'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 <corneliushamelberg@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-black-man/
> > *"�the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults.
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"?
>
> > They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence,> > opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable� � Hillary Clinton**
> > then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the
> > *> > <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com <mailto:corneliushamelb...@gmail.com>>
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg
> > wrote:> > https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro...
>
> > Sir,
>
> > I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> > effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> > On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> > Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> > destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> > provocations.
>> > https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> > The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> > on 11th September of course:
>> > disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of �freedom of
> > The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> > speech�, �artistic licence�, � freedom of artistic expression �,
> > �Human Rights�etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> > determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,> > to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world�s
> > Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the> > �transcendental� (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> > vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> > every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> > salaam.
>
> > And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> > I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> > the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> > theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century> > some room for � holy envy�
> > existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> > ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> > Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> > of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> > year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> > all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> > As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
>
> > https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
>> > demonstrating � to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> > Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> > Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> > quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do> > the harm is already done and the attackers are multiplying � I guess
> > Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> > The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> > alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> > In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> > An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> > compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin suggests (a* famous
> > book *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam,a* famous
> > film *by Muslims challenging critics of Muhammad or Islam, a* famous
> > cartoon series or comic book *challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam. A *famous Facebook page* challenging critics of Muhammad or
> > Islam.) is not really an effective antidote to the libelling and
> > slandering of the prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa salaam, when
> > that if we go Oluwatoyin's way, this would entail many more famous> > of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's rock opera, �Jesus Christ
> > books, famous films, famous cartoons series, famous facebook pages
> > countering detractors' lies and deceit. 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
> > 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....
>
> > On Sep 13, 9:43 pm, Lateef Adetona <adeton...@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:adeton...@yahoo.com>> wrote:> ...
> > > It is disheartening that intellectuals are seeing the attack on
> > the personality of the Prophet Muhammad as an academic exercise.
> > More than that, it has to do with passion people have for their
> > faith and this cuts across all faiths of the world. Those who
> > wrote the film and executed it had a motive of harassing and
> > provoking the Muslims among others, the effect of which, I am
> > certain they did not think of. If some Muslims perceive the action
> > as being borne out jealousy of the fame Islam continues to gather
> > in spite of oppositions from many fronts, other may see it as
> > affront which must be
>
>
> read more »
--
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment