Freedom of Speech

[AMusee]

A Must Watch! A brilliant speech on why Allah and His Prophets should be protected from insults and mockery.

“Isn’t it ironic that the West uses the stabbing of Salman Rushdie to push the “glorious” idea of free speech this is while we live in a time of cancel culture.

Ask if a teacher can teach that homosexuality is a sin not just in classes but openly outside of the school environment without being threatened with the sack.

Ask whether one can speak out against Zi0nism without being labelled anti Semite with prominent individuals facing repercussions.

Ask whether Facebook, Twitter etc don’t ban or suspend users for exercising their “free speech”.

Ask whether these social media companies will tolerate anti vaxxers spreading their views

Ask whether countries like France, Germany or Austria allow anyone to question the validity of the numbers killed in a state recognised genocide (ie a historical event) and see whether they would be arrested and jailed.

Ask whether certain individuals were targeted for assassination for what they said as opposed to any direct acts of violence like the paraplegic sh Ahmed Yasin.

The list goes on to the point that even many non Muslims realise that free speech doesn’t exist.

The point isn’t that I agree with one view or another I mentioned above. The point is these very claims of championing free speech is so easily sacrificed when it conflicts with values the West itself holds dear or whether those in power deem certain ideas intolerable for them to be openly mentioned.

Salman Rushdie isn’t a martyr to free speech he’s just a symbol of the hatred the West has towards Islam and another example of the hypocrisy we consistently see in the West.

Free speech? Yeah right.”

- Sharif Abu Laith

 

[TheManWhoIsAlive]

If y'all knew what memetic warfare was, y'all would understand the state of the world a lot better.

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

Salman Rushdie: Neo-Orientalism and Western Hypocrisy​

Salman Rushdie was physically attacked a few days ago, and everyone must be informed of this, considering that the Western press has been unanimous in hailing the “courage” of this “talented” novelist for “standing up” to “Islamic extremism” for decades (a reference to Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against the British-Indian writer).

Our aim in the present article is not so much to defend or condemn the attack, which is as irrelevant as Salman Rushdie the individual himself, but to see why Salman Rushdie the symbol unveils the West’s unyielding deceit.

RELATED: The Right Kind of Free Speech in Islam

Neo-Orientalism and Indigenous Privilege​

Rushdie is just one average writer among so many.

In the genre he’s known for, i.e., magical realism (portraying the world as it is but infusing fantastic elements which become natural parts of it), there are far more talented writers, especially in Latin America (think of Gabriel García Márquez among many others).

For example, Belgian writer Robert Poulet (died 1989) is barely mentioned nowadays because he collaborated with national-socialist Germany. But he was a founding father of the genre, penning such novels as early as in the 1920s.

But surely, Westerners, who are allegedly such objective lovers of art and beauty, will forget Poulet’s flirtations with fascism and appreciate his literary works for their own value, right?

The quite simple truth is that Rushdie’s rabid Islamophobia doesn’t disqualify him in Western eyes, unlike, say, far-right extremism.
But with Rushdie, there’s even more: Like V.S. Naipaul, who was the only Hindu nationalist fiction author of note, Rushdie is a sort of “neo-Orientalist.”
Orientalists, “old White men,” are no more the flavor of the day in our postmodern and post-racial West.

But in the times of neoliberalism, the Orientalist has been replaced by the neo-Orientalist, and instead of White privilege, we can talk of indigenous privilege: Rushdie, “because he’s brown and of Islamic background,” can carry on the old Orientalist clichés about Muslims (“they’re backward, fanatics, etc.”). He can do this precisely because he’s a dark ex-Muslim. He’s given a free pass to express these intellectually lazy and hateful platitudes, where it would be seen as politically incorrect for Whites to do so.

Another famous case is, of course, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has no academic credentials at all, but is authorized to pen whole books about Islam because she’s “a Somali ex-Muslim.”

There’s even academic literature about Rushdie’s neo-Orientalism.

Take Beyazit H. Akman’s chapter Neo-Orientalism, Neo-Conservatism, and Terror in Salman Rushdie’s Post-9/11 Novel, published in the collective book Middle East Studies After September 11: Neo-Orientalism, American Hegemony And Academia (edited by ‪Tugrul Keskin and released by Brill in 2018).

Akman looks at Shalimar The Clown in detail, and he notes how Rushdie’s first post-9/11 novel just cemented old Orientalist banalities about Islam (“barbaric,” “jihadism,” etc.)

Are These Writers “Courageous” As Well?​

We’ve seen that the only reason Salman Rushdie benefits from more Western attention than other, often way more talented writers is because he is a native informant pushing neo-Orientalism.

But considering that the West has no problem with Rushdie attacking the sacred (Islam), surely they’d have no problem if other writers attack another form of “the sacred”?
For instance, the Holocaust, which many consider the very last form of what is sacred in the secular West.

So why was prolific British David Irving jailed for “Holocaust denial”?

The Guardian reported back in 2006:

The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust.
An eight-member jury at a court in Vienna convicted Irving, 68, a few hours after it began its deliberations on the first day of his trial.

Robert Faurisson, a French historian, too was persecuted for these reasons in France, which prides itself on its free speech protections.

RELATED: France Shuts Down Muslim Publishers – No “Free Speech” for Muslims

The New York Times reported in 2018, in its obituary about Faurisson:

Mr. Faurisson was regarded as a father figure by contemporary French exponents of Holocaust denial, the extremist fringe in a country with a long tradition of anti-Semitism. (…)
Mr. Faurisson distinguished himself by making a rare breakthrough into the country’s mainstream media, publishing a notorious opinion article in France’s most respected newspaper, Le Monde, in 1978. (…)
Titled “The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or the Rumor of Auschwitz,” the article was an immediate embarrassment for the newspaper, but it launched the public career of Mr. Faurisson, who until then was an obscure professor of French literature at the University of Lyon. (…)
In 1990 he became the first person in France to be convicted under a law that criminalized the denial of crimes against humanity as they were defined in 1946 by the Nuremberg Tribunal. (…)
The most recent judgment against him came in November 2016, when a court fined him 10,000 euros for propounding “negationism” in interviews published on the internet.

Surely, all these individuals are as courageous as Rushdie, if not more, considering that they knew very well that they were going against the law of the land.

Also note, they’re historians, not novelists like Rushdie, so you’d expect a bit more of “academic freedom” granted to them.

But Holocaust denial or affirmation is not even the real issue here (for example, Macron took legal action for being compared to Hitler in some poster). It’s yet again about the West’s unceasing double standards.

RELATED: Yeah, There Is No Free Speech in Islam, But Secularism Needs Brutal Censorship to Survive

https://muslimskeptic.com/2022/08/16/salman-rushdie-neo-orientalism-western-hypocrisy/

 

[Basra]

A Must Watch! A brilliant speech on why Allah and His Prophets should be protected from insults and mockery.

“Isn’t it ironic that the West uses the stabbing of Salman Rushdie to push the “glorious” idea of free speech this is while we live in a time of cancel culture.

Ask if a teacher can teach that homosexuality is a sin not just in classes but openly outside of the school environment without being threatened with the sack.

Ask whether one can speak out against Zi0nism without being labelled anti Semite with prominent individuals facing repercussions.

Ask whether Facebook, Twitter etc don’t ban or suspend users for exercising their “free speech”.

Ask whether these social media companies will tolerate anti vaxxers spreading their views

Ask whether countries like France, Germany or Austria allow anyone to question the validity of the numbers killed in a state recognised genocide (ie a historical event) and see whether they would be arrested and jailed.

Ask whether certain individuals were targeted for assassination for what they said as opposed to any direct acts of violence like the paraplegic sh Ahmed Yasin.

The list goes on to the point that even many non Muslims realise that free speech doesn’t exist.

The point isn’t that I agree with one view or another I mentioned above. The point is these very claims of championing free speech is so easily sacrificed when it conflicts with values the West itself holds dear or whether those in power deem certain ideas intolerable for them to be openly mentioned.

Salman Rushdie isn’t a martyr to free speech he’s just a symbol of the hatred the West has towards Islam and another example of the hypocrisy we consistently see in the West.

Free speech? Yeah right.”

- Sharif Abu Laith

Its a noble cause to allow a society to agree upon a 'contract law of the land' that God and his Prophets are off the limits. Especially in Muslim countries, where a law can be established for severe punishment for committing blasphemy. Remember-- one persons blasphemy is not another's blasphemy. As Muslims we need to curb our noble courage, and Bravery. We are willing to die to protect the name of God and his prophets. But are we committing a major SIN by doing this violent act? God would have told Prophet Musa/Moses Pbuh to go punch or Kill Pharaoh if he utters that he is "God". (Remember the strength of Prophet Musa pbuh, he punched a man, a knock out to death. The stuff of legends. He had the stamina) Instead God emphasized to his prophet - " Speak Softly/Gently to Pharaoh". This Holly benevolent advice is explicit in the holly book, Quran. It clearly states Allaah swt prefers Gentility to Violence. Why would Allaah swt instruct his prophet to speak to a Godless heathen who claimed he was God, the gravest offence a slave of Allaah swt can commit? Because our lord in Heaven is merciful, gentle, and loving. Periodt.




Again, in my humble opinion, killing someone because they have insulted God and his prophets is illogical. And possibly a Major SIN. Allaahu Yaclum.

It goes to saying TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE IT RIGHT

020:044

'But speak; to him with gentle speech (Arabic: Qawlan Layyinan), perhaps he (la'allahu) may take heed of the reminder or fear God'​

 

[Taij4an]

Its a noble cause to allow a society to agree upon a 'contract law of the land' that God and his Prophets are off the limits. Especially in Muslim countries, where a law can be established for severe punishment for committing blasphemy. Remember-- one persons blasphemy is not another's blasphemy. As Muslims we need to curb our noble courage, and Bravery. We are willing to die to protect the name of God and his prophets. But are we committing a major SIN by doing this violent act? God would have told Prophet Musa/Moses Pbuh to go punch or Kill Pharaoh if he utters that he is "God". (Remember the strength of Prophet Musa pbuh, he punched a man, a knock out to death. The stuff of legends. He had the stamina) Instead God emphasized to his prophet - " Speak Softly/Gently to Pharaoh". This Holly benevolent advice is explicit in the holly book, Quran. It clearly states Allaah swt prefers Gentility to Violence. Why would Allaah swt instruct his prophet to speak to a Godless heathen who claimed he was God, the gravest offence a slave of Allaah swt can commit? Because our lord in Heaven is merciful, gentle, and loving. Periodt.




Again, in my humble opinion, killing someone because they have insulted God and his prophets is illogical. And possibly a Major SIN. Allaahu Yaclum.

It goes to saying TWO WRONGS DONT MAKE IT RIGHT



View attachment 234181

020:044

'But speak; to him with gentle speech (Arabic: Qawlan Layyinan), perhaps he (la'allahu) may take heed of the reminder or fear God'​

u r right, the messengers never allowed the sahaba to kill the kuffar despite them mocking and being violent towards them, they instead gave dawah for a number of years while remaining patient and resisting oppression until they physically couldn't anymore
instead of killing non-Muslims which is a hasty action to satisfy the rage in your heart but have long term negative consequences, the rage should be put towards giving more dawah, and showing how good Muslims and Islam are, and educating non-Muslims so they wouldn't want to do blasphemy, Muslims lack hikma nowadays, they think killing everyone who goes againdt Islam is like being a sahaba but they are imitating yunus AS when he was too hasty and left his ppl b4 the punishment, allow Allah to punish the people, or fight agaisnt them if they oppress you, otherwise give good dawah for many years, even 30,40,50, until it is time for u to leave, non-Muslims will always mock Islam, whterh in public or secret, killing them or banning blasphemy won't change anything, if u don't like it give dawah or move back to ur home country

 

[Basra]

u r right, the messengers never allowed the sahaba to kill the kuffar despite them mocking and being violent towards them, they instead gave dawah for a number of years while remaining patient and resisting oppression until they physically couldn't anymore
instead of killing non-Muslims which is a hasty action to satisfy the rage in your heart but have long term negative consequences, the rage should be put towards giving more dawah, and showing how good Muslims and Islam are, and educating non-Muslims so they wouldn't want to do blasphemy, Muslims lack hikma nowadays, they think killing everyone who goes againdt Islam is like being a sahaba but they are imitating yunus AS when he was too hasty and left his ppl b4 the punishment, allow Allah to punish the people, or fight agaisnt them if they oppress you, otherwise give good dawah for many years, even 30,40,50, until it is time for u to leave, non-Muslims will always mock Islam, whterh in public or secret, killing them or banning blasphemy won't change anything, if u don't like it give dawah or move back to ur home country

"instead of killing non-Muslims which is a hasty action to satisfy the rage in your heart but have long term negative consequences, the rage should be put towards giving more dawah"


Ameeen Sister

 

[Taij4an]

"instead of killing non-Muslims which is a hasty action to satisfy the rage in your heart but have long term negative consequences, the rage should be put towards giving more dawah"


Ameeen Sister

 

[Taij4an]

"instead of killing non-Muslims which is a hasty action to satisfy the rage in your heart but have long term negative consequences, the rage should be put towards giving more dawah"


Ameeen Sister

Nah but seriously I am man

 

[Basra]

Nah but seriously I am man