The right to break Islamic law

[there4eyeM]

Real laws, like gravity and thermodynamics, cannot be broken.

Man's laws exist because they are broken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You made up your own defintion of Fitna

Fitna is causing problems between people.

More precisely, it means attempting to create a chaotic situation that test's one faith. That means that I, by pointing out that Mohammad was a liar, am engaged in fitna.

Which is the case if you claim jesus christ was the son of god, therefore you are claiming mohammed was a liar claiming the otherwise, therefore you are in shirk, therefore doing fitna(creating a fuzz among people against the claims of mohammed), therefore you deserve to be murdered.

Same goes for jews and buddhists and hindus and atheists and.... simply anyone who does not agree with mohammed himself. Even moderate muslims may or may not fit into in this description, if they decide to question their religion at some point.

Exactly. You can be a Christian, or anything else you want, as long as you don't talk about it, or get on the wrong side of a Muslim that wants something you have.

 

[PixieStix]

Fitna is causing problems between people.

More precisely, it means attempting to create a chaotic situation that test's one faith. That means that I, by pointing out that Mohammad was a liar, am engaged in fitna.

Exactly right.

 

[PaulS1950]

In every language and in every culture there is a different name used to identify the Creator. Islam uses "Allah", Judaism uses "El" or "Yahweh" interchngeably, Christians use "Jesus" or the title "God", some parts of the world it is "Sheba", Anki, or one of a thousand more names but they all describe the same Creator. One of the problems with written religions is that they become dogma - fact beyond all reason. The written word tends to limit the Creator by placing a label that by its very nature is limiting. At least the Jews allow for interpretation of the written word.
The Koran spells it out in very clear wording:
"There is but one God and His name is Allah". There is no hierarchy in Islam so each person is free to interpret the text as they understand it. In this way it is easier to subvert it to fit a specific agenda; The problem arises when Islam is made into a government because then you have neither a religion nor a government. It is meant to care for the soul, not the physical and emotional needs of a population.
Corrupt people can corrupt anything around them - even in the USA.
See TSA or the Patriot Act for evidence.

 

[Polk]

Who is actually arguing the things listed in the OP? People arguing that we should generally avoid saying offensive things doesn't mean they're saying we should ban people from saying them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who is actually arguing the things listed in the OP? People arguing that we should generally avoid saying offensive things doesn't mean they're saying we should ban people from saying them.

The fact that Arab countries want to ban insults to Islam through international treaty somehow proves that no one is calling for a ban on insulting Islam in your mind?

??????

 

[PaulS1950]

Islamic law only pertains to those who are members of Islam.
It is a religion and has no place setting forth civil laws to those who are not among its members.
That is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state in the USA.

 

[alpine]

Islamic law only pertains to those who are members of Islam.
It is a religion and has no place setting forth civil laws to those who are not among its members.
That is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state in the USA.

When you say "members of islam", you mean all people under islamic regimes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incitement can be criminalized, despite the free speech guarantee in the Constitution.

Whether it could be applied to inflammatory rhetoric intended to anger Muslims is another matter.

 

[Intense]

Islamic law only pertains to those who are members of Islam.
It is a religion and has no place setting forth civil laws to those who are not among its members.
That is exactly the reason for the separation of church and state in the USA.

Sharia applies to All living in any land where Government adheres to it, whether You are a Believer or not. There is no Separation of Church and State in the Islamic World. The Church is the State. Further, the Goal of Sharia is to Dominate and control All the World. This is Plainly stated and defended in Islam.

 

[Intense]

Incitement can be criminalized, despite the free speech guarantee in the Constitution.

Whether it could be applied to inflammatory rhetoric intended to anger Muslims is another matter.

The argument is a fear tactic to bring the unsuspecting into compliance.

 

[Polk]

Who is actually arguing the things listed in the OP? People arguing that we should generally avoid saying offensive things doesn't mean they're saying we should ban people from saying them.

The fact that Arab countries want to ban insults to Islam through international treaty somehow proves that no one is calling for a ban on insulting Islam in your mind?

??????

If that's what you meant, you should have said so. Instead, it sounded like you're trying to claim there are people in the United States that what such a ban.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incitement can be criminalized, despite the free speech guarantee in the Constitution.

Whether it could be applied to inflammatory rhetoric intended to anger Muslims is another matter.

According to Muslims, calling Mohammad a false prophet is incitement. In fact, making a movie that accurately portrays Mohammad according to Islamic dogma is incitement. Fortunately for you, the US has a different definition of incitement, or your comments on this board would land you in jail

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who is actually arguing the things listed in the OP? People arguing that we should generally avoid saying offensive things doesn't mean they're saying we should ban people from saying them.

The fact that Arab countries want to ban insults to Islam through international treaty somehow proves that no one is calling for a ban on insulting Islam in your mind?

??????

If that's what you meant, you should have said so. Instead, it sounded like you're trying to claim there are people in the United States that what such a ban.

I meant it to seem that way because people in the United States are saying that, what's your point?

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”

Imam Mohammad Qatanani Tells TheBlaze That Free Speech Mocking Islam Should Be Pursued by Dept. of Homeland Security | TheBlaze.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incitement can be criminalized, despite the free speech guarantee in the Constitution.

Whether it could be applied to inflammatory rhetoric intended to anger Muslims is another matter.

The argument is a fear tactic to bring the unsuspecting into compliance.

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incitement can be criminalized, despite the free speech guarantee in the Constitution.

Whether it could be applied to inflammatory rhetoric intended to anger Muslims is another matter.

The argument is a fear tactic to bring the unsuspecting into compliance.

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

 

[Polk]

The fact that Arab countries want to ban insults to Islam through international treaty somehow proves that no one is calling for a ban on insulting Islam in your mind?

??????

If that's what you meant, you should have said so. Instead, it sounded like you're trying to claim there are people in the United States that what such a ban.

I meant it to seem that way because people in the United States are saying that, what's your point?

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”

Imam Mohammad Qatanani Tells TheBlaze That Free Speech Mocking Islam Should Be Pursued by Dept. of Homeland Security | TheBlaze.com

You really need to make up your mind. I respond to your comment talking about the United States, you shift the focus to Arab governments. And now you're back here. Yes, you've found a guy who wants to limit the speech of the creators of this film. I don't agree with him, and I doubt you'll find many people that do. There were also people calling to suppress the guy that made Piss Christ.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The argument is a fear tactic to bring the unsuspecting into compliance.

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

That would depend on whether the speech can reasonably be expected to cause imminent lawlessness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that's what you meant, you should have said so. Instead, it sounded like you're trying to claim there are people in the United States that what such a ban.

I meant it to seem that way because people in the United States are saying that, what's your point?

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] freedom of speech,” Qatanani, leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), told TheBlaze. He explained that while Americans may ”have the freedom“ to speak their mind, ultimately, they “have no right to [talk about Muslim] holy issues“ as it will incite ”hatred or war among people.”

Imam Mohammad Qatanani Tells TheBlaze That Free Speech Mocking Islam Should Be Pursued by Dept. of Homeland Security | TheBlaze.com

You really need to make up your mind. I respond to your comment talking about the United States, you shift the focus to Arab governments. And now you're back here. Yes, you've found a guy who wants to limit the speech of the creators of this film. I don't agree with him, and I doubt you'll find many people that do. There were also people calling to suppress the guy that made Piss Christ.

I wrote the OP, the only reason it references the US is because I live here. People all over the world are saying that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you intentionally say things or as in this case make a movie that you can confidently assume will incite violence,

even if the violence is criminal and unjustified,

are you blameless?

If you say something that causes me to become violent are you responsible?

I will give you a hint, the right answer is no.

That would depend on whether the speech can reasonably be expected to cause imminent lawlessness.

Which can only be expected if the speech is somehow urging me to commit an unlawful act.