Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Yasnov

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - The Liar

Recommended Posts

If you believed that you'd have to delete 90 % of the quotes you've posted to this website, and half of Islam's public speakers would be silenced. Hate speech is free speech, and I'd rather hear hateful opinions than no opinions at all.

 

I suppose that's your opinion, but one I completely disagree with. Lack of opinions don't hurt people, they don't disrupt societies, they don't create ill-feelings and hatred. It is opinions, usually ill-bred ones, that do.

 

In my opinion, every regime that has ever limited free speech is horrible, and the more they limit it, the more horrible they tend to be. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe.. It's a symptom of a tyranny.

 

And allowing people free rein to spew hate-filled tripe all over the world, resulting in enmity and restlessness, is better? There should be a clear distinction between the right to express yourself, and the right to slander people and create nothing but trouble.

 

Abu Hurairah narrated that the messenger of Allah said :

"Let him who believes in Allah and the Last Day either speak good or keep silent, and let him who believes in Allah and the Last Day be generous to his neighbour, and let him who believes in Allah and the Last Day be generous to his guest." [bukhari and Muslim]

 

Salam.

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
There should be a clear distinction between the right to express yourself, and the right to slander people and create nothing but trouble.

 

There's no right to slander people in most countries which have some degree of free speech. However it is not possible to 'slander' anything other than a living person (ie, you can't 'slander' a religion). This is pretty sensible, as it's not possible to objectively determine the truth of religious claims, and truth is (in some legal systems, but not all) a defence against slander.

 

'Creating nothing but trouble' is also in the eye of the beholder, and can't be determined by the legal system (except in extreme cases, hence the hate-speech laws in some countries).

 

But really, it comes down to what it takes to live in a civilised society. If you can't accept that other people's ideas are as valid as yours, even if you don't like them, and if you can't accept that what some people regards as art IS art for them, then you need more education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?? I'm not sure what you're asking I believe that everyone should have the RIGHT to free speech, and I don't think that laws that LIMIT free speech are RIGHT, as in proper or useful.

I believe that everyone should not have the RIGHT to hate speech, and I don't think that the freedom to hate speech are right, as in proper or useful.

 

In my opinion, every regime that has ever limited free speech is horrible, and the more they limit it, the more horrible they tend to be. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe.. It's a symptom of a tyranny.

Yes, they are horrible, because they limited any speech that are not in favour of the rulers.

 

And I have to say that I never understand why so many muslims are hostile to the idea of free speech. especially those that live in the west. Don't you realize that without our belief in free speech, you would never be able to speak about or practice/spread your religion in the western world?

I never understand either why so many Westerners are thinking that Muslims are hostile to the idea of free speech just because they (Muslims) are against hate speech.

 

Don't you get that without that loyalty to free speech, most of these websites and crazy imams who spew out the garbage some of you guys post, would be shut down?

Why shut it down? That's a little bit too extreme. Why don't you just sue them? And then let them defend themselves in court. If they are proven guilty, you can shut it down.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really, it comes down to what it takes to live in a civilised society. If you can't accept that other people's ideas are as valid as yours, even if you don't like them, and if you can't accept that what some people regards as art IS art for them, then you need more education.

So, you are not prepared to be questioned for your art? But expect people to always be prepared anytime you want to question their belief system or their culture?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you are not prepared to be questioned for your art? But expect people to always be prepared anytime you want to question their belief system or their culture?

 

 

? Who said art shouldn't be questioned? If you have free speech you can question anything you want. What you can't do is threaten to kill artists whose ideas you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have free speech you can question anything you want.

It's just a natural response if people react to your art. It does not depend on whether or not they have a free speech. You don't give them free speech, they will still voice their objection over your art.

 

and if you can't accept that what some people regards as art IS art for them, then you need more education.

And what is it that you need if you can't accept that what some people regard as lies as lies and respect as respect for them?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really, it comes down to what it takes to live in a civilised society. If you can't accept that other people's ideas are as valid as yours, even if you don't like them, and if you can't accept that what some people regards as art IS art for them, then you need more education.

 

In essense, you are saying that the emotional and mental well-being of some have to be sacrificed to ensure rights to those who have nothing but malice and ill-intentions in their hearts. How very sensible. If you believe that people should have the right to create problems where there are none, you need more education.

 

Salam.

Edited by Redeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just a natural response if people react to your art. It does not depend on whether or not they have a free speech. You don't give them free speech, they will still voice their objection over your art.

 

They can SAY what they like; they cannot DO what they like.

 

 

And what is it that you need if you can't accept that what some people regard as lies as lies and respect as respect for them?

 

Sorry, I don't understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In essense, you are saying that the emotional and mental well-being of some have to be sacrificed to ensure rights to those who have nothing but malice and ill-intentions in their hearts. How very sensible. If you believe that people should have the right to create problems where there are none, you need more education.

 

No, I'm saying that the right to think and speak freely is one of the most important rights we have. If it needs some restrictions, (the classic "you have no right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre", for example) so be it. I don't much like racial villification laws (for example) but I can see that they might be needed in some circumstances. I definitely do not support religious villification laws.

 

However, on the whole, people whose "emotional and mental well-being" are damaged by freely expressed ideas are probably not sufficiently educated in what it takes to live in a civilised society. If you want to live in a village where everyone thinks exactly the same (or is afraid to mention it if they don't), fine. Just don't try to enforce that cramped and sterile world on the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can SAY what they like; they cannot DO what they like.

You are confusing my point. I am for the laws against hate speech. But it does, in no way, mean that I am supporting people to do whatever the like in response to your art.

 

Sorry, I don't understand this.

Well, you previously said that Muslims should accept that you regards art as art, if Muslims can't accept this, then they need more education.

 

Since the Danish cartoon portraying the Prophet as terrorist is nothing but a lie, then I replied by saying that you should accept the fact that Muslim regard regard lies as lies, not art.

 

the classic "you have no right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre", for example) so be it.

Do you ever think why you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre? Because it is simply a lie. A lie which will lead to a unneccasirily chaotic situation. But if it is true that there is fire in the theatre, people will thank you, I am sure.

 

However, on the whole, people whose "emotional and mental well-being" are damaged by freely expressed ideas are probably not sufficiently educated in what it takes to live in a civilised society.

Respect and tolerance are a few characteristics of a normal civilised society. Why are you this deluded, fallow?

 

If you want to live in a village where everyone thinks exactly the same (or is afraid to mention it if they don't), fine. Just don't try to enforce that cramped and sterile world on the rest of us.

Now I get an idea how a village in Australia may look like : )

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing my point. I am for the laws against hate speech. But it does, in no way, mean that I am supporting people to do whatever the like in response to your art.

 

OK. By the way, though, if someone produces an artwork offensive to (say) Mormons, and the Mormons vigorously object to it, that could be hate speech and illegal. You have to be extremely careful in framing laws to prevent hate speech.

 

Since the Danish cartoon portraying the Prophet as terrorist is nothing but a lie, then I replied by saying that you should accept the fact that Muslim regard regard lies as lies, not art.

 

I don't actually regard the Danish cartoons as art, more as journalistic comment. But if Muslims regard them as a lie, so what? I regard the idea that I'm ghoing to hell unless I convert to Mormonism as a lie, but I don't want Mormons prevented from saying it.

 

Do you ever think why you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre? Because it is simply a lie. A lie which will lead to a unneccasirily chaotic situation. But if it is true that there is fire in the theatre, people will thank you, I am sure.

 

Actually, no - even if there is a fire, shouting 'fire' is a silly thing to do. But assuming that you are correct, my point about lack of education stands. If people were less liable to be panicked by fire there would be fewer problems. If people were less liable to be panicked by criticism of their religions there would be fewer problems.

 

 

Respect and tolerance are a few characteristics of a normal civilised society. Why are you this deluded, fallow?

Now I get an idea how a village in Australia may look like : )

 

Precisely. Respecting an artist's right to say, film, write, or paint anything s/he wants is an essential part of a civilised society. Tolerating the ideas of people who do not have the same beliefs as you is another.

 

Muslim men spitting on women wearing bikinis at Sydney beaches and calling them "whore" is not an example of respect or tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn - this misuse of the word "lie" has infected me, too. I DON'T think it's (necessarily) a lie if Mormons tell me I'm going to hell unles I convert, I think they are simply mistaken. Similarly, it's quite likely that the Mohammed cartoonists were simply mistaken. For something to be a lie there has to be intent to deceive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK. By the way, though, if someone produces an artwork offensive to (say) Mormons, and the Mormons vigorously object to it, that could be hate speech and illegal. You have to be extremely careful in framing laws to prevent hate speech.

Yes, the laws should be narrowly defined in a very careful way.

 

I don't actually regard the Danish cartoons as art, more as journalistic comment. But if Muslims regard them as a lie, so what? I regard the idea that I'm ghoing to hell unless I convert to Mormonism as a lie, but I don't want Mormons prevented from saying it.

As I said, the laws should be narrowly defined. What you suggest is not lies, it is belief. Because no one can prove it one way or another. It is considered beliefs. If mormon can tell you that you are going to hell, you can also say that the mormon will go to hell. So, there should not be laws for basic belief like this. Atheist may say that you are going to rot after your death, and you can say that atheist will burn in hell. That's ok. This is not lie as lie.

 

Actually, no - even if there is a fire, shouting 'fire' is a silly thing to do.

I don't get it.

 

Precisely. Respecting an artist's right to say, film, write, or paint anything s/he wants is an essential part of a civilised society. Tolerating the ideas of people who do not have the same beliefs as you is another.

Yes, bringing them to court for hate speech is also my way to respect the humanity of the artists.

 

Muslim men spitting on women wearing bikinis at Sydney beaches and calling them "whore" is not an example of respect or tolerance.

I am for the punishment for these men. You still failed to grasp what I stand for obviously. It makes you seem like grasping at straw.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the laws should be narrowly defined in a very careful way.

 

Cool. I don't think they should include hurting people's feeling by insulting supernnatural beings. They DEFINITELY shouldn't include anycensorip whatsoever of artworks (yep, that opens another can o' worms).

 

 

I don't get it.

 

Sorry, but this is cultural and historial. In the past (say, prior to the early 20th century), before strong building codes and so on, fires in theatres in western countries were often calamities causing huge loss of life. Because of this, people were extremely afraid of them, so shouting 'fire!' would cause a panic which would result in many injuries and possibly deaths. The same could happen today, despite the fact that the fire is unlikely to be as disastrous thanks to building regulations and better fire brigades. So, shouting 'fire!' is unlikely to be the best thing to do - informing the management so they can alert the fire brigade and implement their fire plan is the best thing to do.

 

Yes, bringing them to court for hate speech is also my way to respect the humanity of the artists.

 

Sorry, no. 'Hate speech' cannot be defined as something that you, personally, find hateful. Nor can it be defined as something that your religion finds hateful. Artists must be free to say what they want. Restrictions of artists is a very strong clue that a society has problems. The same goes for free expression in general.

 

I am for the punishment for these men. You still failed to grasp what I stand for obviously. It makes you seem like grasping at straw.

 

Good, but why would you be against people who verbally attack (forget abot the spitting) women exposing an un-Islamic amount of skin in public? You would attack a film or a TV show that did the same, wouldn't you? You would object to a nude statue being studied in a school, wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but this is cultural and historial. In the past (say, prior to the early 20th century), before strong building codes and so on, fires in theatres in western countries were often calamities causing huge loss of life. Because of this, people were extremely afraid of them, so shouting 'fire!' would cause a panic which would result in many injuries and possibly deaths. The same could happen today, despite the fact that the fire is unlikely to be as disastrous thanks to building regulations and better fire brigades. So, shouting 'fire!' is unlikely to be the best thing to do - informing the management so they can alert the fire brigade and implement their fire plan is the best thing to do.

I like your reasoning. If the disadvantage is greater than the benefit then people should not shout fire then in a crowded theatre. I am with you on this one.

 

Sorry, no. 'Hate speech' cannot be defined as something that you, personally, find hateful. Nor can it be defined as something that your religion finds hateful.

Why not? We can define gayphobia laws as what gays find hateful. And it works well so far.

 

Good, but why would you be against people who verbally attack (forget abot the spitting) women exposing an un-Islamic amount of skin in public? You would attack a film or a TV show that did the same, wouldn't you?

I don't understand your questions.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? We can define gayphobia laws as what gays find hateful. And it works well so far.

 

WHAT gayphobia laws? In my state and afaik throughout Australia there are laws against discriminating against people by their gender and sexual orientation in schools, workplaces and so on, but none specifically against sexist/anti-gay speech. The only specifically anti-hate-speech laws are those against racial villification, and afaik they only apply in one or two states.

 

***edit - apologies, one state does have a Homosexual Villification law. The rationale seems to be that there can be laws against villification about things we have no control over, such as gender, race and sexual orientation. Religion is a matter of choice, and thus in a different category.

 

Luckily, no matter what anti-free-speech laws are enacted there's absolutely no way that great artworks such as 'Ulusses' would be prosecuted for anti-Catholicism or less great ones such as 'The Satanic Verses' for anti-Islam. If a perceived insult to Islam causes a violent reaction, the criminals will always be those who commit the violence, never the poeple whose ideas cause the violence. Ideas are what make us human - restricting them is a far gresater crime that hurting someone's feelings.

 

One reason why a puritanical worldview is met so strongly by "the west" (and numerous other regions and countries) is that there has been a constant struggle between puritanical and humanistic forces in our cultures, but over the past 100 years or so the humanistic side has finally won. Everyone gets to vote, not only people who have penises, not only people who own a certain amont of property; no-one is forced to conform to gender sterotypes; no-one is forced to be afraid of a god; no-one is forced to censor themselves. Everyone is free to decide who they are and what they want to do (with the usual 'as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else caveat). You should try it.

 

Yes, there are problems, no they do not outweigh the vast benefits in terms of human freedom.

Edited by fallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I made anti-gay comments and mean it to be an art one, how come the gays find it hateful and think that it is to incite hatred against gay people? What are the criteria?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with hate-speech laws. They are too vague. It's better to have no restrictions. The definition of art has always ben a concern in law - it was always legal to display paintings of naked women, even when it was illegal to publish photographs of naked women. Film Festivals were allowed to show films that would have been censored or banned for ordinary cinemas. And so on. Many people believed that this showed a class bias - the people who went to art galleries and film festivals were supposed to be able to control themselves better than the less educated working class.

 

Anyway, if your artwork is an artwork, you'll be able to defend it in debate with people who are offended. If you are charged you'll be able to defend yourself in court. But I agree, why should you? Better to have free speech.

 

I don't know enough about the NSW Homosexual Villification law (which is actually just one small part of the Anti-discrimination Act) to say, but I do know that oponents of the law claimed that it would make reading the Bible aloud in public would become a crime, as the Bible advocates killing gays (or something). No-one has been charged with reading the bible aloud, nor do I know of any other frivolous charges. Whether this is because the law is designed to prevent this, or whether the legal system has enough common-sense to avoid it, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem with hate-speech laws. They are too vague. It's better to have no restrictions.

Laws being too vague is not really an excuse to completely remove them.

 

The definition of art has always ben a concern in law - it was always legal to display paintings of naked women, even when it was illegal to publish photographs of naked women. Film Festivals were allowed to show films that would have been censored or banned for ordinary cinemas. And so on. Many people believed that this showed a class bias - the people who went to art galleries and film festivals were supposed to be able to control themselves better than the less educated working class.

There is always disagreement regarding the defining of arts. But all it shows is that we are people with different opinions. It's democracy indeed. You cannot please everyone. However, we can work on it until we are able to make as minimum differences as possible. Don't use it for your own advantage to completely force your extreme values over others.

 

Anyway, if your artwork is an artwork, you'll be able to defend it in debate with people who are offended. If you are charged you'll be able to defend yourself in court. But I agree, why should you? Better to have free speech.

Why are men supposed to feel better if they have hate speech?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laws being too vague is not really an excuse to completely remove them.

 

No, but it does show that there's something wrong. It might be that the law just needs to be rewritten, but it can also show that there's a fundamental injustice underrlying the law. In this case, the idea that richer people could be trusted with nudity and poorer people couldn't.

 

There is always disagreement regarding the defining of arts. But all it shows is that we are people with different opinions. It's democracy indeed. You cannot please everyone. However, we can work on it until we are able to make as minimum differences as possible. Don't use it for your own advantage to completely force your extreme values over others.

 

Yes and no. "Community standards" (ie the will of the majority, ie democracy) are supposed to be an element in legal decisions, and community standards are against censorship. However, community standards are not expected to decide specialised matters. The Arts, like any other specialised field, has its own scholars, and their opinion matters more. My views aren't 'extreme' at all. I can't think of one person working in the arts or with an interest in the arts who doesn't think free speech is the best way.

 

Why are men supposed to feel better if they have hate speech?

 

Did I say that? No. That's like arguing against trains because trains sometimes kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but it does show that there's something wrong.

Right. If we think there is something wrong, then let's fix it instead of removing it.

 

It might be that the law just needs to be rewritten, but it can also show that there's a fundamental injustice underrlying the law. In this case, the idea that richer people could be trusted with nudity and poorer people couldn't.

And there are more percentage of poor people than rich people in this world where the poor outnumber the rich by plenty. This alone is enough proof to show that your argument is wrong.

 

Yes and no. "Community standards" (ie the will of the majority, ie democracy) are supposed to be an element in legal decisions, and community standards are against censorship. However, community standards are not expected to decide specialised matters. The Arts, like any other specialised field, has its own scholars, and their opinion matters more. My views aren't 'extreme' at all. I can't think of one person working in the arts or with an interest in the arts who doesn't think free speech is the best way.

But arts are supposed to benefit community as whole, not just the scholars?

 

Did I say that? No. That's like arguing against trains because trains sometimes kill people.

Yes, sometime trains kill people. That's why we need to prevent it from running out of track. We need to maintain it, upgrade it. We need to take precautionary measures and etc.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×