Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 13 2018, @12:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the Room-101-dept dept.

As the days go by our hard won freedoms and liberty are slowly being eroded. In Europe a crushing blow has been made to freedom of speech with a European Court of Human Rights upholding a conviction for saying that the person known as Muhammad ten centuries ago was technically a paedophile based on information in historical texts. The statement was made in reference to Muhammad's marriage to a six year old child name called Aisha. The court found that “Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society.”. In giving its ruling that "Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship" the court has additionally demonstrated a complete misunderstanding as to the religion involved which worships "Allah", a word meaning 'God', not 'Muhammad' who claimed to be a prophet of this god. Freedom of speech is dying.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:43PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @02:43PM (#761299)

    There was no 'making fun of muslims' in the GP.

    Speaking of the koran the book itself states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22) so whatever is in it must be true!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:11PM (10 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @03:11PM (#761308) Journal

    if it is a historical fact that an old man had sex with a girl [it] can't be said in public that the person was a pedophile?

    It also say that Adam was 40 feet tall in the koran. Do you make fun of muslims for that too?

    You are missing the point by quite a distance. The idea is not to make fun of Muslims--the idea is akin to, following your example, it would be forbidden to say that someone recorded to have been 40 feet in height was noted to have been "tall".

    The example in TFA is that it's forbidden to say that someone recorded to have diddled little girls was noted to be "a pedophile". That's what those words mean, respectively.

    Observing that someone was recorded to have been something, whether it's "tall" or "thin" or "a pedophile" or "fat" or "rich" or "poor" or whatever they have been recorded to have been, is just that: observing that something was recorded. It's not "making fun" of anyone to notice things written, not by them, long ago.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:10PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @04:10PM (#761343)

      The way I read it is that the case was about her to pull an emotional reaction (hate/disgust/violence against Muslims) from her audience by stating that Mohammed was some paedophile, not that she stated some fact (independent of true or false) or opinion.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:21PM (4 children)

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:21PM (#761377) Journal

        A parallel with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three Abrahamic religions, would be to put down Abraham by talking about "that child killer Abraham and his incestuous family".

        I can see how that might put someone off, and fair enough. But as a Christian I wouldn't take offense to the content (the tone perhaps), because:

        • Abraham was working on killing his son in cold blood and was stopped at the last minute (Gen. 22 [biblegateway.com]).
        • Abraham's nephew Lot impregnated both of his own daughters (Gen. 19:30-36 [biblegateway.com]) after previously offering them sexually to strangers (Gen. 19:4-8 [biblegateway.com]) as a "consolation prize" for a mob wanting to have sex with some visiting angels.

        So Abraham, and his family, are recorded to have engaged in behavior that would today perhaps be frowned upon; they were just humans. In the same way, the prophet (and recorded pedophile) Muhammad is what he is, a man as are the rest of us, but one who is considered to be a prophet of God by one of the world's major religions. Not everyone agrees, of course, but that doesn't change any of the relevant facts pro nor con.

        The recent case in Pakistan about many Muslims wishing a woman to die merely because she disagrees with them, I would think, is more of a reason to point out possible problems with Islam as practiced today than Muhammed's personal habits long ago, but to each his or her own.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:04PM (#761448)

          So Abraham, and his family, are recorded to have engaged in behavior that would today perhaps be frowned upon; they were just humans. In the same way, the prophet (and recorded pedophile) Muhammad is what he is, a man as are the rest of us, but one who is considered to be a prophet of God by one of the world's major religions. Not everyone agrees, of course, but that doesn't change any of the relevant facts pro nor con.

          Another Christian here. I wanted to also point out another wrinkle in even daring to discuss this with Muslims. (I have had at least one or two...ummm...awkward conversations about this.) In Islam, a prophet is considered to be morally far above all the rest of us benighted souls. To even question their actions is tantamount to blasphemy. Thus, to their point of view Mohamed is not "just a man", like the rest of us. As you say, this does not change the relevant facts, but it does indicate how difficult it is to discuss the issue with Muslims.

          The recent case in Pakistan about many Muslims wishing a woman to die merely because she disagrees with them, I would think, is more of a reason to point out possible problems with Islam as practiced today than Muhammed's personal habits long ago, but to each his or her own.

          Yes. People are being persecuted merely for disagreeing with someone else's religion. This strikes me as being necessary for much more immediate attention today.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:07PM (2 children)

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @09:07PM (#761451)

          Abraham's response to God was not "human" it was being a sheep.

          A human response to the idea of murdering your own child because some disembodied voice tells you to would "Fuck off, you psycho".

          Lot also was a monster. His behaviour was not something "that would today perhaps be frowned upon", it would have been an abomination in his time too.

          God acted worse than both though. Imagine forcing a follower to think he had to murder his own child to prove his loyalty.

          • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:04AM (1 child)

            by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @03:04AM (#761576) Journal

            Yes, and apparently none of the Christians/Jews here want to censor you for speaking this way about important people in their religion.

            --
            Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
            • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:39PM

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday November 14 2018, @06:39PM (#761833)

              How would any Jews or Christians censor me on this site? They're welcome to debate the issue, but that doesn't sound like censorship.

              They're also welcome to mod my comments, but that doesn't sound like censorship either.

              Maybe that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Thanks for not posting A/C by the way.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 13 2018, @05:56PM (#761391)

      simply speaking an inconvenient truth is outlawed as hate speech, just as designed.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:53AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @02:53AM (#761572)

        Intent matters.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14 2018, @05:15AM (#761609)

          Nope. Offensive speech should not be banned, even if the intent was to be offensive.

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:56PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Tuesday November 13 2018, @11:56PM (#761506)

      That's what that word means today. Is the article stating that his acts at the time are being categorized using the current definition of a word? Was there a comparable word at the time, and did it mean the same thing as it does now? Also, is this the current legal, dictionary, or common (or even scientific) definition of the word?