Have we just entered into a world of kabuki theater ( to be divergent, to deviate in ref. to the early evaluation of this drama.) The twilight zone, or have the hands of time been turned back some 1400 years or so?
“The Kingdom’s Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh called on the international community to criminalize acts of abusing great prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), according to a statement issued today.” ( September 16, 2012)
Is there a real need to protect the thin skinned person and or people or a compleat population? In essence protecting people of all kinds from ever experiencing ” Being offended “?
I find it hard to believe that in these modern times we live in, that we also have this need to eliminate offensive speech because it offends. Yet any reaction to the emotional outbursts of the offended usually leads to some actions designed to offend those who are perceived as having offended in the first place. This mentality of ” An eye for an eye ” doesn’t work! At its core the foresight of the founders to the United States of America were visionary’s. They knew that people who would only conduct themselves with a standard of ” Do as I say ” really didn’t have the best interests of the people in mind, nor did they believe in freedom.
“Free speech was designed to protect offensive speech.” For non offensive speech needs no protection because it doesn’t offend anyone. offensive speech therefore determined by whom to be offensive? The government, or the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, or some popular church of the_________ kind, or some other easily offended.. offender? What is offensive then is in the eye of the offended. But what is retalation then? That person, or persons, or even any religious sect, or compleat deceived populations of some nations run by some devious leaders. Can therefore declarer another to be offensive and just order them to stop doing what is offensive. In other words to stop an offence constitutes having to offend in return.
Who said this? Is it also offensive, and to whom?
“Zionists, who have no faith in religion or even God, now claim piety and intend to take away the Islāmic identity of the Holy Quds. This ridiculous move is in fact the continuation of the colonialist polices of oppressors, which will not save the Zionist regime, but also take the regime closer to the endpoint of its existence.”
(Speech to a delegation from the Turkish-Palestinian Parliamentary Friendship Group) curtsey of the web page; http://jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf
Incitements? Are Muslims defined as devoid of incitements of racial hatred towards others? Or is this the views of the radical Muslim hoping to hijack a religion for their end game of conquest? Are they’re beliefs the definition of multi-ethnical faith community’s built on presenting a positive image of their religion and or the practices of ” Treating everyone else in the same way as you would like others to treat their beliefs and traditions “? How can this be expressed when viewing others like, Jews, Sikhs, or even Christians differently, allowing those differences of opinions to outright offend?
October 26, 2005; Ahmadinejad speech, returned to the same theme of… ” Israel as being the dirty vermin which needs to be eradicated. The stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable.”
In another speech he mentions in describing the Israeli nation as…” Cattle, blood thirsty barbarians, criminals, as well as targeting the population as described as ( SATANIC! ). ” along with a speech in April 17, 2008 Ahmadinejad said. This region and the world are prepared for great changes and for being cleansed of satanic enemies.”
Was he fortelling the events of the recent Arab spring and the rise of radical Islam, as his nations highest national efforts of purpose?
Do we need to have an international religious hatred law? Should he ( The Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh) also be interested in the international community criminalizing hate speech, incitement to violence and religious hatred, as already described in the above statements? If so then a few verses of the Quran will need a little adjustment!
Who will in force such a ridiculous law, who and what population will volunteer to have some kind of thought police policing what will be offensive net alone with what penalty’s for breaking it?
With Islāmic Shari’a law permitting treatment of what they consider offensive to Islam and their standards they have volunteered to live under, such as the ” Infidels ” with actions of; Beheadings, gang rape of female infidels, crucifixion, genocide without mercy, and racism stoning of the homosexuals, and people that commit adultery.
It seem more a religion of fear, rather than one of love and forgiveness.The compleat opposite of…. Thou shalt not lie: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not cheat: Thou shalt not murder: Thou shalt not covet.
The mufti said. “The attempts of a filmmaker filled with hatred to Islam would not harm the great personality of the Prophet (pbuh) or anything in Islam in any manner but would only reflect on the people who spread venomous ideas.”