Shariah law does not apply even in all countries where Muslims are in the majority.
Shariah law is not the law of the United States where (it appears so far) the offence in the instant case was committed.
Can one have a trial - even under Shariah law - and then still be 'summarily' executed?
Mind you, the act in this case was the dubbing - post filming - of words offensive to Muslims. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that this is an act that can be carried out anywhere, by anyone. So maybe the word 'summarily' is an indication that the trial under Shariah law would be a mere ritual, in which the actual facts would be irrelevant in the drive to ensure that someone is killed ... for words. After all, some of the protesters are still blaming Israel for the film, though the original claim that the film had been made by an Israeli Jew has now been exposed as a lie.
For all I know, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who appears to be involved in the present act, had the political objective of forcing the US to halt funds and support for the elected government in Egypt, dominated as it is by the Muslim Brotherhood. For all I know he, or whoever dubbed the film, calculated and relied on the reaction of some Muslims that they got. And anybody (a word which includes Muslims btw) who wants a political conflagration need only prepare their actions knowing that the kindling - easily inflamed Muslims - is readily available.
Ayo
I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
On 15 Sep 2012, at 01:33, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toyin is displeased, he is not happy, he's even suspicious of me, he
> would like "a direct answer."
>
> Do I "support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> faith?"
>
> Have I become a terrorist? If you have any reason to think so then in
> the name of pikuach nefesh, you had better contact Anders Thornberg as
> soon as possible !
>
> Do I "support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
> faith?"
>
> Which answer would please/displease him most, a zee, a yes or a no?
> Should I speak in tongues?
> Which answer would lay him most low?
>
> Which of these responses would he prefer :
>
> The Retort Courteous?
> The Quip Modest?
> The Reply Churlish?
> The Reproof Valiant?
> The Countercheque Quarrelsome?
> The Lie with Circumstance
> or the Lie Direct.?
>
> Should I not be honest once again? Should I treat him to "the Lie
> direct" ?
>
> " No reason to get excited", the thief he kindly spoke
> "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late".
>
> I wish that I could say, " A wicked and adulterous generation looks
> for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of
> Jonah "
>
> I ask, what is the purpose of a deterrent?
> Do Muslims need a nuclear bomb or two, so that they are not invaded as
> Iraq was invaded? Of course if the late Gaddafi had had that kind of
> deterrent - the kind that North Korea has, he would have probably
> said to NATO " Bring it on, Italy, Berlusconi I'm waiting for you!"
>
> That's one kind of deterrent but in all the cases under review,
> Rushdie & his verse, Jyllands-Posten their cartoons, monkey boy Vilks'
> and his greatest expression of infamy, it's innocent people who have
> lost their lives....
>
> Would I like to see Dr. Vilks portrait hanging in the museum of modern
> art or would I much prefer to see he himself hanging, there?
>
> My answer: I would prefer to see neither Vilks nor his portrait
> hanging there...
>
> Toyin complains that I "almost seemed to cheer the
> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel some years ago"
>
> Heaven forbid that I cheered others' suffering.
>
> Finally, I would not call it endorsing murder should those who insult
> the prophet of Islam and any member of his family are brought to
> Justice, i.e. tried in a Shariah Court of Law in any of the Muslim
> countries where the crime is committed and then summarily executed.
> Does that answer your question?
>
> "There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer
> peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be
> courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his
> hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion."
> -- "Message to the Grass Roots," speech, Nov. 1963, Detroit (published
> in Malcolm X Speaks, ch. 1, 1965).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Sep, 23:15, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Cornelius,
>>
>> I would like a direct answer.
>>
>> Do you support Muslim use of killing as deterrent in relation to their
>> faith?
>>
>> Your words suggest you do.
>>
>> Secondly, you used to be rabidly pro-Israel and almost seemed to cheer the
>> horrible bombardment of the Palestinians by Israel som years ago.
>>
>> Being so doggedly pro-Israel does not equate with identifying with
>> self righteousness in the Muslim world, even endorsing Muslims' use of
>> murder in defending their faith.
>>
>> What is going on?
>>
>> Toyin
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Toyin,
>>> ,
>>> As you say, "We are not here to carry dead wood"
>>
>>> Although I have not yet witnessed any literary bonfires, I would not
>>> mind seeing a bonfire made out of Lars Vilks so called "art" I guess
>>> that more bloodthirsty among us would love to see him included in such
>>> a bonfire. In any case not much to worry about, since the everlasting
>>> bonfire is waiting for him with gaping jaws, anyway and I'm told that
>>> for that's where new skins are acquired to be burned again and again.
>>> The only thing is that Muslims are sometimes impatient to see some
>>> people actually arriving there, "abruptly"
>>
>>> Unlike some of the monks and saints, the prophet of Islam was no
>>> eunuch and neither was King Solomon, the champion...
>>
>>> I guess that in another two hundred years or so, in the coming age of
>>> the robot and the zombie even an Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice type
>>> rock opera ( Dunyia productions) featuring a swashbuckling and
>>> womanising Muhammad who said, "I was made to love three things from
>>> your world: women, and perfume, and the comfort of my eye is in
>>> salat." - may prove too tame by then , when we are well into the age
>>> of same sex marriage. Should the wild west try to impose that kind of
>>> freedom on the Muslim Ummah, you'll have another major civilisational
>>> clash right there on your front door....
>>
>>> I can truthfully tell you this: I would particularly pray that the
>>> last line does not come true, that they (OPEC) does not do "a repeat
>>> of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....", because
>>> we felt the immediate effects in our pockets: In Sweden in 1971 a
>>> litre of milk cost one crown/one krone. A months ticket for the entire
>>> Stockholm underground – cum bus and boast service cost 50 kronor. When
>>> OPEC raised their oil price - the cost of living soared.....the cost
>>> of everything doubled. Today a litre of milk cost 9 kronor and the
>>> monthly ticket for the tube/ bus/boat is over 700 kr....
>>
>>> https://www.google.se/search?q=Muhammad+%3A+I+love+prayer%2C+women+an...
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 8:55 pm, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Cornelius, are you serious about this- I have deliberately highlighted
>>> the
>>>> points
>>
>>>> 'They (Islam's enemies) would be happy with that kind of passive
>>> reaction -
>>
>>>> no literary fatwas,
>>
>>>> no price on anyone's head,
>>
>>>> no cause for the criminals to go into hiding,
>>
>>>> no executions for such crimes being committed
>>
>>>> and before we know it
>>
>>>> they (enemies of Islam) will be having a go at making a Muslim version of
>>>> Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, "Jesus Christ SuperStar"
>>>> after which I guess Muslim countries will break diplomatic relations with
>>>> those who show it and some OPEC countries might even consider doing a
>>>> repeat of what they did in 1974-75 and make the oil suckers pay....'
>>
>>>> toyin
>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>>
>>>> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Human Rights
>>>>> freedom of speech
>>>>> the first amendment
>>>>> Tears and American compassion,
>>>>> Human Rights,
>>>>> Freedom of speech,
>>>>> The first amendment,
>>>>> 1.5 million Iraqis dead after the invasion of Iraq and guess who is
>>>>> crying?'
>>
>>>>> Professor Harrow, many thanks for such a lucid exposition and
>>>>> arguments for respect and understanding. Resurrecting Hilary Clinton
>>>>> and the spectre of the Rwanda Genocide reminds me of these words -
>>>>> and I had better quote them now - better now than ever coming back
>>>>> later, yeah, these unforgettable words about tears for Rwanda by
>>>>> Ishmael Reed:
>>
>>>>> "Did Mrs. Clinton, with misty eyes, beg him to assess how such trade
>>>>> deals would effect the livelihood of thousands of families, black,
>>>>> white, brown, red and yellow?) He refused to intervene to rescue
>>>>> thousands of Rwandans from genocide. (Did Mrs. Clinton tearfully
>>>>> beseech her husband to intervene on behalf of her African sisters; "?
>>
>>>>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/01/14/ma-and-pa-clinton-flog-uppity-.
>>> ..
>>
>>>>> On Sep 14, 6:52 pm, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> moses
>>>>>> there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
>>>>>> --shouting fire in a theatre
>>>>>> --what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that
>>>>>> wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that
>>> person? we
>>>>>> have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech
>>> damages
>>>>>> the person by the expression of false information
>>>>>> --what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if
>>> the
>>>>>> information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what
>>> happened
>>>>>> in rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu
>>> population to
>>>>>> "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send
>>> them
>>>>>> home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
>>>>>> under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military
>>>>>> actions against radio milles collines, at any point, because it
>>> violated
>>>>>> american notions of free speech!
>>
>>>>>> as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws
>>> against
>>>>>> hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to
>>>>>> individuals, groups, and the society as a whole.
>>>>>> the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a
>>> legal
>>>>>> concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of
>>> an
>>>>>> additional motivation of hatred for a group.
>>
>>>>>> now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate
>>>>>> crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in
>>>>>> favor of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance
>>> of
>>>>>> a speech that incites the lynching.
>>>>>> in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of
>>> free
>>>>>> speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be
>>> combatted
>>>>>> by good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of
>>>>>> liberalism. but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when
>>> one is
>>>>>> a minority, not in power of the government or press or radio, as was
>>> the
>>>>>> case in rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can
>>> foment
>>>>>> pogroms if not genocides.
>>
>>>>>> no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other
>>>>>> freedoms, like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew
>>> or
>>>>>> a black person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong.
>>> in
>>>>>> fact, he was talking to and about english property owners, to the
>>>>>> english bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of
>>>>>> the poor or disempowered.
>>
>>>>>> lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less
>>> the
>>>>>> same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is
>>>>>> constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to
>>> attack
>>>>>> any and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the
>>>>>> expression or dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances
>>>>>> endangered people. an incitement can only be such if the
>>> circumstances
>>>>>> realistically make it feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil
>>>>>> group in a country where they do not exist can't be an incitement to
>>>>>> anything. but if they are living under constrained circumstances, and
>>>>>> someone urges on the population to destroy them, that would be a
>>> speech
>>>>>> i would want repressed.
>>>>>> ken
>>
>>>>>> On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say
>>> "stop
>>>>>>> the provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do
>>> that,
>>>>>>> by gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By
>>> imposing
>>>>>>> censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start
>>>>>>> down that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when
>>> the
>>>>>>> world is free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them
>>>>>>> without unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that
>>>>>>> inform underpin their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and
>>> attacking
>>>>>>> the institutions of a state that had nothing to do with the said
>>>>>>> bigoted speech a way to "stop the provocation"?
>>
>>>>>>> *"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any
>>> insults.
>>>>>>> They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from
>>> violence,
>>>>>>> then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely
>>> the
>>>>>>> opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary
>>>>> Clinton**
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg
>>>>>>> <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com <mailto:corneliushamelb...@gmail.com
>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> läs mer »
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment