Would these be considered "moderates"?
The UK's Muslim Action Forum (MAF) is seeking to have all depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad labeled as 'hate speech'.
A document posted to MAF's site last month attacks Charlie Hebdo's 'insulting cartoons' with no reference to the terrorist attack committed by Muslims that occurred earlier.
“Muslim Action Forum (MAF) has devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. This strategy and campaign will have taken its first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100,000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world."
MAF intends to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system to establish that such depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of ‘Hate Crime’ that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide. We shall support this strategy through amendment of some existing legislation and the presentation of a Private Members Bill that promotes the idea of Global Civility.”
In addition to wanting cartoons of their prophet outright banned, the group is encouraging its members to ask local MPS if 'Islamophobia' should be a culpable offense.
The document says that this is the single most important issue to “every Muslim in this country and worldwide.”
In any case, the fight for freedom of speech wages on.
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary and investigative reporting like this that you won’t find anywhere else.
GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you more stories like this one.
READ Ezra Levant's book about free speech -- Shakedown: How Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights
FIND OUT who are Canada's radical Muslim leaders and fight back at CanadianJihad.ca
If that does not suit them then the way to rescind the agreement that they now regret is to leave…..it is not incumbent on the secular state to change in order to suit them.
Using Orwellian Newspeak insults does not change agreements entered into in good faith and they cannot say that the consent was not informed consent.
Just as scientists haven’t learned everything, we don’t know everything. It is plainly obvious. The problem is you folks who do take time to study this take hostile offense because someone isn’t as eloquent and versed on articulating their positions. We wish we could! :)
There is evidence: testimonies. Written accounts. Centuries of it. That’s also the kind of evidence that is accepted in a court of law.
The problem is, and this just me assuming, is that atheists, and some not all scientists, dismiss this as evidence.
Can you imagine if our court system did that? Even though someone says they heard and saw say person A kill person B? That would be inadmissible?
That is our evidence me believes. Written historical experiential accounts, or testimonies, about what they heard and saw happen. The same way I believe a scientist would see something, test it to confirm, and record his findings.
But these accounts can’t be tested in a lab or something of the sort. They already happened, and someone wrote it down. The question is: Is that good enough for the scientist. From what I can tell, the answer is a resonding no.
But seriously, if your religion doesn’t permit images of your preferred deity, should you not be averting your eyes and shutting your mouths instead of encouraging the non-believers to create more by engaging in provocative behaviour? You could be pissing the deity off without knowing it and what will be the consequences of that in the afterlife? Imagine the Seinfeld soup nazi: No virgins for you Abdullah! If you don’t look at it and you don’t think about it, then it isn’t real, right? This could be resolved very simply.
Chris, if you understood the commonly accepted definition of atheism, that those making the claims of a god’s existence haven’t met their burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, then you would realize that “scientists” do not attempt to disprove any god’s existence but welcome any evidence brought forward to support these claims and would gladly analyze it (None has ever been presented to a scientific panel of experts), however, as you stated, you are making a claim that a god is a non-physical being of which you have provided no explanation for : this is a logical fallacy called Unfalsifiable Hypothesis/ Special Pleading.
Doris, your argument is also flawed, you are using a common logical fallacy called Ad Ignorantiam :the argument from ignorance. Many fields of science do study the neurology of the brain and how our thought processes work, great advances are made every year in understanding the brain. Atheists would reject your statement that they make any decisions based on “faith”,which is appropriately defined as believing things without evidence (that’s the definition of gullibility). Claiming god is the designer of the universe and the ultimate cause of the universe is yet another fallacy, its the argument from incredulity (most commonly called the God of the gaps argument)… scientists haven’t learned everything about the universe yet, but saying “god did it” when we really just don’t know is also just plain poor thinking.
I try to look at both sides of the arguement, and have noticed some philosophical failures from the atheist perspective. May I?
The problem with the scientific arguement is that it attempts to quantify the presence of processes as always existing, but not how it came into existance.
It attempts to find physical evidence from, what would be by definition, a non-physical being. Attempting to explain metaphysics, from a physics only perspective. Attempting to control the uncontrollable in a fully controllable environment.
I’m a Christian; I would find it rather difficult to worship an all powerful, eternal, immortal “God” if He could be confined to a test tube.
If I could touch Him, that means I could hurt Him. If I could hurt him, that means I could kill him.
Hope that helps :)
You know, like “Dang, it sure is peaceful ‘round here now there’s no more of them pesky infidels always demanding we let women talk”.
The term “god” can be defined as something that is worshipped, exalted or idolized. Therefore, money can be a god. Or a lover. Or power. Lots of evidence of that.
I take your point, though. I prefer to suspend my disbelief and focus instead on the question of knowledge regarding gods. In that forum, I qualify as agnostic.
However, in the realm of ethics and morality, I fall somewhere on the Christian-Buddhist continuum. I believe it serves society well to love my neighbours, pray for my enemies and to love and strive for goodness, recognizing my reach in this will always exceed my grasp.
I also enjoy what can be learned from a long history of Christian/Buddhist/Sufi and similar traditions of mysticism, given our almost entirely unknown reality. And I enjoy exploring religious ideologies as there is often a very consistent internal logic in them.
I wonder a lot what common assumptions about belief we might share with Muslims on which to build a sturdy set of shared beliefs about world government. Including and especially what common assumptions we might share with Muslims similar to you, schooled in and convinced science is a superior platform on which to base beliefs about the world. Because the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood and even IS are full of extremely well-educated scientists. Yet they reject equity, human rights, and democracy in favour of ethnic (Islamic) supremacy and what we consider a very inequitable set of shariah laws.
Our history shares in common with Muslims the life of Abraham so maybe that is where to start. But I’m not sure that gets us anywhere as the accounts of that shared history differ dramatically. Sigh.