Comments on: Campaign to Repeal the Blasphemy Law

By: Padraig

Padraig — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:21:24 +0000

Many governments have already brought in laws to prevent religions being insulted -which is how believers see ‘blasphemy’. Of course we all know that this is mainly aimed at protecting Islam, because it is the only one of the world’s three inflexible and dogmatic religions which continues to cling on to a medieval insistence on respecting its ‘rules and regulations’. The other two, Christianity and Judaism, have (for the most part)learned to let go and move on. Western governments are tyring to avoid another Dutch cartoons fiasco but they are thinking only in the short-term. Defending our western principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion (which includes the right not to believe) are of far greater consequence in the long-term unfurling of mankind’s destiny.

By: 04325613

04325613 — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:36:30 +0000

oh dont say anything that wil upset god! u will be fined!

By: Jack Butler

Jack Butler — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:32:39 +0000

Oh! and sorry for the double post, but Muj, you still haven’t answered the question,;-Care to explain why Jews aren’t a part of Saudi society? or Christians……or Shia…….or Bahais…….or Janes …..or atheists or……

By: Jack Butler

Jack Butler — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:13:32 +0000

The Islamic state is an Ideological one? So what!
Ideology without evidential back-up is only so much bull. At best Ideology is an honest attempt to make sense of that which we don’t understand, at worst it is an attempt to explain things in a manner that supports a pre-conceived position. All religious ideology is the latter.
Some of your people would consider YOU Muj to be a leader. This is made possible because you are lucky to live in a democracy where the majority, by and large, cherish intellectual opposition. Ever heard of an Irishman (woman) that didn’t enjoy an argument? The chances of an atheist becoming a leader in a society where the government is controlled by Islam are slim indeed. You Muj in supporting this blasphemy law are supporting those who would silence you.
Yes, I tolerate the bilge you support and even support your right to spout it. I believe that no obstacles other than knowledge and fact be placed in your way when you proclaim this ignorance. Not for your sake but for mine and the sake of learning and free speech.
So drive on if you wish and feel free to rail against in the knowledge that people like me will support that right. Islam will support you only while you keep to the flavour of the day

By: Talia Al Ghul

Talia Al Ghul — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:30:12 +0000

Quote,What Omar Brooks said was correct, I don’t have an issue with that,Quote

Thats just you mightnt of had an issue with it.

But if another Islamic group did take issue and issued a complaint

and if that had of resulted in charges against brooks over his remarks

Would you still support the blasphemy law if someone was charged over making similar remarks to what brooks made?

By: Mujaahid

Mujaahid — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:55:05 +0000

What Omar Brooks said was correct, I don’t have an issue with that. Muslims have every right to defend themselves according to the Divine Shariah and Human Rights. Peace for those who desire peace – that’s conditioned upon relevant intention and action.

You can’t break the Defamation bill into chunks and then hypothesize as if it were fact, that unfortunately has been the sum of AI’s contorted attempts to oppose this bill – which most likely accounts for their monumental failure.

By: Talia Al Ghul

Talia Al Ghul — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:27:57 +0000

I have read the bill alright

I have read the part

The blasphemy provisions of the Defamation Bill make it an offence to cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of a religion

Lets stick to that outrage part

lets say for arguments sake the blasphemy bill was law when Omar Brooks came to Trinity College to debate the Irish muslims

and the way on the video Omar Brooks said we can face the enemy anywhere, thats Islam,thats jihad

lets stop there at that point after brooks said that at the debate

If the irish muslim group he was there debating, All claimed outrage for brooks making those remarks

Would that debate of being left continue?

Even so if it did continue

After the debate was over if enough as some say adherents of Islam
were outraged at brooks remarks

and lets say because of that outrage brooks was brought up on a
blasphemy charge because of that outrage

Would you support a blasphemy law then if someone faced being prosecuted
on a blasphemy charge over remarks brooks made?

By: Mujaahid

Mujaahid — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:59:58 +0000

Talia/Riddler – of course such debates would be possible, why don’t you read the law.

Jack: the Islamic state is an ideological state, and only those who share that ideology can attain leadership positions. Of course it’s the same in a democracy, as you well know. Only one without a shred of humanity could openly proclaim sympathy for the belligerent Zionist entity, I’m sure in the cold light of day you’ll rethink that position. After all, they wouldn’t have any sympathy for you, you’re just a goy and your women less than cattle.

By: Talia Al Ghul

Talia Al Ghul — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:09:04 +0000

Quote ,The Islamic vision correct was not represented that evening by either party, for both were extremes. On the one side you had the extremism of Al Muhajiroon and on the other the liberal extremism of Saterdien and others. The true path is the middle one.Quote

I dont want to be putting words in your mouth here

Correct me if im wrong by all means

Are you saying Islam is open to interpretation by different groups?

Furthermore If dermot ahearn is to sign the blasphemy bill into law

Do you think such public meetings between various Islamic groups could take place?

On your own website

from this article

Quote ,In 2007, Enda Kenny was invited to the Islamic Foundation of Ireland to discuss ‘issues’ with ‘so-called’ Muslim leaders,Quote

http://www.mpac.ie/content/view/331/1/

Do you think your group would be able to publicily debate those muslim leaders under a blasphemy law?

By: Jack Butler

Jack Butler — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:37:22 +0000

Mujaahid,
Why not answer the question rather than tell me how little I know. I already know how little I know. I freely acknowledge how little I know. I need little reminding of how little I know. I boast not of how much I know.
I freely admit that should anyone present compelling evidence on any subject I have a view on I will change that view.
However, I do actually require evidence in order to change my views, and I don’t pick and choose evidence so that only that which coincides with my view is considered.
I never stated there were no ” Christians and other religious groups in Saudi Arabia,” I asked why they were not part of Saudi society.
You totally ignore the part of the question where I asked if there were any Atheists Groups in Saudi. Well are there? Do you know? There are in Isreal. There is also an opposition in Israel and they even allow feminists to organise. Israeli women are permitted to drive. They can hold meaningful jobs.
Mujaahid, you have actually succeeded in doing something I had not thought possible, you have got me thinking of Israel in a sympathetic light.
I despise their adherence to a religious code and their enshrinement of that code in their laws. Then I compare how they do this with how muslim states enshrine islam and I have to admit, they come out of any such comparison looking good.
One could