…At least you don’t posses it if you are a Muslim living in the Netherlands.
“A Dutch Muslim group was fined 2,500 euros ($3,200) for publishing a cartoon which suggested the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews, a Dutch appeals court ruled on Thursday.”
Here is the deal:
2005: The Danish cartoons of the Prophet are published, and a big part of the world seems not to care of mocking the most holy icon of the Muslims. They call it ‘freedom of speech’.
2008: Geert Wilders publishes his Fitna-film. Again, they call it freedom of speech and do not question the inmorality of such acts full of hatred.
2010: A Dutch Muslims group is fined and gets a 2-year probation period for having published a cartoon of Holocaust back in 2006. The court calls it “unnecessarily hurtful.”
So, dear readers….Do you sense the irony?
“The Dutch group says it had no intention of disputing the Holocaust, but wanted instead to highlight what it described as double standards in free speech.”
This is plain hypocrisy. Soon it must be clear to everyone that this so-called “freedom of speech” is under the premisses of our governments. I am absolutey sure that we will not see people as Gert Wilders or Denmark’s “dear” Pia Kjærdsgaard disapprove with the Netherlands’ ruling on this case. Gert Wilders is protected and is free to ridicule Islam and Muslims(which can be viewed as “hurtful” to some people) by the laws of the Netherlands. However, it does not go the other way around. Oooh, dear double standards.
I am sure this case will be swept under the carpet immediately and it will not even be discussed. People tend to keep silent when injustice happen.
Read further here: Dutch Muslim group fin…
I read about this earlier today as well and was shocked.
Though personally, I think that what they did was distasteful and unnecessary – even in the cause of revealing the double standards that are clearly in place here. I do think though, that Holland (at least I know Germany has) has laws prohibiting publicly doubting the Holocaust due to the tragic effects it has had on the country. So maybe it wasn’t the best choice for their protest, as we should always keep the laws of the country that we live in (as long as they don’t go against Gods laws of course). Furthermore, I think trying to offend other people, because you’ve been offended, frankly is just sinking to their level.
When all of that has been said however, I think the punishment is completely out of proportion with the “crime”. I do believe that they didn’t intend to actually dispute that Holocaust took place, and instead it has clearly been shown just how two-faced the media and general public is, and the double standards that are clearly in place.
Posted by Becky | august 20, 2010, 16:38Agreed. However, it’s a bit funny that there are laws forbidding this, and at the same time, these countries where these laws are to be found, didn’t have problems with the Danish cartoons. I get sick of the double standards. They speak highly of their freedom og speech and in reality it doesn’t even exist.
Posted by Fatima | august 20, 2010, 23:31I agree with that 100% as well, I never meant to imply that what happened with the cartoons was okay, I think they should’ve been punished as well. Or no one should be punished. Or maybe people could just stop trying to offend each other and instead respect the right to different beliefs without having to constantly prove other people wrong. Now wouldn’t that be nice. Unfortunately, I think that’s highly unlikely
Posted by Becky | august 20, 2010, 23:36Well written. As you mentioned there no such thing as absolute freedom of speech as the westerners sometimes try to portray it. Sure, there is freedom of speech, but this exist as long as you don’t cross certain limits.
I think freedom of speech is wonderful, but why do they misuse it to attack religions and religious peoples faith? Where is the respect for the human beings?
May Allah hasten the re-appereance of Imam Mahdi(AJ)
Posted by Feras | august 20, 2010, 23:43Well then they must admit that this so-called freedom of speech only exist under THEIR limits. It’s simply pathetic that they made such a big deal out of it and then it ends with THEM setting strange limits. It’s pretty obvious to me that the case of the cartoons was clearly a case of hatred and disrespect. They did show us what really was on their minds and got away with a lot in the name of freedom.
“We CAN and WILL hurt Muslims, but we most certainly CANNOT and will not hurt Jews”. – Is this what they call freedom nowadays? Is it really these morals our children have to be taught? That no matter what, we are “free” to mock and disrespect each other? And they say that discrimination isn’t to be found in these countries…
I hope that no one misunderstand what I’ve written. I don’t find it all right to mock Judaism, Christianity, or another religion as well. I’m simply looking for respect within society.
“May Allah hasten the re-appereance of Imam Mahdi(AJ)”
May Allah(swt) hear from you, brother.
Posted by Fatima | august 21, 2010, 22:07Truely you have pointed to the weak point in their arguments. They are not interested in real freedom of speech and they do have double standards in this matter.
I think also that their problems is like the single human beings, unable to see their own defects and spending time on finding the defects of others. This reminds me of a beautiful hadith from Prophet Mohammad(S):
“Lucky is the one who is so busy with his own faults that he doesn’t have time to find faults with others”.
Posted by Feras | august 22, 2010, 01:45Keeping with the point above, I also really like what prophet Jesus (PBUH) had to say about this: “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:41)
Posted by Becky | august 22, 2010, 10:25I like the King James version better:
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | august 22, 2010, 17:40My dear friends,
I’m afraid it’s all in your minds.
There is of course no hypocrisy on the part of the Dutch, and I’m frankly amazed at your ignorance. I mean, don’t you follow the news at all – or is your sole purpose in doing so to find pretexts to be offended? If not, then you really ought to know that, less than six months ago, the Dutch Prosecutor General put Geert Wilders on trial in Amsterdam, charged with inciting hatred against Muslims (for comparing the Quran with Mein Kampf). Furthermore, in 2008, the cartoonist, who goes under the pen-name “Gregorius Nekschot,” was arrested and taken into custody for interrogation after 10 police officers had raided his appartment in Amsterdam. He was released soon after, but faces prosecution for hate speech, charged with insulting Muslims on the basis of their beliefs.
I fail to see how this adds up to “hypocrisy” or “double standards?” What I do see, however, is how stupid and anti-democratic it is trying to protect people from being offended by prosecuting the people they feel offended by. I mean, where does it all stop? I, for one, feel offended all the time by people who mock Danes, agnostics, democracy and freedom of speech. But do I want to fine them or lock them up? No way! I simply grit my teeth and smile. And then I hit them with my rhetorical hammer.
But alas, the Dutch have lost their way in this matter. In my opinion, it is a terrible, terrible thing for them to gag people for their ideas by sicking the courts on them. Believe me, if people can’t vent their grieveances without risking prosecution, they will find other outlets. And as a society, we obviously have no interest in that.
Down that road lies hatred and, ultimately, war.
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | august 22, 2010, 17:35I can agree with you Jorgen partially atleast. Cause even if we are living in a society with freedom of speech, or supposed one, then you are free to have your say in matters of society and that regards religion too.
But there is a big difference between making fun, mocking and ridicule a whole community. That is not accepted and is punishable by law as racial agitation. Me as a muslim have no problem with people who critize Islam but do that in a constructive way.
Cause I too wan’t a free atmosphere. But what Wilders does has nothing with this to do. He has a problem with muslims and are going in line with the western atmosphere after 9/11 in agitating against the muslims.
While you are true about the actions of the Dutch society I can say that it seems to lame for me. For me as a muslim I don’t see their actions against him for comparing the Holy Quran with Mein Kamph as a problem comparing to his movie “Fitnah”. If they charge him for this, it would be the same mistake(?) the americans did when they hanged Saddam al-Tikriti because of the “small” massacre in Dujayl comparing to all that he did against Iraq and it’s poor people.
As for the cartoonist, I haven’t heard of him and I can’t say anything about that. I take it as you live in Denmark and can you hold that Danske Folkeparti is not anti-muslim in their doings?
As I mentioned in my first post, I don’t wan’t to abolish freedom of speech. I as a muslim want this in every country, but it should be based on RESPECT. And if I am going to give some critic, it should be constructive. We should’t heart each others feelings.
Maybe we have something to learn from the lessons from the lebanese tv-channel al-Manar who stopped airing the serial “The Messiah” when the christians in the country complained about it. What do you think of that?
Posted by Feras | august 22, 2010, 22:44Hi Feras, thanks for your reply.
I am happy to see that we are not in total disagreement. However, we do differ on certain very important points, and I should like to explore those in depth. Unfortunately, I’m a bit hung up today so I shall probably not be getting back to you until tomorrow. In parting, let me say just this: Freedom of speech based on mutual respect is a beautiful ideal. However, it is also a poor substitute for the real thing, for you cannot enforce respect. And if you try to do so anyway (e.g., by introducing laws making it illegal for people to say nasty stuff about beliefs that are held sacred by you and me), they’ll simply say them anyway among their peers. Thus, the nasty things will be allowed to fester and grow unchallenged, with potentially disastrous results.
I’ll try to develop my thoughts a bit further tomorrow. Stay tuned to Radio Al-Hashimi.
Jørgen
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | august 23, 2010, 13:41I completely agree.
Freedom of speech is only relative to the societal good.
And by the way, Jews are a threat to all goodness and honesty.
Unfortunately Hitler did not finish all the Jews.
Posted by Samina | oktober 3, 2010, 00:25First they took the Communists. I didn’t protest, as I am not a Communist.
Then they took the Social-democrats. I didn’t protest, as I’m not a Social-democrat.
Then they took the Unionist-leaders. I did’t protest, as I’m not in an Union.
Then they took the Jews. I did’t protest, as I’m not a Jew.
Then they took me. And there was no-one left to protest.
Written by german pastor Niemöller, who sat in KZ-camp.
Samina, aren’t you just feeding the crocodile hoping to be the last to be eaten?
Posted by AagePK | oktober 3, 2010, 11:18Samina, if your point is that people should have the right to publicly advocate genocide without risking imprisonment, I completely agree with you (as long as they don’t take steps to actually implement their ideas, obviously). However, if you happen to be an active proponent of such views yourself, I find you repulsive.
So, which is it?
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | oktober 3, 2010, 14:27Samina, I think you could learn from Hamed Abdel-Samad. He, son of an egyptian imam, joined the Muslim Brotherhood, and marched under the flag of the prophet, shouting:” Death onto the jews!”
If you google his name, pick the link “The Cursed Freedom” at spiegel.de , or watch the videos with interviews in arabic, german or english.
Posted by AagePK | oktober 4, 2010, 20:28@ Samina
..And I totally disagree with you. You clearly lack a great deal of humanity..
Posted by Fatima | oktober 5, 2010, 11:37I heard it is possible to do a temporary marriage with a girl and I also know that religiously you will be rewarded for it.
So in this connection, I wish to state that I am a handsome and well-educated guy who is looking for a honorable lady for a temporary marriage. You may chose the duration and I am willing to do a down payment of 25.000 kr for 6 months, got a tight budget:).
Hoping for a positive reply or else I have to go to Iran which is a bit far.
Posted by With Attitude | oktober 5, 2010, 18:38Forget about mutah! I know just the….Slettet/deleted.
So, what are you waiting for?
Redigeret af/ edited by Fatima Al-Hashimi
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | oktober 5, 2010, 20:21hahah priceless, maybe you have to be a little bit serious?
You know mutah is for uglypeople, the goodlooking (e.g like me), doesnt really need to pay alot of money to get married for some weeks or months…
Posted by Mohammed-jawad Tahir | oktober 6, 2010, 08:15@ With Attitude
Maybe it was an idea if you just got married for good..
@ Jørgen
Jørgen, jeg blev altså nødt til at slette det meste af din kommentar. Du ved nok også godt hvorfor. =)
Posted by Fatima | oktober 5, 2010, 23:26Ja, jeg regnede nok med, at den var liiiiige på kanten.
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | oktober 5, 2010, 23:34Du må undskylde ham Jørgen, Fatima, han kan virke noget kantet engang i mellem. Det er hans unge alder………………eller noget andet.
Posted by AagePK | oktober 6, 2010, 07:18I hoped for a positive reply. Is there not a single girl who wants to be rewarded religiously?
Getting married for good is boring and full of hassle. Why not make a contract for 6 months and then go to the next girl and make another contract. And I will be rewarded for it too.
Dear Fatima, you seem to be someone with connections, would you help a brother out:) Love you all
Posted by With Attitude | oktober 6, 2010, 13:39You forget to adorn your questions with the requisite incantations. If you want to walk the walk, you need to talk the talk. Thus, when you write
you immediately give yourself away. Because, if you actually were the person you pretend to be, your query would have been phrased something like this:
If you want to know about Nikah al-Mut‘ah why don’t you just ask people directly? It is, after all, a very interesting feature of Shi’ism.
And one, I might add, that I personally find rather disturbing.
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | oktober 6, 2010, 15:34With Attitude
First of all: this is not a dating-site. I hope you’ll respect that. Secondly..
“Getting married for good is boring and full of hassle. Why not make a contract for 6 months and then go to the next girl and make another contract.”
May God help the girl you’ll end up with some day(if that would happen)..
This gives me the creeps..
Posted by Fatima | oktober 8, 2010, 00:29And as Jørgen points out by linking to Nikah al Mutah, this is only within the law, if the woman has been married before, and lawfully divorced or a widow.. It is not for “girls”, who in this context would have to be virgins, am I right?
Posted by AagePK | oktober 8, 2010, 15:19“Gives you creep”…you sound more like a sunni now. I know that the sunnis regard temporary marriage as exploitation of women and something forbidden, but I did not expect that of you
However, I have a question, because you guys seem to be well-grounded in fiqh…why do people compare shia faith with christianity…I had difficulty in answering them…they say that the same faith system exists (bishop and pope who are sinless) and our honorable imams who are infallible. How should I answer them? There was a sunni guy and his arguments were very convincing, but how should I rationalize it according to shia faith? I am really in doubt.
Does shia faith encourage shirk by attributing Allah’s attributes to human? Please answer all my questions……it does not make any sense to me….
Posted by With Attitude | oktober 12, 2010, 21:44Well, you’re nothing if not persistent, I’ll give you that. And you sure know how to put your fingers on the sore spots. But why not drop the pious pretence? I don’t think anyone’s buying it anyhow.
Not that there’s anything wrong with your questions. Infallibility in a human being does seem a rather odd concept for strict monotheists to subscribe to. Not to mention rent-a-wife arrangements like mutah. I thought Islam was all about having the willpower to avoid temptations? I mean, when you fast, you’re not allowed a temporary meal just because you can’t hack it, right? To me it sounds like a loophole for sleeping around.
Which is enjoyable, make no mistake. Maybe I should chat with my wife about converting after all?
Posted by Jørgen Laursen | oktober 13, 2010, 01:33Aage, you’re wrong; a virgin girl is allowed to enter this marriage. It’s allowed for all girls and women; however, within certain limits and rules.
By the way…I have a “surprise” for you.
Posted by Fatima | oktober 9, 2010, 14:11I can’t wait to hear it! But if it is a proposal, I’ll have to ask my wife first! (I don’t want the money, I’ll only do it for love!)
Posted by AagePK | oktober 10, 2010, 13:22I won’t break your marriage, Aage. No need to worry. =D
Posted by Fatima | oktober 10, 2010, 14:34@Jørgen Laursen
“Pious pretence” you are funny Jørgen, but never the less you have a point. I had a secret agenda when I asked about temporary marriage. For the past few years i have been studying the differences between the sunnis and the shia. In this connection, one thing that stood out was the concept of temporary marriage. I could not rationalize it to myself nor could anyone else do it.
I understand persian and I listened to many lectures of the scholars in Qom, but I find it very difficult to accept, intellectually.
So i said to myself, maybe I should ask people whether they are willing to enter a temporary marriage, but to my surprise “it creeps them as Fatima stated”. So if it creeps an average girl, should I accept that this was an act of Our Honorable Prophet Muhammad (SAW).
Nor could I justify to myself the concept of infallibility. After all, we are brought up with the concept, but it is very difficult concept to digest when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) states that “He (SAW) does not know what will happen to him (saw)” and He (SAW) forgot surahs during the prayer and so on.
So there are two options, I could stop thinking and believe and do things I am told to do or I should do and believe which makes sense to me.
If I chose the first option, everything will be fine and I have to live with my doubts, but if I chose the second option than I have to face the wrath of my conservative past and that can’t be good. Yeah, you are right, I am also thinking of converting to sunni:)
Posted by With Attitude | oktober 14, 2010, 00:35@ With Attitude
If you wouldn’t mind, I’ll give you a reply in a mail. I’m kind of busy these days, and this discussion is really long. Furthermore, I don’t wish it to be a sunni-shia discussion in this particular topic.
Hope that’s not a problem.
Posted by Fatima | oktober 14, 2010, 15:03By the way…It seems as if more than one person in this debate has misunderstood the concept of the temporal marriage. If it is needed, please tell me, and I’ll try to write an article about it(though I’m almost tired of discussing it).
Posted by Fatima | oktober 14, 2010, 15:06