# Is there freedom of speech in any Islamist society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448 "2012-09-12T00:31:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![AdanTheSomali](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7ba0ec/32.png) [@AdanTheSomali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdanTheSomali)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/81 "2012-09-15T15:17:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Great! That’s encouraging. > > As I said to **Valteron** when he made a similar claim in a concurrent thread: Sure, I understand why fundamentalist radical-extremist Salafi clerics argue that only their own interpretation of Islam is correct, and that any Muslims who adopt a less violent and repressive interpretation of their faith are being deluded by “erroneous” and “bastardized” and “corrupt” doctrine. It makes perfect sense that fundamentalist radical-extremist Salafi clerics would think this way. > > What I don’t understand is why you are supporting their fundamentalist intolerance by championing their opinions. Since it’s up to Muslims in general to determine for themselves the meaning and nature of Islam, why are you insisting that they have to stick with the most repressive and belligerent interpretation possible? > > If you yourself are not a fundamentalist radical-extremist Salafist, then why on earth do you want to go around “junior-_imam_ing”, so to speak, to scold non-fundamentalist Muslims for their alleged “backsliding” from fundamentalist radical-extremist Salafist principles? > If you had lived in the later period of the Roman Catholic Inquisitions, would you also have been bad-mouthing liberal reformist anti-Inquisition churchmen as “cafeteria Christians” who were “living in error” and not practicing Christianity “as it should be practiced”? > > Hey, it says right there in “the creed originally preached” that people who want to follow other gods should be put to death, anyone who doesn’t remain in Christ should be cast into the fire and burned, etc. Would you be calling out all those “bastardized” Christians for daring to “shed the more dogmatic aspects of the faith” and spinelessly giving up on the true and pure Christian practice of executing unbelievers? > Lorry knose there are plenty of intolerant repressive “true believers” in every age and clime who loudly assert that they’re the only ones with the correct interpretation of their faith. What I don’t understand is why any reasonable and tolerant person would think themselves obliged to agree with them. Be aware that Salafi Islam is quickly ascending in the Islamic world, backed by lavish funding from the Arabian Gulf. Many a former cafeteria Muslim have now become hardcore salafists, enjoining the practice of this pure Islam in their communities and nations around the world. Not only do Salafis have the benefit of being better funded than all the other sects, but they also enjoy being the sect which most closely is aligned with the teachings proscribed in the Qu’ran and the literature of the hadith. Any honest intelligent individual who studies these holy literature will quickly realize that Salafi Islam is the most intellectually justifiable form of Islam from the standpoint of adherence to scripture and the prophet’s teachings. I have NEVER met a practicing Muslim who supports freedom of speech or democracy or gender equality, etc, because all these things are in clear violation of the Qu’ran or the hadith as they are conventionally accepted. Furthermore, just because I am trying to educate people on the true Islam does not mean I am opposed to progress or reform, though Islam is unlikely to go through any of these two phenomena to the extent Christianity did so many years ago. Islam probably will never become like mainline protestant Christianity, where people go to Church only once a week where they sing and dance and read from a bible that not even the minister himself takes seriously before leaving again and not acting particularly religious in their outside life. Understanding the realities of Islam and the ummah today, this is unlikely to happen in fact they very opposite is happening as I told you about above. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/82 "2012-09-15T17:06:09Z")
> [@AdanTheSomali](#): > > Any honest intelligent individual who studies these holy literature will quickly realize that Salafi Islam is the most intellectually justifiable form of Islam from the standpoint of adherence to scripture and the prophet’s teachings. :dubious: Funny how such a self-evidently superior and more accurate interpretation of Islam didn’t manage to gain any significant traction as a social/popular movement until within the past couple of centuries. Clearly, Salafist fundamentalist and repressive scriptural literalism has not been necessary to the survival and spread of Islam as a world religion for most of its history, any more than evangelical-Christian fundamentalist and repressive scriptural literalism has been necessary to Christianity. So it seems somewhat revisionist to start insisting at this late date that that kind of fundamentalist literalism is the only “correct” way to interpret the religion. > [@AdanTheSomali](#): > > Furthermore, just because I am trying to educate people on the true Islam Well, that’s your own junior-imam (or junior-mullah, perhaps?) way of describing it. Personally, if I were talking to, say, a Nizari Ismaili Muslim or a Chishti Sufi Muslim who asserted that their liberal and tolerant beliefs were a valid approach to “true Islam”, I would consider it both rude and counterproductive to try to contradict them. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/83 "2012-09-16T10:36:41Z")
> [@AdanTheSomali](#): > > I don’t understand why individuals who are ignorant about Islam, like the above individual, insist on commenting on threads about Islam. I bet one cursory reading of the wikipedia entry on Islam is the culmination of this naive boy’s study of Islam. Come back to me when you have studied the fiqh and the opinions of the ulema past and present, son. Here are a few facts for you–facts, as in something actually true as opposed to your opinion, something you wish to be true contrary to actual evidence–to contemplate: 1. I am not your son. You are neither my father nor my mother. 2. I am not naive. 3. I am not ignorant about Islam. 4. My knowledge of Islam comes from actual in-person interactin with actual practicing Muslims and a study of the books and sites they recommended. 5. You might be well-advised to learn this board’s rules before you toss out more insults in GD. Come back to me after you’ve contemplated those five facts. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/84 "2012-09-16T19:28:33Z")
The idea that Salafism is the only form “pure” Islam or that Salafists are the only people practicing Islam as it was supposed to be practiced is pure crap. It’s certainly what the Salafists claim but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny any more than the claim by the Puritans that they’re practicing pure Christianity or that Hasidic Jews, who dress like they’re in a 17th Century Shetl, are practicing Judaism as it was practiced thousands of years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/85 "2012-09-16T22:57:24Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > The idea that Salafism is the only form “pure” Islam or that Salafists are the only people practicing Islam as it was supposed to be practiced is pure crap. > > It’s certainly what the Salafists claim but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny any more than the claim by the Puritans that they’re practicing pure Christianity or that Hasidic Jews, who dress like they’re in a 17th Century Shetl, are practicing Judaism as it was practiced thousands of years ago. I think the argument is that Salafists practice a version of Islam that is much more theologically defensible given what the Quran and the hadiths say about how to interpret the scripture ,ie abrogation. I think that’s not as totally crazy as you make it appear. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/86 "2012-09-16T23:07:23Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > Freedom of speech is not about being allowed to say words, it’s about being able to express yourself and your ideas without fearing censure for the same. “Censure” is not the right word. It means harsh condemnation, and harsh condemnation is a form of protected speech. The word you want is “illegal”. Even in the USA some speech, although not much, is illegal. However, verbal blasphemy is now completely protected, or nearly so, in the US. Many other Western countries have anti-hate speech laws which might make it hard to get away with saying “Islam sucks” in some situations. > [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > By default anti-aposty/blasphemy/whatever laws prevent you from exchanging ideas freely. “Aposty”-- you mean “apostasy”? Apostacy means to renounce your religion, and is a separate issue from blasphemy. It is of course fair to suggest that the right to apostasy should be as absolute as the right to blasphemy. And so it is throughout the West. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/87 "2012-09-17T00:38:22Z")
> [@Anduril](#): > > I think the argument is that Salafists practice a version of Islam that is much more theologically defensible given what the Quran and the hadiths say about how to interpret the scripture ,ie abrogation. I think that’s not as totally crazy as you make it appear. Only to the Robert Spencers of the world and those who think he’s a reliable source. The Salafists never came around until just a few centuries ago, their interpretations are extremely selective, and the religion they practice would be unrecognizable not only to most Muslims today, but to the Muslims of 14 Centuries ago. They’re a reaction to an Islamic community that has seen a huge turnaround in the world, where just a few centuries ago they were far more advanced than the west to now being behind, and have reacted that way by re-imagining a time that didn’t really exist and who’ve convinced themselves the reason the Islamic world suffered the setbacks it has was somehow being insufficiently “pure”. They’re like the Hasidic and other ultra-Orthodox Jews claiming that they’re like the ancient Jews. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/88 "2012-09-17T04:42:26Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Only to the Robert Spencers of the world and those who think he’s a reliable source. > > The Salafists never came around until just a few centuries ago, their interpretations are extremely selective, and the religion they practice would be unrecognizable not only to most Muslims today, but to the Muslims of 14 Centuries ago. > > They’re a reaction to an Islamic community that has seen a huge turnaround in the world, where just a few centuries ago they were far more advanced than the west to now being behind, and have reacted that way by re-imagining a time that didn’t really exist and who’ve convinced themselves the reason the Islamic world suffered the setbacks it has was somehow being insufficiently “pure”. > > They’re like the Hasidic and other ultra-Orthodox Jews claiming that they’re like the ancient Jews. That Salafists came around just recently and that Salafism is not practiced by most Muslims today are not relevant to whether their beliefs are indefensible. That their interpretations are extremely selective would be relevant. Care to give us a few examples of how they’re selective and how it’s not theologically indefensible? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/89 "2012-09-17T11:09:50Z")
No, what’s relevant is how Islam has been practiced for many centuries. The newcomer outfits, regardless of how badly or well their beliefs and practices mesh with the literal text of the Qur’an, cannot claim in all honesty that their beliefs and practices are how Islam has been practiced for many centuries. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/90 "2012-09-17T13:17:30Z")
> [@AdanTheSomali](#): > > Ok, so even in this example of “personal liberty in Islam” that you copied and pasted from some random website, it states pretty clearly that freedom of expression is tolerated only to the extent that it " reflects the values of the Holy Our’an". Duh. Much like our personal freed is limited by law, and social custom, and ethics, and our personal religious beleifs too. So what? > [@](#): > > And this thread is talking about the “irresponsible freedom” that your article mentions, and I doubt even the very liberal sects who at least acknowledge some sense of personal freedom would tolerate any attempt to criticize Islam or to even preach another religion alongside it. You are completely wrong. Many Islamic countries today tolerate other religions. Islam has a long history of toleration of other religions. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/91 "2012-09-17T13:20:53Z")
> [@AdanTheSomali](#): > > Just take a look at countries which implement shariah law and tell me how much freedom of expression and personal freedom is in those societies. Like Saudi Arabia or The Islamic Republic of Iran or Taliban Afghanistan or any other region of the world which is ruled by an Islamic entity. This is about Islam, not shariah. Not all Muslim nations implement shariah, and many do so only as part of the legal system. > [@](#): > > You probably will discover that as soon as Islam takes over a nation’s political system it generally starts to diminish personal freedoms, until such a time where their is virtually none and people are free to do only one thing: worship Allah. What does this have to do with the OP though? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/92 "2012-09-18T11:00:08Z")
One thing I wonder about the imans of the Muslim faith in democratic countries, is why they don’t speak out louder against terror and killing of innocent people. Is it fear of their own life? There are many Muslims who don’t condone killing of innocent people. In a war if some innocent people are killed by acciden,t too many people raise a stink…That is the worst thing about wars, too many innocent people die, even in the WTC bombing wasn’t there Muslims killed? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/93 "2012-09-18T11:09:41Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One thing I wonder about the imans of the Muslim faith in democratic countries, is why they don’t speak out louder against terror and killing of innocent people. For one thing, the media isn’t interested much in that sort of rhetoric, and the media controls the volume. They can’t really speak louder if the media isn’t interested, and rioters & rabble rousers make better copy. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/94 "2012-09-18T12:09:56Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One thing I wonder about the imans of the Muslim faith in democratic countries, is why they don’t speak out louder against terror and killing of innocent people. Is it fear of their own life? There are many Muslims who don’t condone killing of innocent people. Hell, in \*\*non-\*\*democratic countries too there are plenty of Muslim clerics who speak out against violence, sometimes even as they condemn the Islamophobic insults that people are getting riled up about. Examples of sensible people speaking up against batshit hysteria can be found worldwide. For example, in [Somalia](http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/features/2012/09/16/feature-01): > [@](#): > > Muslim clerics in Somalia widely denounced an independent film insulting the Prophet Mohammed, but called for restraint and peaceful demonstrations in line with the tenets of Islam. […] > > Mogadishu-based cleric Sheikh Hassan Abdirahman […] said respecting the Prophet is a religious obligation for Muslims, but stressed the importance of defending the religion in a sensible and wise way, rather than resorting to violence as a means of expressing anger. In [Los Angeles](http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Coptic-Muslim-Leaders-Denounce-Middle-East-Violence-170069536.html): > [@](#): > > Muslim and Coptic Christian leaders stood shoulder to shoulder on Monday to publicly condemn the violence – including the deadly siege of the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi – that was sparked by a film associated with a self-described Coptic Christian that denigrates the Prophet Muhammad. […] > > “There should have been no bloodshed. In fact, there should have been no reaction to such an insignificant production,” said [Dr Maher] Hathout [an Egyptian born physician and senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council]. In [Cairo and Saudi Arabia](http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-clerics-urge-calm-as-anti-us-protests-peter-out/): > [@](#): > > Senior Muslim religious authorities issued their strongest pleas yet against resorting to violence Saturday, trying to defuse Muslim anger over an anti-Islam film a day after new attacks on U.S. and Western embassies that left at least eight protesters dead. […] > > The top religious authority in Saudi Arabia, Grand Mufti Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheik, condemned the movie on Saturday but said it “will not harm” Islam or Muhammad. > > “Muslims should not be dragged by wrath and anger to shift from legitimate to forbidden actions. By this, they will unknowingly fulfill some aims of the film,” he said. In [Qatar](http://www.whbf.com/story/19541691/indonesia-police-on-alert-for-us-embassy-protest): > [@](#): > > An influential cleric reminded worshippers that the American government had no role in the film and that “loyalty to the Prophet is not expressed by attacking embassies.” But as **Der Trihs** notes, this type of moderate reaction is not considered particularly newsworthy in most Western media, and it gets drowned out in the tsunami of reports about protests/riots/calls for bloodshed. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/95 "2012-09-18T12:12:44Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > This is the problem with the term “freedom of speech.” A society might have blasphemy laws, yet have completely open speech otherwise. Would that society not qualify as having freedom of speech because it’s not total freedom? I would say the _spirit_ of “freedom of speech” is the freedom to state any _opinion_. And that’s why the restrictions that many countries have against obscenity in certain contexts, “shouting fire in a theatre”, national secrets, lying to the police etc are not usually considered to impinge upon FoS. So in terms of blasphemy laws, it’s not the quantity but the quality that matters. If “blasphemy” was just defined to be, say, calling god expletives, then I wouldn’t say that was against FoS. You can state an opinion without using those words. Whereas prosecution just for saying “god doesn’t exist” is contrary to FoS. Currently states with blasphemy laws are all of the latter type AFAIK, so yes IMO they don’t have full FoS. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/96 "2012-09-18T12:53:09Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Currently states with blasphemy laws are all of the latter type AFAIK, so yes IMO they don’t have full FoS. Sure. I’m simply saying that this wouldn’t mean they have NO freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/97 "2012-09-18T14:33:07Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Sure. I’m simply saying that this wouldn’t mean they have NO freedom of speech. Well they have “speech” and “permitted speech” but freedom of speech implies no restrictions. Now of course, as we’ve said here, and in countless other threads, no country on earth grants its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any context. But some countries’ restrictions are against the _spirit_ of freedom of speech (the freedom to state any opinion) and some are not. A single restriction that is against the spirit of freedom of speech means you do not have freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/98 "2012-09-18T14:45:44Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well they have “speech” and “permitted speech” but freedom of speech implies no restrictions. Bu that was my point. Even many European democracies have restrictions on speech. Even the U.S. has restrictions on speech. So it’s misleading to put them on a list of “yes” or “no.” There are degrees of freedom. > [@](#): > > Now of course, as we’ve said here, and in countless other threads, no country on earth grants its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any context. > But some countries’ restrictions are against the _spirit_ of freedom of speech (the freedom to state any opinion) and some are not. The “spirit” of freedom of speech is incredibly vague and not really what we’re talking about. > [@](#): > > A single restriction that is against the spirit of freedom of speech means you do not have freedom of speech. Well, then, no country on Earth has freedom of speech, since as you just said, “no country on earth grants its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any context.” ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/99 "2012-09-18T15:22:53Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The “spirit” of freedom of speech is incredibly vague and not really what we’re talking about. Yes it is. How do you think freedom agencies classify countries? By _quantity_ of laws against speech? No, clearly there are different _kinds_ of restrictions on speech. And some restrictions are not considered to impinge personal liberty (other than liberty to commit crimes against others). > [@](#): > > Well, then, no country on Earth has freedom of speech, since as you just said, “no country on earth grants its citizens the unrestricted right to say anything in any context.” You clearly just parsed my point a moment ago, but now you choose to play dumb to make an asinine point. If “freedom of speech” meant the freedom to say anything in any context e.g. stand outside of a school shouting expletives, or to advertise any product with the line “Official Disney merchandise” then sure, no country has FoS. But of course it doesn’t mean that. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448/100 "2012-09-18T15:41:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Yes it is. How do you think freedom agencies classify countries? By _quantity_ of laws against speech? Certainly better than “spirit.” > [@](#): > > No, clearly there are different _kinds_ of restrictions on speech. And some restrictions are not considered to impinge personal liberty (other than liberty to commit crimes against others). My point all along has been that we should not simply classify this as “free” or “not free.” That would be pointless, and it appears that you agree. > [@](#): > > You clearly just parsed my point a moment ago, but now you choose to play dumb to make an asinine point. Please don’t get all snippy. Communication goes both ways. I am making sure we understand each other. > [@](#): > > If “freedom of speech” meant the freedom to say anything in any context e.g. stand outside of a school shouting expletives, or to advertise any product with the line “Official Disney merchandise” then sure, no country has FoS. > But of course it doesn’t mean that. Glad we agree. Now, please avoid saying things that may appear to say otherwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-freedom-of-speech-in-any-islamist-society/634448.md?page=6)