to Heaven if we were told not to study astronomy because the findings contradicted the Bible or the Koran.
Even in godless the Soviet Union, Lysenko made a mockery of biological sciences by propagating his stupid theories and getting his opponents thrown in jail.
Coming to the 21st century, I don`t think the Quaid-e-Azam University is conducting rigorous analysis on interest-free banking and its effects on the economy because there is no freedom of speech as far as riba is concerned.
[I rest my case SIMPLY]
Nope. You rested it a little bit too early.
#315 Posted by Ali87 on December 22, 2002 7:39:56 am
#305 by AlephNull on December 20, 2002 7:42pm PT
#309 by AlephNull on December 21, 2002 7:50am PT
Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)
big post, but as usual big talk and actions to the contrary.
A few years back the same Miss Universe contest had to beat a hasty retreat from the great cosmopolitan Bangalore because the hindu Pandas/RSS chaddiwalas and The Naked chillum smoking sadhus of VHP threathend this contest for precisely the same thing as in Nigeria. Only the govt was sensible there and withdrew garuntees of security and said to the company organising that they will not be responsible if any thing happens. the swimsuit round was shifted to maruitaus or schyleles or some place like that. there was talk of shifitng it to bombay. I dont rembeber what exaclty happend but the show was a flop.
Similarly MF hussain who drew Sita without any cover on her breasts (like all goddess are potrayed in most temples) about 15 years back and was taking around his exhibition for the upteen time a couple of years back, his show was ransaked.. by groups who did not like the naked depiction of sitia miyya..
Now what say... AlephNull
Now nice posts though must have gone though a great effort LOL......
Incidently Amitabh Bacchans first foray into corporate movie/media/entertainment business was dealt a death knell because of this show. ABCL was the event manager for it and the company went under because of the debts arinsing out of this failed show in bangalore and his house was up for grabs and he was bankrupt for nearly 5-6 years and the Star TV`s ``Kaun banega coroepati`` resuced him from years of bankruptcy.
I dont know why these jerks even take the effort..... do they think we are the dalits who will be satisfied with their sutpid mistycial mumbo jumbo..
have a life guys look in to your own religon and acts of co-religionist
first.
#309 by AlephNull on December 21, 2002 7:50am PT
Hey what can we except from people who drink cow urine. (honest you can see this in ceratin localities in Bangalore, A cow starts urinating in a street and some one rushes and puts his palm across the stream of urine and drinks it, In Hyderabad there is a Posh sweet shop, Pulla Reddy sweets, they proudly sprinkle cow urine on the sweets !!!)
big post, but as usual big talk and actions to the contrary.
A few years back the same Miss Universe contest had to beat a hasty retreat from the great cosmopolitan Bangalore because the hindu Pandas/RSS chaddiwalas and The Naked chillum smoking sadhus of VHP threathend this contest for precisely the same thing as in Nigeria. Only the govt was sensible there and withdrew garuntees of security and said to the company organising that they will not be responsible if any thing happens. the swimsuit round was shifted to maruitaus or schyleles or some place like that. there was talk of shifitng it to bombay. I dont rembeber what exaclty happend but the show was a flop.
Similarly MF hussain who drew Sita without any cover on her breasts (like all goddess are potrayed in most temples) about 15 years back and was taking around his exhibition for the upteen time a couple of years back, his show was ransaked.. by groups who did not like the naked depiction of sitia miyya..
Now what say... AlephNull
Now nice posts though must have gone though a great effort LOL......
Incidently Amitabh Bacchans first foray into corporate movie/media/entertainment business was dealt a death knell because of this show. ABCL was the event manager for it and the company went under because of the debts arinsing out of this failed show in bangalore and his house was up for grabs and he was bankrupt for nearly 5-6 years and the Star TV`s ``Kaun banega coroepati`` resuced him from years of bankruptcy.
I dont know why these jerks even take the effort..... do they think we are the dalits who will be satisfied with their sutpid mistycial mumbo jumbo..
have a life guys look in to your own religon and acts of co-religionist
first.
#311 Posted by AAmir on December 21, 2002 11:57:45 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#310 Posted by knsridhar on December 21, 2002 10:34:32 am
i really do not find any moderate muslims and i hve many friends among that community.they always think of hurting other religion and themselves.always think of islam and kuran , nothing abovt themselves or the welfare of their community . i am yet to come across a muslim who can think far ahead and accept the mistakes they commit against hindus.they expect from other the support form hindus and they inturn do not help hindus
#309 Posted by harimau on December 21, 2002 7:50:46 am
Ref 12-Head #301
[ITS THE SAME PAIN YOU WOULD FEEL IF THE BOY WAS A BRAHMIN & THE GIRL NOT.100% pure hinduism has same flaw]
I feel your pain too.
I hope this post serves as a hug across the cyberspace.
[ITS THE SAME PAIN YOU WOULD FEEL IF THE BOY WAS A BRAHMIN & THE GIRL NOT.100% pure hinduism has same flaw]
I feel your pain too.
I hope this post serves as a hug across the cyberspace.
#308 Posted by AlephNull on December 21, 2002 7:50:46 am
Ali87 #297
More mullah nonsense:
{Knowing the reaction of the muslims over the centuries on this matter it is wiser on part of non-muslims to give accept this as a requirement for peace.}
In other words, the threat of Muslims going on a rampage is to be used to cow people down and prevent them from speaking their minds.
{I dont see how by stopping people from denigrating some thing the muslims hold dear affects freedom of speech of any one.}
No, he evidently doesn`t see it. What mullahs don`t realise is that they aren`t the centre of the universe. No one else accepts their Islamocentric world view. If restrictions are to be placed on free speech in so far as it impinges on the beliefs and sentiments of Muslims, then every other group can demand analogous restrictions on criticism of their pet beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians can demand that biology texts be rewritten to expunge all references to evolution; religious believers can demand that atheists not be allowed to propagate their views; atheists can make the same demands on the illogical absurdities of religious true believers; etc. etc.; so that pretty soon there is no freedom of speech left.
Of course mullahs can claim that their beliefs are a special case *because they`re really true* unlike other groups` beliefs, and thus deserving of extraordinary protections not available to others. Such demands are routinely made by every group of religous fanatics past and present. What especially distinguishes mullahs today is that they currently have the largest following of unthinking sheep willing to riot at their behest.
{Earlier in the salman Rushdhe case too if the West had even a symbolic indication that they might hand over him to the muslims or presecute him under thier own laws then he would have withdrawn his book and apoligised for it too and the matter would have died down. However non-muslims too often choose the path of confortation.}
Not so. There is a fundamental principle of free speech at stake, far more important than the particular case in which it may have arisen. No one in the West sees any reason why Rushdie should be prosecuted for anything he may write or say, let alone handed over to the ummah for `justice`. He has absolutely nothing to apologise for. It is Muslims who make such demands who need to adjust their attitudes and apologise for disturbing the peace.
If the Muslim world had any sense, they would reward Rushdie rather than excoriate him for rousing them out of their torpor and showing them the stupidity of their intolerance. They ought to be rushing to award him life pensions and honorary doctorates and extraordinary professorships at Qum and Al Azhar.
More mullah nonsense:
{Knowing the reaction of the muslims over the centuries on this matter it is wiser on part of non-muslims to give accept this as a requirement for peace.}
In other words, the threat of Muslims going on a rampage is to be used to cow people down and prevent them from speaking their minds.
{I dont see how by stopping people from denigrating some thing the muslims hold dear affects freedom of speech of any one.}
No, he evidently doesn`t see it. What mullahs don`t realise is that they aren`t the centre of the universe. No one else accepts their Islamocentric world view. If restrictions are to be placed on free speech in so far as it impinges on the beliefs and sentiments of Muslims, then every other group can demand analogous restrictions on criticism of their pet beliefs. Fundamentalist Christians can demand that biology texts be rewritten to expunge all references to evolution; religious believers can demand that atheists not be allowed to propagate their views; atheists can make the same demands on the illogical absurdities of religious true believers; etc. etc.; so that pretty soon there is no freedom of speech left.
Of course mullahs can claim that their beliefs are a special case *because they`re really true* unlike other groups` beliefs, and thus deserving of extraordinary protections not available to others. Such demands are routinely made by every group of religous fanatics past and present. What especially distinguishes mullahs today is that they currently have the largest following of unthinking sheep willing to riot at their behest.
{Earlier in the salman Rushdhe case too if the West had even a symbolic indication that they might hand over him to the muslims or presecute him under thier own laws then he would have withdrawn his book and apoligised for it too and the matter would have died down. However non-muslims too often choose the path of confortation.}
Not so. There is a fundamental principle of free speech at stake, far more important than the particular case in which it may have arisen. No one in the West sees any reason why Rushdie should be prosecuted for anything he may write or say, let alone handed over to the ummah for `justice`. He has absolutely nothing to apologise for. It is Muslims who make such demands who need to adjust their attitudes and apologise for disturbing the peace.
If the Muslim world had any sense, they would reward Rushdie rather than excoriate him for rousing them out of their torpor and showing them the stupidity of their intolerance. They ought to be rushing to award him life pensions and honorary doctorates and extraordinary professorships at Qum and Al Azhar.
#307 Posted by ssdhillon on December 21, 2002 7:50:36 am
#306 by AAmir on December 20, 2002 11:32pm PT
++++++++++
Freedom of speech was not made to help progress but poklitical goals
++++++++++++
Prove it moron...stop making genralisations...just kidding!!!
You are the one who is coming across a completely unreasonable person Why would someone promote freedom of speech for political goals.
I agree with AdephNull that progress is made by people who think different. Without that we would still be beleiving that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I can give you tons of examples if you want.
++++++++++
You NO authority on Constitutional law on free speech just beneficiary of one .
+++++++++
One does not have to be a constitutional authority to make a point. That is the point of freedom of speech. Jehadis like you just don`t get it.
++++++++++
Freedom of speech was not made to help progress but poklitical goals
++++++++++++
Prove it moron...stop making genralisations...just kidding!!!
You are the one who is coming across a completely unreasonable person Why would someone promote freedom of speech for political goals.
I agree with AdephNull that progress is made by people who think different. Without that we would still be beleiving that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. I can give you tons of examples if you want.
++++++++++
You NO authority on Constitutional law on free speech just beneficiary of one .
+++++++++
One does not have to be a constitutional authority to make a point. That is the point of freedom of speech. Jehadis like you just don`t get it.
#306 Posted by AAmir on December 20, 2002 11:32:23 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#305 Posted by AlephNull on December 20, 2002 7:42:25 pm
Ali87 #297
Behold the clueless mullah mindset on display for the wonderment and edification of nonbelievers. Fourteen years after the publication of Rushdie`s `Satanic Verses` this savant has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Little wonder that Islamic nations are a laughing-stock most everywhere else.
{Sadly most non-muslims think that freedom of speech means that you denigrate what some one else holds dear. I dont think this is justified.}
But this is precisely the point of freedom of speech. The right to free speech is utterly meaningless if it allows you to utter only pious platitudes and boring bromides, if it does not permit you to say things that are outrageous, controversial or deeply offensive to someone or the other. Most everyone finds some manners of expression disagreeable or offensive and believes some opinions dangerous or just plain untrue. If respecting everyone else`s sensitivities had to take precedence over speaking ones mind, no one could ever open his mouth. Any original thought is a departure from what has gone before and will ruffle feathers. Most progress has come from people who thought the unthinkable and were unafraid to voice their opinions in the face of hostility and scorn.
{Freedom of speech is relative.}
On the contrary. There is a night-and-day difference between attitudes to free speech in the West and the civilized world, versus those in Islamic countries.
In the West freedom of speech - particularly of speech that may be offensive to someone or the other, including the powers-that-be - is the norm; something taken for an inalienable birthright; a precious right jealously guarded and actively exercised by the common citizenry and the intelligentsia. It is a commonplace for people in the US to declare ``I abhor your opinions but I will defend to the death your right to express them.`` All restrictions on absolute unfettered free speech are hotly contested and vigorously debated.
{Lets see what happens to a person in US who writes that Isreal is a illegal state and has to be dismantled and its recently emmigrated population should disperse to the countries they came from or the should summit to a true democracy of full palestine and should live as minorities with full rights within a arab dominated palestine. }
More cluelessness. A private citizen can say all these things in the US, in person, or in print, or on television, with absolutely no fear of governmental prosecution. In fact many have done just this, as well as denying the Holocaust and distributing neo-Nazi and other hate literature, making films allegedly hurtful to Christians, savagely caricaturing and ridiculing present and past politicians and public figures, saying things offensive to women, Asians, blacks, Latinos, whites, etc. To a first approximation, there is no restriction in the US on saying what you please, even it is false or rude or cruel or tasteless or just plain stupid. Whatever is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
{or what happens if Sita is compared to the contestants in India.}
Why not? On the whole Hindus are far, far less uptight about these matters than the Islamic world. In any case, whenever the Indian government restricts publication of some controversial work for fear of public disturbances, that is simply a recognition of India`s current lack of maturity as a society capable of taking controversy in its stride. But India is incomparably closer to permitting unfettered free speech than the whole benighted Muslim ummah.
{Similarly the muslims hold the prophet in high esteem. The writer living in Nigeria must have well known this sentiment however has choosen to disregard it.
Many muslims consider people who participate in such contestts nothing short of prostitites and you want to belive that this is not a insult but just a tounge in cheek remark!!!}
Mullahs just don`t get it.
First of all, the rest of the world simply does not behave in a fashion similar to the Muslim ummah, so the alleged similarity is purely imaginary. Secondly, the fact that Muslims may hold Mohammed in high esteem should not constrain in any way whatsoever others` rights to say what they please about him. No one`s opinions or sentiments, religious or otherwise, deserve automatic respect. No one need pay any heed to a mullah`s putrid opinions about beauty contest participants (``nothing short of prostitites`` (sic)).
{On the other hand if the law of the land had been strong and logical they would have arrested the author and brought her to justice. In case she choose to apologise for her remarks and withdraw them she should be free from any action(as long it is viewed as sincere --ie there is no other evidience but a complete retraction and apology on the part of the author) }
Wow! Are non-Muslims supposed to be grateful for this tremendous concession? Why should the author apologise and retract her opinions? She doesn`t owe Muslims or islam anything at all. Once again, mullahs just don`t get it - they are not going to be allowed to impose their loathsome Islamic ``justice`` on anyone else. The sooner they develop thick hides and learn to live with opinions that ridicule them or offend their beliefs the better. The rest of the world isn`t going to let up on them anytime
Behold the clueless mullah mindset on display for the wonderment and edification of nonbelievers. Fourteen years after the publication of Rushdie`s `Satanic Verses` this savant has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Little wonder that Islamic nations are a laughing-stock most everywhere else.
{Sadly most non-muslims think that freedom of speech means that you denigrate what some one else holds dear. I dont think this is justified.}
But this is precisely the point of freedom of speech. The right to free speech is utterly meaningless if it allows you to utter only pious platitudes and boring bromides, if it does not permit you to say things that are outrageous, controversial or deeply offensive to someone or the other. Most everyone finds some manners of expression disagreeable or offensive and believes some opinions dangerous or just plain untrue. If respecting everyone else`s sensitivities had to take precedence over speaking ones mind, no one could ever open his mouth. Any original thought is a departure from what has gone before and will ruffle feathers. Most progress has come from people who thought the unthinkable and were unafraid to voice their opinions in the face of hostility and scorn.
{Freedom of speech is relative.}
On the contrary. There is a night-and-day difference between attitudes to free speech in the West and the civilized world, versus those in Islamic countries.
In the West freedom of speech - particularly of speech that may be offensive to someone or the other, including the powers-that-be - is the norm; something taken for an inalienable birthright; a precious right jealously guarded and actively exercised by the common citizenry and the intelligentsia. It is a commonplace for people in the US to declare ``I abhor your opinions but I will defend to the death your right to express them.`` All restrictions on absolute unfettered free speech are hotly contested and vigorously debated.
{Lets see what happens to a person in US who writes that Isreal is a illegal state and has to be dismantled and its recently emmigrated population should disperse to the countries they came from or the should summit to a true democracy of full palestine and should live as minorities with full rights within a arab dominated palestine. }
More cluelessness. A private citizen can say all these things in the US, in person, or in print, or on television, with absolutely no fear of governmental prosecution. In fact many have done just this, as well as denying the Holocaust and distributing neo-Nazi and other hate literature, making films allegedly hurtful to Christians, savagely caricaturing and ridiculing present and past politicians and public figures, saying things offensive to women, Asians, blacks, Latinos, whites, etc. To a first approximation, there is no restriction in the US on saying what you please, even it is false or rude or cruel or tasteless or just plain stupid. Whatever is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
{or what happens if Sita is compared to the contestants in India.}
Why not? On the whole Hindus are far, far less uptight about these matters than the Islamic world. In any case, whenever the Indian government restricts publication of some controversial work for fear of public disturbances, that is simply a recognition of India`s current lack of maturity as a society capable of taking controversy in its stride. But India is incomparably closer to permitting unfettered free speech than the whole benighted Muslim ummah.
{Similarly the muslims hold the prophet in high esteem. The writer living in Nigeria must have well known this sentiment however has choosen to disregard it.
Many muslims consider people who participate in such contestts nothing short of prostitites and you want to belive that this is not a insult but just a tounge in cheek remark!!!}
Mullahs just don`t get it.
First of all, the rest of the world simply does not behave in a fashion similar to the Muslim ummah, so the alleged similarity is purely imaginary. Secondly, the fact that Muslims may hold Mohammed in high esteem should not constrain in any way whatsoever others` rights to say what they please about him. No one`s opinions or sentiments, religious or otherwise, deserve automatic respect. No one need pay any heed to a mullah`s putrid opinions about beauty contest participants (``nothing short of prostitites`` (sic)).
{On the other hand if the law of the land had been strong and logical they would have arrested the author and brought her to justice. In case she choose to apologise for her remarks and withdraw them she should be free from any action(as long it is viewed as sincere --ie there is no other evidience but a complete retraction and apology on the part of the author) }
Wow! Are non-Muslims supposed to be grateful for this tremendous concession? Why should the author apologise and retract her opinions? She doesn`t owe Muslims or islam anything at all. Once again, mullahs just don`t get it - they are not going to be allowed to impose their loathsome Islamic ``justice`` on anyone else. The sooner they develop thick hides and learn to live with opinions that ridicule them or offend their beliefs the better. The rest of the world isn`t going to let up on them anytime
#304 Posted by ssdhillon on December 20, 2002 1:36:36 pm
#297 by ali87 on December 19, 2002 5:26pm PT
+++++++++++++++++++
Freedom of speech is relative. Lets see what happens to a person in US who writes that Isreal is a illegal state and has to be dismantled and its recently emmigrated population should disperse to the countries they came from or the should summit to a true democracy of full palestine and should live as minorities with full rights within a arab dominated palestine
+++++++++++++++++++
First of all....that will be an incredibly stupid think to say. The person will not be doing the Palestinian cause any favour by making such a statement. If you can not accept the fact that both the palestinians and Israelis have the right to a homeland, you are only pouring fuel over the fire.
Secondly the person can say such a thing in the US. He/she will be censured a lot though. BTW a lot of liberals are actually very pro-palestinian. I have seen many pro-palestinian demonstrations in Boston where I live. On the other hand I am very sure you can not have a pro-Israeli rally in the Middle-East or Pakistan.
+++++++++++++++++++
Freedom of speech is relative. Lets see what happens to a person in US who writes that Isreal is a illegal state and has to be dismantled and its recently emmigrated population should disperse to the countries they came from or the should summit to a true democracy of full palestine and should live as minorities with full rights within a arab dominated palestine
+++++++++++++++++++
First of all....that will be an incredibly stupid think to say. The person will not be doing the Palestinian cause any favour by making such a statement. If you can not accept the fact that both the palestinians and Israelis have the right to a homeland, you are only pouring fuel over the fire.
Secondly the person can say such a thing in the US. He/she will be censured a lot though. BTW a lot of liberals are actually very pro-palestinian. I have seen many pro-palestinian demonstrations in Boston where I live. On the other hand I am very sure you can not have a pro-Israeli rally in the Middle-East or Pakistan.
#303 Posted by arjun_m on December 20, 2002 11:54:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Eklavya: OK, other than omprakash... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: Eklavya: please dont split... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: GF #83: while india's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: tahmedji and harish A correction:... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- tahmed32: om prakash #75 agreed.... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: harish_hyd, also this: www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/nov28mumterror-rescue-efforts-badly-planne d-says-israel.htm?zcc=rl India's... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- rf786: Re: # 61 Like I... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- shoaib_daniyal: “We in Pakistan understand... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
