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.
: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.
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.
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:
I am not your son. You are neither my father nor my mother.
I am not naive.
I am not ignorant about Islam.
My knowledge of Islam comes from actual in-person interactin with actual practicing Muslims and a study of the books and sites they recommended.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The “spirit” of freedom of speech is incredibly vague and not really what we’re talking about.
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.”
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).
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.