M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
how many people have been killed for ridiculing Jews and Holocaust in West? :)
11 dead in shooting at Paris offices of satirical magazine
- Thread starter MariaAli
- Start date
awan4ever
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Charlie Hebdo was a small newspaper with limited circulation. Those who think this incident will stop anyone from future insults forget how widely connected the internet & social media is. Sadly the abuses will fly thick and heavy now. How many will you gun down?
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
these people forget how much publicity the 2008 cartoons about Prophet Muhammad got after the Danish newspapers were threatened and Denmark was boycotted. All it did was make those cartoons become even MORE POPULAR worldwide and became symbols of free speech and justifications of more Islamophobia and mistrust of Muslims in West.
The aftermath of this attack will be felt on the Muslims of Europe only.
Fatema
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
ٰ I think no one, but they are definitely prosecuted, coz it is an offence and hence protected by the law. whereas as ridiculing our prophet is called freedom of expression. . what an irony.
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
dont like it? dont watch or read it. Namoos-e-Risalat will remain intact till Qiyamat (except in Pakistan where some Christian Hindu Ahmadi has to die to protect it right?).
Holocaust led to the lives of MILLIONS being persecuted, oppressed, and killed just for belonging to a community. The guilt of such a horrible crime is no laughing matter. However, yes it is odd free speech is banned on criticising or questioning the accepted Holocaust narrative. Hate speech is also a punishable offence in West that invokes hatred and violence against a community or people.
the debate is not settled and free speech is yet to be completely free anywhere. But to say being offended by a cartoon justifies killing someone? please!
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
what has a Hindu done to you personally that makes you want to wipe them off whilst sitting somewhere in Germany??
Rashna
Banned
Re: Eleven dead, 10 wounded in Paris shooting:
Who told u this? FYI there is no ban on PK in India and it is running successfully all over. In fact in UP it is tax free.
Who told u this? FYI there is no ban on PK in India and it is running successfully all over. In fact in UP it is tax free.
Rashna
Banned
Now it figures why ure busy abusing hindus when some misguided muslims went and killed 12 people in paris. Kahin pe nighahe kahi pe nishana. I think ure even worse than these ppl who actually go out and kill people.
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
Cartoon Debate: The case for mocking religion.
By Christopher Hitchens
On Wednesday, gunmen attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12. The magazine was known for printing images of the prophet Mohammed, including the 2005 cartoons that originally ran in the Danish newspaperJyllands-Posten, leading to widespread violence. In February 2006, Christopher Hitchens addressed that controversy in his inimitable way. His article is reprinted below:
As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate. "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."
Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast.
However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.
Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.
Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophetwho was only another male mammalis apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." (By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis.
I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.
As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.
The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.)
The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
By Christopher Hitchens
On Wednesday, gunmen attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12. The magazine was known for printing images of the prophet Mohammed, including the 2005 cartoons that originally ran in the Danish newspaperJyllands-Posten, leading to widespread violence. In February 2006, Christopher Hitchens addressed that controversy in his inimitable way. His article is reprinted below:
As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate. "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."
Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast.
However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.
Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.
Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophetwho was only another male mammalis apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." (By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis.
I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.
As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.
The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.
Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.)
The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
Fatema
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
No cartoon or insult justifies innocent killings, but as you said above hate speech or in this case provoking a community's religious sentiment in the name of free speech should supose to be banned in the first place but despite several threats and also requests from french authorities they paid no heed and now the consequences. This was bound to happen and one should really see if it was actually a freedom of expression or deliberate provocation which invoked this violent reaction.
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
still not worth killing people. no matter how "offended" i am of someone's words or images. still not worth killing someone. Full stop!
Big game has started...We are still living
in fools.Just check the recent rise of Isisi..Daesh
and rising heat against Muslims in Europe.....guess
who will be beneficiary..in near future??Dont forget
who actually created Khawarij....CIA.RAW..MOSAD.
Khwarij are more worst for Islam than any one else.
in fools.Just check the recent rise of Isisi..Daesh
and rising heat against Muslims in Europe.....guess
who will be beneficiary..in near future??Dont forget
who actually created Khawarij....CIA.RAW..MOSAD.
Khwarij are more worst for Islam than any one else.
What Khwarji?
IS Gen Hamid Gul a Khawarji? There are many like him who strictly support ISIS and other groups like this. In recent years there has been a mushroom growth of Madrassas unchecked. When people used to write about it, there were threatened.
RAW or whatever just has to pay these groups from a third party and watch the fireworks. The real fault lies with Pakistan's military establishment and its stupid people who have always liked people who commit violence in the name of religion.
You cannot convince people. Many people are actually celebrating. Why didn't these people who spend so much on arms and training just file a case. Even if they had lost, it would have made a huge impact. Muslims have a strong point that when holocaust cannot be satirized, why not the same standard for islam?
Sadly, people will never understand.
Fayyaz Sheikh
New Member
Re: Eleven dead, 10 wounded in Paris shooting:
oh mister just shut up we do not create a pic of our prophet but hindu,s does so they can bring it in film,as we do not imagine some one play a role of Mohammad in Film Or drama but they do in plays so the character include in that movie. that you called a fredom of speech do you know the meaning of freedom of speech ? these peoples just do these shits .now go and research again and never ever post base less comments here if u don,t know the reality or u don,t want to ,
free_thinker
Councller (250+ posts)
I don't understand that holocaust argument. I've mentioned that before somewhere
In 221 countries denying holocaust is not crime, including the likes of United Kingdom, United States, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Finland etc.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of...enial_is_legal
So in those 221 countries, no one will be punished for denying holocaust. They will call you crazy head because of denying a very recent and very tragic event where millions of human were killed but no one will shoot to death in act of terrorism for denying holocaust. Read it again it is 221 countries (which is a huge majority of world) compare to around 15 countries where it is outlawed. To my best knowledge even in those 15 countries it is not death penalty (I'll be glad if someone could correct me, with authentic sources, if I am wrong).
Also this cartoonist did the same thing, will ALL the religions of the world. Unfortunately, the act of terrorism came from the religion which is, rather unsuccessfully, promoted as Religion of Peace (oh the irony on this one).
Example of punishment for denying holocaust (it is not death penalty)
Law In Germany
The law has been amended a number of times since its initial passage in 1985.
In 1985, Holocaust denial was outlawed as an ‘insult’ to personal honor (i.e. an ‘insult’ to every Jew in Germany) and a penalty was set under the 1985 law of up to one year in prison or a fine.
In 1994, Holocaust denial became a criminal offense under a general anti-incitement law. The law states that incitement, denial, approval of Nazism, trivialization or approval, in public or in an assembly, of actions of the National Socialist regime, is a criminal offense. The 1994 amendment increased the penalty to up to five years imprisonment.
It also extended the ban on Nazi symbols and anything that might resemble Nazi slogans.
A special clause in Article 130 provides for community service for offenders under eighteen years of age.
Source
Seems to be the case is lot of members here are in denial that denial of holocaust is crime in majority of the countries in the world. In reality it is quite the opposite.
In 221 countries denying holocaust is not crime, including the likes of United Kingdom, United States, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Finland etc.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of...enial_is_legal
So in those 221 countries, no one will be punished for denying holocaust. They will call you crazy head because of denying a very recent and very tragic event where millions of human were killed but no one will shoot to death in act of terrorism for denying holocaust. Read it again it is 221 countries (which is a huge majority of world) compare to around 15 countries where it is outlawed. To my best knowledge even in those 15 countries it is not death penalty (I'll be glad if someone could correct me, with authentic sources, if I am wrong).
Also this cartoonist did the same thing, will ALL the religions of the world. Unfortunately, the act of terrorism came from the religion which is, rather unsuccessfully, promoted as Religion of Peace (oh the irony on this one).
Example of punishment for denying holocaust (it is not death penalty)
Law In Germany
The law has been amended a number of times since its initial passage in 1985.
In 1985, Holocaust denial was outlawed as an ‘insult’ to personal honor (i.e. an ‘insult’ to every Jew in Germany) and a penalty was set under the 1985 law of up to one year in prison or a fine.
In 1994, Holocaust denial became a criminal offense under a general anti-incitement law. The law states that incitement, denial, approval of Nazism, trivialization or approval, in public or in an assembly, of actions of the National Socialist regime, is a criminal offense. The 1994 amendment increased the penalty to up to five years imprisonment.
It also extended the ban on Nazi symbols and anything that might resemble Nazi slogans.
A special clause in Article 130 provides for community service for offenders under eighteen years of age.
Source
Seems to be the case is lot of members here are in denial that denial of holocaust is crime in majority of the countries in the world. In reality it is quite the opposite.
M Ali Khan
Minister (2k+ posts)
the people who killed those cartoonists have more or less the same violent worldview that killed 150 odd school kids in Peshawar.
QADIANITRUTH
Senator (1k+ posts)
Re: Eleven dead, 10 wounded in Paris shooting:
You tell me the count of Sikh killings of 84, not a single person convicted. Mulsim killings of Gujarat, main culprit is PM of India.
I will give you more after you reply.
You tell me the count of Sikh killings of 84, not a single person convicted. Mulsim killings of Gujarat, main culprit is PM of India.
I will give you more after you reply.
