I wouldn't be surprised if this happened either. Hopefully next time the organisers will be brave enough to ignore the threat of barbarian attack.
What's at stake here isn't just freedom of speech or Muslims' freedom of religion to force their beliefs on the rest of us - it's about freedom from religion i.e. the notion that we should not have to live our lives according to the laws of a religion we do not adhere to.
You summarized it very nice with your 9 points. Thank you.
I do think it was very good G.Wilders stopped the contest. First of all he showed these Muslims how to behave. G.Wilders has been threatened for 10 years and under protection 24/7. He cancelled because these Muslims threatened to kill all politicians and all Dutchmen. Not for himself.
"I hope the organisers will be brave enough to ignore the threat of barbarian attack".
It feels better to say "I hope next time the the whole world will act strong, as one, against this horrible barbarian attack by these Muslims."
[But this will take time. Westerners are bound too much by political correctness IMO]
By stopping the contest these Muslims showed their real face. No sorry, not acknowledging this kind of threat about "a painting" is overkill and leading to crimes.
So they gave us proof of what they are up to in regard to imposing on the world their religious rules. Good to know for the West. Can't ignore it anymore IMO.
I don't get your logic either. It is VERY simple. As a Muslim you should acknowledge "Muslims should not impose their rituals/religion on others AND kill-threat is sick" May I remind you: You want to forbid us to "draw Muhammad" in OUR country. How about we forbid you to write in Koran "Jesus is NOT the son of God" in YOUR country. You mess with the Christian version of Jesus and get upset if we "draw Muhammad". I think your sacrilege is way bigger than the Christian one. And Muslims started this.
Pakistan forced Geert Wilders to cancel Muhammad Cartoon Contest by "murder threat"
1 Amsterdam Imaam called to protect Geert Wilders, but Muslim organisation CMO did not agree (spoiler 6)
Personally I think Freedom of Speech should not be used to irritate on purpose. But the issue here is 10.000 Muslims so full of hate that they don't see that using an "atom bomb" is overkill to express their unhappiness with a "relatively harmless drawing of Muhammad".
In Pakistan 10.000 protested [maybe 1% of the 1 million total who agree]. Is it still terrorists only?
Pakistan Leader tells the world "If I had an atom bomb I would remove Holland from the earth" [spoiler 9)].
I never hear 10.000 protest against these kind of things in the Islam/Koran; of course extremist protest more.
What do you think about Freedom of Speech? [A few questions come to mind]:
a) Is Freedom of Speech okay when it offends Muslims as in this case "Muhammad Cartoon Contest"?
b) Is Freedom of Speech still okay when it evokes "murder threats"? [compare with US man in spoiler 3)]
c) Is it "responsible act of the West" to allow blasphemy[Koran] leading to "murder threats" by Muslims?
d) Is it correct that G.Wilders stopped Contest? Should we change this Law or obey to demands "terrorists"?
e) Should Freedom of Speech/Religion be re-evaluated [Law + highest Imaam + Pope] before/after killings?
f) Are "murder threats" Pakistan acts of "terrorism"? How to solve this internationally? [see also spoiler 8)]
g) If 10.000 Pakistani join protest to "kill G.Wilders" is this still Islamists only?
h) Should Muslims have the right to impose their Sharia Law onto other countries (by threatening to kill)?
i) Should there be a kind of International Law forbidding Muslims to make these kinds of murder threats?
j) Should head of Imaams speak out against this kill threat [See below]? Say nothing conveys agreeing?
Most interesting argument IMO is made in number 6) below in spoiler [under the titel "Political gain"] Political gain
The Contact Body Muslims and Government (CMO) does not call for the protection of Wilders. "That is the task of the authorities", says chairman Halil Karaaslan [This Feels like "not taking responsibility for this horrible threat. We talk about "Muslim community in Pakistan ordering to murder Dutch politicians in cold blood because of a Drawing Context in Holland for God's sake". No Paris regrets nor internationally Muslim responsibility I see]
Even if it was true, do you honestly believe such a utopia is possible in Islamic controlled western countries.
What did the Iranian Islamists do to those that helped them gain power?
Where are the modern day examples of this golden age of Islam?
As you must know, Sharia is Allah’s law and as such cannot be changed so how could it be changed during this golden age?
BTW, the first video was 3:24 long and the second was 13:02, giving a total of more than 16 minutes yet you responded within 5 minutes. Was there a reason for not watching the second video?
Even if it was true, do you honestly believe such a utopia is possible in Islamic controlled western countries.
What did the Iranian Islamists do to those that helped them gain power?
Where are the modern day examples of this golden age of Islam?
As you must know, Sharia is Allah’s law and as such cannot be changed so how could it be changed during this golden age?
BTW, the first video was 3:24 long and the second was 13:02, giving a total of more than 16 minutes yet you responded within 5 minutes. Was there a reason for not watching the second video?
You're jumping around an awful lot. We were talking about a historical period, not about any modern context. You still don't know what sharia is, and I don't participate in debate by uncommentated youtube video.
Bit of a chicken/egg thing. Are we freer because we're more developed or more developed because we're freer? I've read compelling arguments that social progress is a pure function of technological advance.
That's an interesting question. The Ancient Greeks defined themselves as 'free people' - it can be argued the notion of citizenship was conceived around this very premise - and yet by our standards they were horribly oppressed; many Greek rulers were out-and-out tyrants.
Pakistan forced Geert Wilders to cancel Muhammad Cartoon Contest by "murder threat"
1 Amsterdam Imaam called to protect Geert Wilders, but Muslim organisation CMO did not agree (spoiler 6)
Personally I think Freedom of Speech should not be used to irritate on purpose. But the issue here is 10.000 Muslims so full of hate that they don't see that using an "atom bomb" is overkill to express their unhappiness with a "relatively harmless drawing of Muhammad".
In Pakistan 10.000 protested [maybe 1% of the 1 million total who agree]. Is it still terrorists only?
Pakistan Leader tells the world "If I had an atom bomb I would remove Holland from the earth" [spoiler 9)].
I never hear 10.000 protest against these kind of things in the Islam/Koran; of course extremist protest more.
What do you think about Freedom of Speech? [A few questions come to mind]:
a) Is Freedom of Speech okay when it offends Muslims as in this case "Muhammad Cartoon Contest"?
b) Is Freedom of Speech still okay when it evokes "murder threats"? [compare with US man in spoiler 3)]
c) Is it "responsible act of the West" to allow blasphemy[Koran] leading to "murder threats" by Muslims?
d) Is it correct that G.Wilders stopped Contest? Should we change this Law or obey to demands "terrorists"?
e) Should Freedom of Speech/Religion be re-evaluated [Law + highest Imaam + Pope] before/after killings?
f) Are "murder threats" Pakistan acts of "terrorism"? How to solve this internationally? [see also spoiler 8)]
g) If 10.000 Pakistani join protest to "kill G.Wilders" is this still Islamists only?
h) Should Muslims have the right to impose their Sharia Law onto other countries (by threatening to kill)?
i) Should there be a kind of International Law forbidding Muslims to make these kinds of murder threats?
j) Should head of Imaams speak out against this kill threat [See below]? Say nothing conveys agreeing?
I am just going to provide a general answer instead of addressing each. Free speech trumps a religion and it's followers sensitivities. Do not like a cartoon? Do not look at it. Simple. None of the cartoons are calls to violence so are acceptable in general regardless of how many agree with what is said/drawn.
That's an interesting question. The Ancient Greeks defined themselves as 'free people' - it can be argued the notion of citizenship was conceived around this very premise - and yet by our standards they were horribly oppressed; many Greek rulers were out-and-out tyrants.
That's an interesting question. The Ancient Greeks defined themselves as 'free people' - it can be argued the notion of citizenship was conceived around this very premise - and yet by our standards they were horribly oppressed; many Greek rulers were out-and-out tyrants.
Ah..... I think your post title should have referred to 'Freedom to Insult' rather than 'Freedom of Speech'.
I'm just wondering why anybody would deliberately go about trying to upset millions of folks like this?
Anyway, my freedom to speak (with RF rules?) is strongly pressuring me to suggest that Geert Wilders is an attention seeking, rather nasty minded, ummmm........ jerk.
You're jumping around an awful lot. We were talking about a historical period, not about any modern context. You still don't know what sharia is, and I don't participate in debate by uncommentated youtube video.
We acquire knowledge by listening to knowledgeable people and then considering their evidence. The alternative is to blindly accept what we are told without question.
Why do you think that Islam demands the second option and calls anything else Blasphemy?
Morning! ...ummm... ...sorry...... 'Evening!'
Ah yes....... Christians.
Now, my history lessons over the last decade or two suggest that Romans executed their convicts in agonising pain for as long as possible in a state of extreme demeaning shame and disgrace, and naked.
So......... what would happen if some idiot decided to hold a cartoon competition focused upon what Christ REALLY looked like on the cross?
Can you imagine the uproar? And yet folks think it's ok to deliberately insult a huge vast religion's prophet.
Demented.
I wish Geert Wilders a happy and contented and safe life, but if he has a few dreadful nightmares each night for a long time I personally won't be worrying about it.
We acquire knowledge by listening to knowledgeable people and then considering their evidence. The alternative is to blindly accept what we are told without question.
Morning! ...ummm... ...sorry...... 'Evening!'
Ah yes....... Christians.
Now, my history lessons over the last decade or two suggest that Romans executed their convicts in agonising pain for as long as possible in a state of extreme demeaning shame and disgrace, and naked.
So......... what would happen if some idiot decided to hold a cartoon competition focused upon what Christ REALLY looked like on the cross?
Can you imagine the uproar? And yet folks think it's ok to deliberately insult a huge vast religion's prophet.
Demented.
I wish Geert Wilders a happy and contented and safe life, but if he has a few dreadful nightmares each night for a long time I personally won't be worrying about it.
Ha ha ha. Seriously? Anyway, how is that remotely relevant to what I said? Can you name a religion that DOESN'T consider proselytizing of other religions blasphemy?
But since you ask...
Considering events that occurred solely on command of church authorities, the number is arguably 100 millionish, and that's NOT taking into account the decimation of New World populations by means other than violence, or actions by predominantly Christian state actors not explicitly (but often justified by) Christianity.
Refugee groups push for open borders.
We were seeing a doubling of "refugees" every 2 years.
Sharia law is tolerated, respected or given equal footing by politically
correct people. Same people ignore what Muslims are allowed to do
to other Muslims, even other people.
We were seeing a doubling of "refugees" every 2 years.
Sharia law is tolerated, respected or given equal footing by politically
correct people. Same people ignore what Muslims are allowed to do
to other Muslims, even other people.
Sharia law is "tolerated" to the same extent that church canon law or Jewish rabbinical law is "tolerated". What do you think Muslims are allowed to do that other people aren't?
