Muslim protesting film are defending Human Rights

[Avatar4321]

So they are protecting human rights by killing people and trying to silence free speech?

Seriously?

 

[Jroc]

Defamation of religion is a violation of human rights.

And the film protesters should be applauded for sticking up for this most basic of human rights.

Shariah law? Sunni boy's dream

 

[syrenn]

The film protesters killed innocent people who did nothing to defame Islam,THAT is a heinous act and the most grievous violation of human rights, more so than defaming religion. If Allah is offended he can take care of himself. If Mohammad is offended why should he care? He's in paradise and those who offend him will be taken care of by allah in the end. So basically the films protesters are defending nobody and are looking for an excuse to act like animals.

ppsstt.... its also against islam. Diplomatists are invited..... guests. They got rules about that shit.

So you're saying that the ambassador to Libya isn't dead? Because it's against Islam and they got rules about that shit? Your saying our embassy's haven't been getting attacked in multiple locations because it's against Islam and that got rules about that shit? Wow the MSM will do anything for ratings these days.

no...i am saying they killed our ambassador in cold blood out some idiotic bullshit of being "offended" The muslims... killed a guest. So they themselves are mocking the very same god that they claim... should not be mocked.

 

[Sunni Man]

Why are soo many people here against Human Rights?

This was a UN resolution designed to help people and spread peace.

It should be ratified this into our Constitution by adding a "defamation of religion" amendment.

 

[editec]

Over the past dozen years, the human rights bodies of the United Nations have adopted resolutions to condemn "defamation of religion" as a violation of human rights. The first of these resolutions, introduced in 1999 by Pakistan, specified the "defamation of Islam." More generic language was substituted, but everybody understands that only one religion is meant.

These resolutions are in no way legally binding on anybody. They allow persecution-minded governments and clerics to tell their citizens and adherents that they are not attacking human rights when they pronounce death in the name of religion. They are upholding Human Rights.

Don't blame the video; defend free speech - CNN.com

I have no problem with the making of this video.

Neither do I have any problem if people protest against it peacefully.

As the author of this thread points out, protesting is a human right.

And if those folks want to trash their own nations, why should I care?

And if those people want to kill the hateful creators of that film, again, I could not care less.

Haters inflaming haters leads to haters killing haters.

Seems like a win/win for the rest of us who aren't burdened by religious hate, doesn't it?

 

[Ancient lion]

Defamation of religion is a violation of human rights.

And the film protesters should be applauded for sticking up for this most basic of human rights.

Exactly, those who want to insult and defame the prophet and islam must be send to International Court of Justice

 

[strollingbones]

gee sunni you are starting to sound like a christian....lol......deflaming religion what bullmal....

anyone has the right to say any damn thing they want......about religion

myself i am looking forward to the opening of the 'master' do you think scientoglist will riot?

 

[ecks_why]

Over the past dozen years, the human rights bodies of the United Nations have adopted resolutions to condemn "defamation of religion" as a violation of human rights...

NO FREE SPEECH UNDER SHARIA LAW

http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...icles/bn9/2012/9/18/egypt_issues_arrest_.html
Egypt's general prosecutor has issued arrest warrants for controversial Gainesville pastor Terry Jones and seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and referred them to trial on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that has sparked riots across the Muslim world.

The prosecutor's office says the seven men and one woman, all of whom are believed to be outside of Egypt, are charged with harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/saudi-islam-law-idUSL6E8IF2CY20120715
The potential regulations come five months after a Saudi blogger and columnist Hamza Kashgari, 23, was arrested for tweeting comments deemed as insulting the Prophet Mohammad. Kashgari said there were things he liked and disliked about him.

"Within the next two months the Shura Council will reveal the outcome of study on the regulations to combat the criticism of the basic tenets of Islamic sharia," unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter told al-Watan, adding that there could be "severe punishments" for violators...

LEARN THE TRUE EVIL OF ALLAH

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/j...-in-the-quran-traditions-and-shariah-law.html
Can Islam today abandon its anti-blasphemy laws that come from its origins, and allow freedom of religious speech, even unpleasant speech? Can Muslims and non-Muslims criticize Islam and even Muhammad without fear of violence? ...

http://www.danielpipes.org/8913/two-decades-rushdie-rules
From a novel by Salman Rushdie published in 1989 to an American civil protest called "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" in 2010, a familiar pattern has evolved. It begins when Westerners say or do something critical of Islam. Islamists respond with name-calling and outrage, demands for retraction, threats of lawsuits and violence, and actual violence. In turn, Westerners hem and haw, prevaricate, and finally fold. Along the way, each controversy prompts a debate focusing on the issue of free speech.

I shall argue two points about this sequence. First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years. Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?

BEFORE THE IRON VEIL LOWERS

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/10/11/sharia-laws-threat-to-free-speech
An organized effort is underway worldwide orchestrated by a powerful Islamic political body to criminalize speech that “offends” Muslims. As much as that may sound like some fantastic conspiracy theory, these Muslim leaders broadcast their group’s every move on their website—yet America’s ruling elites refuse to listen.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations representing 57 member states which seek to criminalize speech that violates the archaic tenets of Sharia law...

http://islam-watch.org/Others/Islamic-Law-Human-Rights.htm
24. The OIC is attempting to limit religious freedom by promoting the Cairo Declaration and by rejecting wording in the Council resolution on the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief that would permit individuals to change their religion or belief.

25. The OIC is attempting to limit both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and to extend human rights to religions, per se, by its repeated promotion of the resolution "Combating Defamation of Religion" in the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

AND DESTROYS YOUR FREEDOM

http://muslimhope.com/JamesArlandson/MuhammadsCriticsAndTheirDeaths.htm
An authoritarian ruler must get a grip. The first policy that he imposes on his people shuts down free speech that expresses dissent and criticism, especially if the speech questions the leader. He takes any questioning of his opinions and decisions as a personal insult of him, the head of state, and therefore a threat to his society.

Muhammad laid down severe restrictions on such free speech. He assassinated many who insulted him. In the Quran, he promises death and eternal damnation if anyone deviates in words and action from Allah and his messenger. In the hadith (Muhammad's words and deeds outside of the Quran), we read that he kills dissenters and insulters. Later legal rulings, rooted in the Quran and hadith, follow his lead and decree that hard-hitting speech must be stifled. Indeed, the dissenters must die, if they cross the line...

http://islam-watch.org/Fjordman/IslamDemocracy1.htm
The good part about our confrontation with Islam is that it forces us to deal with flaws in our own civilization. It has already exposed a massive failure in our education system and our media, both filled with anti-Western sentiments and ideological nonsense. These legacies from the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s have left us unable to recognize the Islamic threat for what it is...

Has liberty regressed during the past two hundred years? How was it possible that Immanuel Kant, who lived in a German state without liberal democracy, could criticize basic aspects of religion in the 18th century, while in the West of the 21st century there are social and legal consequences for criticizing other religions and cultures? ...

TO HELL WITH ISLAM

 

[Avatar4321]

Why are soo many people here against Human Rights?

This was a UN resolution designed to help people and spread peace.

It should be ratified this into our Constitution by adding a "defamation of religion" amendment.

How can a UN resolution supressing free speech, a human right, be pro human rights?

You really want an amendment making it illegal to "defame" a religion in the Constitution?

You realize, that would mean everything Muslims say against Christians or Jews would become a criminal offense, right?

An amendment like that would be used to persecute Muslims and any other minority religion found. It wouldn't create peace. It would empower government to oppress religions.

 

[High_Gravity]

Over the past dozen years, the human rights bodies of the United Nations have adopted resolutions to condemn "defamation of religion" as a violation of human rights. The first of these resolutions, introduced in 1999 by Pakistan, specified the "defamation of Islam." More generic language was substituted, but everybody understands that only one religion is meant.

These resolutions are in no way legally binding on anybody. They allow persecution-minded governments and clerics to tell their citizens and adherents that they are not attacking human rights when they pronounce death in the name of religion. They are upholding Human Rights.

Don't blame the video; defend free speech - CNN.com

I don't agree, if someone offends your religion it doesn't give you an excuse to go out and kill, I can't agree with that.

 

[koshergrl]

Why are soo many people here against Human Rights?

This was a UN resolution designed to help people and spread peace.

It should be ratified this into our Constitution by adding a "defamation of religion" amendment.

Nobody is. You are, if you think you have the right to kill people for offending you.

 

[Sunni Man]

Not to have the Prophet of Islam defamed is a basic "Human Right" that every muslim should be entitled to.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry to say, it's not a human right, however.

If you want to say "according to miss manners this should never happen" then perhaps that would be true.

But Muslims don't get special "rights" that enable and allow them to squash HUMAN rights of others.

 

[koshergrl]

And you know that. You know that to insist you have the right to kill people because they offend you is NOT a human right, and you know it is completely against everything America stands for.

But you will continue to squawk about it because you are a Muslim, and you want Sharia Law in the US (per previous discussions).

In other words, you're a lying anti-American, and there is no way we will ever give quarter to you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not to have the Prophet of Islam defamed is a basic "Human Right" that every muslim should be entitled to.

You dont have the right to redefine human rights.

And you especially dont have the right to empower governments to persecute religious minorities.

 

[Sunni Man]

Not to have the Prophet of Islam defamed is a basic "Human Right" that every muslim should be entitled to.

You dont have the right to redefine human rights.

And you especially dont have the right to empower governments to persecute religious minorities.

That will be up to future courts to decide.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure, after you're arrested for human rights violations when you and yours violate them.

It hasn't turned out so hot for the ones we've caught.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have never advocated violence of any kind.

We must work thru the courts in order to change the laws in our favor.

 

[martybegan]

I have never advocated violence of any kind.

We must work thru the courts in order to change the laws in our favor.

Actually you work through the legislatures to get laws in your favor.

Unless you revoke the 1st amendment, the courts will never side with you, and that is a good thing.

 

[Sunni Man]

Unless you revoke the 1st amendment, the courts will never side with you, and that is a good thing.

Amendments can be repealed; it has happened before.