Hitting someone in the face with a bottle is violence, potentially deadly violence, in fact, whether the aggressor is a teenager or not.
Right, because their speech was protected by the constitution, despite other’s willingness to react to it with violence.
That is precisely what happened, Muslims attacked non-Muslims in reaction to their constitutionally protected speech.
What is ludicrous and silly is your attempted denial that this is exactly what happened. A group was engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Another group came along and violently attacked the speakers because they disagreed with the content of the speech. Law enforcement attempted to defuse the violent situation by threatening the speakers with disorderly conduct charges. The court ruled that this violated their constitutional rights.
You can throw around sensational adjectives all you want in an attempt to distract and minimize, it doesn’t change what happened. This incident is in no way a counter example to the disruption and intimidation of Maryam Namazie, by Islamic Society members, at Goldsmith University.
Even if they found a rock or a bottle to throw, you are still spinning the tale to pretend that it is “Muslims” attacking “non-Muslims” simply for offering criticism.
That is bullshit.
It was a bunch of kids reacting to direct taunting by a bunch of idiots. The adult Muslims made every effort to push the kids away from the idiots. The way you phrase it, it sounds as though a few peaceful demonstrators were set upon by mobs (of adults) charging out of a mosque.
I have no problem with the court telling the police to protect people, regardless how stupid they are behaving. I find your attempt to make this a “Muslim” event to be telling. Try dressing up in thawbs and attending a street festival for the Feast of the Assumption or a Christmas holiday and proclaiming that God will punish the infidels and see how long it takes for some teens at the event to begin reacting in much the same way as the kids in Dearborn. (For that matter, given that the Muslim community of Dearborn is part of community of Syrians and Lebanese that includes Christian, there is no evidence that some of the kids were not Christian, reacting to the disruption of the Arab (not Muslim) festival.)
Since it seems FGM is defensible in this thread, perhaps “Taqiyya and Kitman” and their relationship to the ability to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the US Constitution has an equally easy explanation?
Thwe explanation is easy because the word does not mean what you probably picked up from some odd web site. Taqiyya is a concept that applies within Islam to fratricidal actions within Islam and is not pertinent to the rest of the world. It permits a Shi’a Muslim to nod his head and agree with a Sunni to avoid being persecuted.
Even if one expanded the idea to any Muslim denying his or her faith, it only applies when the alternative is explicitly death. In other words, tagiyya only permits a persecuted Muslim to lie (or mislead) an interrogator about his true beliefs when the alternative is imminent death. It does not permit a Muslim to make general lies about his or her attitudes or intentions in life or to proclaim lies when not under the threat of immediate death. It is also considered something to be used in extreme situations, (such as the need to continue to be a provider to one’s family). Like many religions, Islam considers martyrdom for one’s faith to be the more appropriate response to persecution.
In other words, while some idiot web site might proclaim that Muslims are “permitted” to lie about their “real” intentions to non-Muslims, that claim is a lie. (It is also a reproduction of a lie attributed to Jews based on a corrupted interpretation of a passage in the Talmud. It seems to be a common way for bigots to try to claim that all “those people” have permission from their religion to lie about their true intentions.)
I offered Wikipedia–that provides references to its sources–and the Washington Post.
I am not an apologist for Islam and have no interest in claiming that the Qur’an is free of error.
Why should I provide Arabic sources when you have not even provided English rebuttals? You posted as if you were asking a question. I provided an answer. The way that you posted your question indicated a desire to promote some of the nonsense spouted by the likes of Raymond Ibrahim, (also noted in the Wikipedia article).
Have you an actual assertion, supported by facts? Or are you simply here JAQing off?
If an assertion is what you require to restrain youself from unfounded assertions I would refer to the OP and make the assertion that the intellectual freedoms associated with the “Enlightenment” of European culture seem to be threatened by the present form of “Islamic supremacism”
“True faith and allegiance” to the US Constitution and the difficulty of reconciling Islam with the values expressed in that document is the question I asked.
If you like I will submit the opinion that the founders intent when they wrote the first amendment was not to protect sharia law.
meh
Wahhabist Islam is hardly compatible with any other philosophies.
A silly question or assertion. Muslims have been demonstrating “true faith and allegiance” to the U.S. for many years. They have, similarly, demonstrated their faith and allegiance to many other countries that are rules by secular or other non-Islamic governments. There is no conflict between Islam and the U.S. Constitution.
Throwing out he phrase “Taqiyya and Kitman” is pretty much a dead giveaway that one has been reading nonsense on the Internet, (thus my assertions are hardly unfounded).
You spend an awful lot of time arguing against what you imagine things might sound like to other people rather than discussing the actual subjects at hand.
How am I trying to make it a “Muslim event”? WTF does that even mean?
I live in the bible belt and have spent my adult life proclaiming, at every relevant opportunity, that the resurrection of Jesus is a fable no more reasonable than any other zombie story. And I have never been attacked for it.
Anyway, are you trying to claim some sort of equivalence in the reaction of Muslims and Christians to criticism of their beliefs or their prophets? Because if you are, reality would like to have a word with you…
No, it is possible that they were not all Muslim, but this does not falsify my assertion that this isn’t a counterexample as was stated when the event was introduced to this discussion, unless none of them were Muslim, which is exceedingly unlikely given the demographics of the area, as well as their reaction.
So, again, Muslims attacking Christians for criticizing their religion is not a counterexample to Muslims harassing an atheist who is criticizing Islam.
So then the only conclusion is that you are trying to claim it reasonable to tout a nation with virginity tests for women to get civil service jobs, and female genital mutilation, as an example of a nation where women are not suppressed.
More posturing. “Exactly what happened” was a bunch of kooks interrupted a street fair, shouting that the majority of participants were going to Hell for their beliefs and a few kids got worked up and over-reacted.
Get real. You describe a confrontation between a bunch of hate bearing kooks and some kids overreactiong as "This was a case of Muslims attacking non-Muslims in order to silence their crass but constitutionally protected religious speech. . . "
Wait. AFAIK they did not interrupt anything by any other means than voicing unpopular opinions. They did not try to silence anyone or otherwise interfere with the festival, they were just proselytizing. Your or my opinions on their kookiness, or the content of the message, don’t matter. That is the point of having free speech. A culture or legal framework that protects only acceptable speech is meaningless. Religious freedom is meaningless without the freedom to leave and mock a religion.
“A few kids” is language used to minimize what was a mob of adults and near adults, and “getting worked up” is language used to minimize the violence that occurred when the mob started throwing things, including bottles.
Yes. Because that is what happened. Have I ever brought up this incident before? No. I never claimed that this was something particularly important. It was brought up in this thread as a counter-example of another incident in which Muslims used force in an attempt to silence religious speech they disagree with, and it is not, it is another example of the same thing.
Wander down to the local Christmas celebrations in your neighborhood and wave a sign telling the celebrants that they are all foolishly following a fairy-tale and that they need to stop turning off their brains or dress up in a thawb and hold up banners proclaiming the Mohammed is the last prophet of God and see how long it takes to gather a crowd to attack you.
The violent kids in Dearborn were all kids. The Arab adults attempted to get the kids to leave the kooks alone. Spinning this as “Muslims” trying to silence criticism of Islam has no bearing on reality.
As an atheist from the bible belt this is actually similar to how I have interacted with Christians most of my life. I have never been attacked for it or had someone try to silence me or kick me out of anywhere, let alone a public street. I have been told that the tales in the bible are merely allegorical, I have had people try to entice me with promises of heaven, or warn me of hell, usually gently and also sternly on occasion. But never attacked.
Again you try to make this equivalence, and ignore the obvious: criticism of Islam is much more likely to be responded to with violence and attempts to silence it than criticism of Christianity, or any other religion. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
I seriously doubt that this would happen. But it could, and if it did my constitutional rights would be infringed upon. And it still would not mean that a case of Muslims using force in response to criticism of Islam is a counter-example to another case of Muslims using force in response to criticism of Islam.
“one citation was issued to a 21-year old man who was caught throwing a bottle.”
We don’t know the ages of the attackers that the police didn’t catch or detain. Most of the descriptions are of teenagers. There is some overlap between teenagers and adults, of course.
A few did. You can see from the videos that most did nothing. And you can read from the case that the police did very little.
The Bible Believers took their own video, (which they edited to put online, although an unedited version is also available), and that video shows that the overwhelming number of the taunters were kids–well below 18. That a couple of older teens and a 21 year old took part does not change the fact that this was not an adult assault on the kooks, but a bunch of kids. There is another video of guys (early 20s) mocking the Bible Believers among themselves, but they are not involved in the direct harassment.
That the police did not do enough to protect the Bible Believers is different than a claim that “Muslims” were attacking the Bible Believers for their criticism of Islam.
You said the assailants were all kids. ALL kids. Those were the words you chose to use. They were not all kids. Some were adults, as has been proven. You were wrong.