EU Courts: Defaming Muhammad is not Allowed

[Aryeh Jay]

I just noticed that quite a few countries that are in the German dominated EU were also dominated by Germany a few years back.

It is a good thing that Donald J Trump is a Nationalist and against all this Globalist stuff.

 

[Bible2+]

Hazelelponi said in post #13:

Is this now a choice between following Jesus and jail in the EU? It seems so..

Hopefully not. Yet.

But that day is coming, not only in the EU, but also in the U.S.

For read Mark 13:9-13 as possibly applicable to you if you are a Biblical Christian. For in our future, "political correctness" could make even Biblical Christianity "hate speech", because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and that Christianity is the only way to be saved from hell (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12), and that all other religions are cursed, doubly cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

So even if you are in the U.S., be prepared to be arrested and tried before courts of law for the violation of "hate speech" laws which could be instituted in our future (by the Supreme Court, without any approval from the People in Congress). If you are brought to trial, remember Mark 13:9-13, and testify as God's Holy Spirit gives you at that time. But do not expect to be set free after your testimony. You (just as I) must be willing to face imprisonment and even execution for the truths of Jesus Christ and His Word the Holy Bible (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 8:34-38, John 8:31b).

 

[Bible2+]

LostMarbels said in post #15:

and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
—Revelation 20:4

Hope your ready.

Note that beheading is not limited to Muslims. The future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), who will not be a Muslim, could employ beheading as his preferred method of execution (Revelation 20:4) for the same reason that the atheists employed beheading during the French Revolution (using guillotines): that is, to instill terror in people who would oppose his rule. For beheading is the most graphic and bloody (that is, the visually most shocking) way to kill people.

Also, the Antichrist could employ beheading for the same reason that the ancient pagan Romans employed it: Because it is painless (when it is done with one blow, such as with a large axe). The Romans employed it whenever they executed a Roman citizen, such as Paul the apostle (Acts 21:39, Acts 22:25-29), who was beheaded when he was executed (Tertullian, Scorpiace, chapter 15). People who were not Roman citizens, such as Jesus Christ and Peter the apostle, were executed by the very painful method of crucifixion (Tertullian, Scorpiace, chapter 15). That is, the Antichrist could claim that he is beheading people (with one blow, such as with guillotines) because he is such a good guy that he does not want to cause them any pain; he just needs to remove them from the scene so that they will not (in his words) "hinder the return of humanity to a higher spiritual level".

Also, the Antichrist could employ beheading because he could have grown up surrounded by Muslims. That is, since his childhood he could have been aware of beheading as being claimed to be a very religious act (that is, in Islamic jihad: Islamic "holy war"). And the Antichrist himself could have grown up as a Druze Arab in Lebanon, in the modern city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4). And the Druze religion is quasi-Islamic.

The Druze religion is different from Islam in that it is waiting for the second coming of a God-man named Hakim. The Antichrist's last name could be Hakim, and he could at first present himself to the Druze people as the second coming of this God-man. In this way, he could get the Druze people to support him without question during an initial rise to power among the Arabs. The Druze Arabs could be the numerically "small people" of Daniel 11:23. The Antichrist could make them his completely devoted bodyguard, and buy them many key positions of power within a future, United Arab States (which the Antichrist could become the leader of in the first stage of his world takeover), and employ Druze people as loyal spies and assassins at every level of his United Arab government and military.

The Druze religion is very secretive. What it teaches to its higher-level initiates is not even taught to its lower-level initiates. What it could teach to its higher-level initiates could basically be Gnosticism mixed in with the Hakim God-man idea. The Antichrist himself, while outwardly a Druze, could inwardly be a Gnostic Luciferian, that is, a Satanist. He could be a highest-level initiate of a worldwide secret society which ultimately teaches Satanism, but keeps this a secret even from its own members who have not yet been initiated into its highest level.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Will they ban people mocking Christianity?
LoL
We all know they wont, its not the agenda. The agenda is to silence Christianity

Maybe when some Christians stop harassing and being hateful towards other people.

 

[Rubricnigel]

Maybe when some Christians stop harassing and being hateful towards other people.

Thats insane. If Christians were so mean, why would they pass a law helping another religion? Why woul they allow moslems into their country, allow them to practise their religion, bend over backwards to allow them all the customs of home.
Are Christians allowed such things in islamic fundamental countries?

Your idea of HATE, is our biblical teachings.
You want us to abandon our customs, our traditions, our religion.
Why?

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's your opinion, not a fact. Not all of us think it has to think one or the other is true. Many of us think neither are true.


Aside from this self-imposed martyrdom (IE: we're so right and correct that everyone is out to get us), this is another one of those cases where it's "more to this story" scenario. Right wing outlets love to play this game, where they tell you facts #1 & #3, but conveniently forget to mention #2 (which is critical to the story). Much like that story where "preacher arrested for preaching the gospel" (which ended up being that he was arrested for standing in the middle of the road with a megaphone and getting in people's faces with it)...there's also more to this one.

Per Reason.com:
The court rejects the woman's "public debate" argument. E.S. claimed to be an expert on the subject of Islam. As a result, the court replies, "she had to have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others." The purpose of her statements was not to contribute to a public debate, the court declares.

The ECHR acknowledges that criticizing religious groups is fair game. But "statements...based on manifestly untrue facts, that seek only to create hostility toward people of particular faiths, are not protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights", the judges say.


Now, to be perfectly clear, both myself, and the Reason.com article I mentioning are both on the side that says we should be able to criticize Islam in any way shape or form I deem fit provided I don't violate the rights of others. But, with that being said, that's not an excuse to intentionally be deceptive about what this court ruling actually was and the details of the case.

This woman intentionally spewed a bunch of falsehoods in order to stir up anger against a particular religious group (you know, the kind of anger that might lead to someone storming into a house of worship and shooting up the place), and that is what the court said wasn't protected.

This isn't some covert "liberal agenda" to show favoritism toward Islam while trying to attack Christianity.

Falsehoods?

I'm a former Muslim and from my reading of what she said, she said nothing that many Muslims don't believe.

ahadith states that she was as young as 6 when Mohammad first married her and he played with her with toys because she was a child - that was his time getting to know her; playing with a small child with her toys. The marriage was consummated immediately after her first period.

That is legitimate Islamic belief. Some ahadith have her just a touch older, 9 and 11 respectively, and Shia believe she was as old as 16 (but they have their own books of ahadith and no Sunni Muslim accepts this)

Every Sunni I ever met believes Aisha was younger than 13 when she had sex with Mohammad for the first time, and yes, he was in his 50's and yes that is the western definition of pedophilia.

This is not controversial, it's a household belief and can be proven via sahih Islamic texts.

So no.. not the definition of falsehoods. They just don't want you to know and be repulsed by Islam. Even questioning that Aisha was as young as 9 at the time of consummation was never done before very recently, and this new apologetic is only in the west (not in the middle east, for instance) because westerners are repulsed by her age:

Understanding the ‘Problematic’ Age of Aisha’ | MuslimMatters.org

 

[Bible2+]

Rubricnigel said in post #25:

Your idea of HATE, is our biblical teachings.

Indeed, "political correctness" will make even the Bible itself "hate speech".

For example, even in the U.S., the Supreme Court could eventually outlaw even speaking against abortion, or against homosexuality, calling it "hate speech", thereby negating the First Amendment. The way that this could be done would be by employing the principle of the past Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which even Scalia mistakenly supported, which says that a law can in effect forbid a specific religious activity so long as the law does not specifically target religion, but is a neutral law of general applicability. That is, a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court ruling could claim that it is not targeting Biblical Christianity per se, but is generally forbidding "hate speech" by anyone, regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.

Also, the future forbidding of Biblical Christians from making any speech against homosexuality or abortion could be perpetrated by a future Supreme Court by claiming that any such speech presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at the Pulse gay-nightclub in Orlando, or when a man not long ago attacked an abortion clinic in Colorado claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying that homosexuality is a sin in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made by a future, anti-Christian Supreme Court ruling as a means to squelch Biblical Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and religion (thereby contradicting the Supreme Court's own "content" precedent in, for example, Reed v. Town of Gilbert).

 

[Bible2+]

Hazelelponi said in post #26:

Even questioning that Aisha was as young as 9 at the time of consummation was never done before very recently, and this new apologetic is only in the west (not in the middle east, for instance) because westerners are repulsed by her age . . .

But note that the West may not be repulsed by pedophilia for much longer, so long as there is "consent".

Similarly, the West used to be repulsed by homosexuality, and even for centuries, but no more. And Biblical Christians are now even being persecuted by major social media corporations by having their pages and posts deleted for "homophobia". And this persecution could expand until even the government itself becomes involved in it. For any assertion that homosexual acts are sinful could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago, the New York Times (98% of its readers say that they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it is said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.

Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic", or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying that Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic", or "hateful", for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or, it would be like people who are into bestiality saying that Christians are "beastiphobic", or "hateful", for being against bestiality, which people who are into bestiality prefer to call "inter-species love".

So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, do not be surprised if the non-Christian world, in the name of "love", eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and bestiality, so long as (in the non-Christian world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but rather consent, and even pleasure".

And then pedophiles and people who are into bestiality will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's your opinion, not a fact. Not all of us think it has to think one or the other is true. Many of us think neither are true.


Aside from this self-imposed martyrdom (IE: we're so right and correct that everyone is out to get us), this is another one of those cases where it's "more to this story" scenario. Right wing outlets love to play this game, where they tell you facts #1 & #3, but conveniently forget to mention #2 (which is critical to the story). Much like that story where "preacher arrested for preaching the gospel" (which ended up being that he was arrested for standing in the middle of the road with a megaphone and getting in people's faces with it)...there's also more to this one.

More to the story?!?

This is my surprised face.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do find this sad..

First, if you can't criticize Islam you can't evangelize Muslims. Period.

At a time when your closer to Muslims than ever before and in a place where they are freer to leave their former faith behind them without being killed for it, evangelism is attacked.

Is this now a choice between following Jesus and jail in the EU? It seems so..

There are Muslims in the EU that convert to Christianity. It happens all the time. It doesn't necessarily even require aggressive proselytism.

I think this story is more complicated than what Nationalreview.com is suggesting. Legitimate criticism of Islam is allowed under European law, and it does happen. What isn't necessarily protected is slander or libel designed to inflame or anger.

Our laws in the US also don't protect slander or libel, either. But in the US the burden of proof is on the accuser of libel or slander, whereas in Europe it's usually the other way around (the burden of proof is on the person accused of libel or slander)

 

[Hazelelponi]

There are Muslims in the EU that convert to Christianity. It happens all the time. It doesn't necessarily even require aggressive proselytism.

I think this story is more complicated than what Nationalreview.com is suggesting. Legitimate criticism of Islam is allowed under European law, and it does happen. What isn't necessarily protected is slander or libel designed to inflame or anger.

Our laws in the US also don't protect slander or libel, either. But in the US the burden of proof is on the accuser of libel or slander, whereas in Europe it's usually the other way around (the burden of proof is on the person accused of libel or slander)

Question.

In the United States under the laws of libel (which applies to things said in writing) that what you've said must be demonstrably false to be able to be sued for libel.

Not only that, but court's in the United States state that a dead person has no reputation to uphold and therefore, even if the dead has been lied about no one can be sued under defamation of character laws such as libel.

This concept coupled with freedom of speech is why atheists can make jokes about Jesus and not get into any legal trouble.

Charlie Hebdo used to do it all the time in an EU state and was never able to be sued for libel against Jesus (for instance) as he was protected by EU laws. Granted, Muslims killed him for criticism of Mohammed but Charlie never broke the law, but rather, was protected by it.

Therefore I am confused.

Because 1) even a prophet, if dead, has no ability to be defamed according to law and 2) if what you say is true then libel laws don't apply. And 3) This was true in the EU states not very long ago.

It seems more to me like the EU has changed their laws in keeping with Islamic blasphemy laws recently..

Is there anything you can share that would help clear this up if my thinking is wrong?

 

[FireDragon76]

Question.

In the United States under the laws of libel (which applies to things said in writing) that what you've said must be demonstrably false to be able to be sued for libel.

Not only that, but court's in the United States state that a dead person has no reputation to uphold and therefore, even if the dead has been lied about no one can be sued under defamation of character laws such as libel.

This concept coupled with freedom of speech is why atheists can make jokes about Jesus and not get into any legal trouble.

Charlie Hebdo used to do it all the time in an EU state and was never able to be sued for libel against Jesus (for instance) as he was protected by EU laws. Granted, Muslims killed him for criticism of Mohammed but Charlie never broke the law, but rather, was protected by it.

Therefore I am confused.

Because 1) even a prophet, if dead, has no ability to be defamed according to law and 2) if what you say is true then libel laws don't apply. And 3) This was true in the EU states not very long ago.

It seems more to me like the EU has changed their laws in keeping with Islamic blasphemy laws recently..

Is there anything you can share that would help clear this up if my thinking is wrong?

It really has nothing to do with importing Sharia law. Europe has always had laws pertaining to blasphemy and religious peace, and a different understanding of the right to free expression.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But note that the West may not be repulsed by pedophilia for much longer, so long as there is "consent".

Similarly, the West used to be repulsed by homosexuality, and even for centuries, but no more.

Even if the Aisha thing were true (given some Muslims believe she was around 13 at the age of consummation), I would ask, if that outrages you, are you not outraged by some of the ages in the bible then?

Out of curiosity, how old was Mary...both when she was married to Joseph, and when she gave birth?


Whether someone believes biblical stories are true or not, I think we can both admit, there's quite a few young wives in that book (who were married to men who are depicted as good people in the bible) that would by no means meet today's standards for how old someone should be.

Does the Bible say what is the proper age for marriage?


I assume if some left-winger went on a speaking tour about how people in the bible are sexual predators, you'd be quite upset and claim there's some sort of war on Christianity happening...you already appear to taking that approach, and this is just a case where a court has ruled that a person can't intentionally stir up anger toward some other religion that isn't even your own.

 

[FireDragon76]

A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago, the New York Times (98% of its readers say that they never pray)

This sounds more like a made-up statistic.

held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it is said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.

The issue isn't legitimate critique of Islam. There are ways to legitimately critique Islam, just as there are ways to legitimately critique Christianity. Ways of critiquing Islam or Christianity that are meant to inflame xenophobia or bigotry, based on misleading claims, should not be acceptable in civil discourse.

Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic", or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27).

But that's a red herring that religious conservatives bring up. In the modern world, people can choose their beliefs- religion does not have to control peoples lives. People that are homophobic ultimately choose to see gay peoples lives as inferior, and they rationalize their contempt after the fact. We do not have to be religious fundamentalists or adhere to bronze age cultural norms. We are free to reject that kind of religion.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It really has nothing to do with importing Sharia law. Europe has always had laws pertaining to blasphemy and religious peace, and a different understanding of the right to free expression.

Then why was Charlie Hebdo not charged with breaking a law before being killed?

If it's against the law to criticise dead people according to what they actually did, and against the law to criticise a set of truly held religious beliefs, and against the law to upset religious people then Charlie Hebdo would have been charged with a crime 8 years ago..

Instead religious extremists killed him and his martyrdom inspired Muslims around the globe to speak out.

So.. I'm just not believing these laws always existed and are not just extentions of blasphemy laws.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then why was Charlie Hebdo not charged with breaking a law before being killed?

I'm not privy to the details so I don't know for sure. I do know Dutch and Belgians have always tended to be liberal in terms of personal freedoms. However, not all European countries take that approach.

 

[Goonie]

I'm not privy to the details so I don't know for sure. I do know Dutch have always tended to be liberal in terms of personal freedoms. However, not all European countries take that approach.

Because they are a satirical magazine I suspect.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The issue isn't legitimate critique of Islam. There are ways to legitimately critique Islam, just as there are ways to legitimately critique Christianity. Ways of critiquing Islam or Christianity that are meant to inflame xenophobia or bigotry, based on misleading claims, should not be

Nabeel Qureshi I hear did a great job writing books..

However, from what I've read of that woman's case in the EU nothing of what she said was a lie or untrue.

If I speak the truth, who decides if I spoke it in the "appropriate" manner? A handful of people I've never met?

That is tyranny. Plain and simple.

We don't have a right in this life not to be offended. We SHOULD have a right in this life to conduct ourselves according to our beliefs if we arent hurting anyone, and last I checked no one has ever been injured over words, unless the offended party is insane.

If you looked at me and told me I was going to hell, or even demon possessed and I got mad and assaulted you violently, would it be appropriate to have someone arrest YOU for telling me something that upset me?

Or is the fault on me for not walking away?

What if what you said was true like "Your a Christian" and I attacked you? Would it be wrong is the brown shirts came and took you away for it?

In America in my lifetime the saying has been "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." That would include wagging ones tongue too, I can only assume. If I keep my tongue in my mouth I'm okay.

Generally speaking, I've long been utterly confused at the left's propensity to defend Islam like their life depends on it, when Islam would murder them without a second thought.

Did you know in Palestine there are no homosexuals...? Not one.

There's no freedom in Islam. So the American and European left defends tyranny. It makes no sense to me..

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But that's a red herring that religious conservatives bring up. In the modern world, people can choose their beliefs- religion does not have to control peoples lives.

Bingo!

There is a subset of the evangelical community that intentionally conflates "not being able to use the force of government to make others conform to my religious preference" with "it's an attack on Christianity and infringing on my freedom of religion"

...and I can't fault them for that 100%, because it's sort of like a variation of spoiled only child syndrome, and the resentment that former only child feels when the new little brother comes along and the parents' world doesn't revolve around them anymore.

In many ways, in the US, Christianity was (figuratively) like an only child for ~170 years. A few decades back, there were some baby steps put in motion to no longer let a Christian majority dictate the actions of everyone based on their religion. Those efforts have been ramped up at an even faster pace over the past 20 years and much like the older sibling who now can't have their way on everything anymore, they resent it and are bitter about that fact.

Much like the older sibling who pouts at the fact that they have to share their toys, we now hear things like people equating "Happy Holidays" signs with "It's a war against me!" and people wanting to revert back to things like denial of service (like what happened in the 50's) against certain groups in an act of defiance.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

What isn't necessarily protected is slander or libel designed to inflame or anger.

Speech that doesn't make anybody angry doesn't need protection. Even in North Korea, you're safe anything that doesn't make anybody angry.

It really has nothing to do with importing Sharia law. Europe has always had laws pertaining to blasphemy and religious peace, and a different understanding of the right to free expression.

Europe has not always had laws pertaining to blasphemy against Islam. That comes from Shariah and nowhere else.

Even if the Aisha thing were true (given some Muslims believe she was around 13 at the age of consummation), I would ask, if that outrages you, are you not outraged by some of the ages in the bible then?

It has nothing to do with being outraged. It light of those hadiths, calling Mohammed a pedophile is a mere statement of fact. Even under European libel laws the statements are legally defensible.

Out of curiosity, how old was Mary...both when she was married to Joseph, and when she gave birth?

The New Testament doesn't say. There are traditions that say she was 13, but those same traditions also say the marriage was never consummated.