No special rules for the Prophet
Muslims are being told that Canada's Parliament sets the law, and as far as the Canadian government is concerned, the Prophet has as much protection as he deserves.
The Canadian government is not going to allow the judicial system to become the enforcer of the Sharia:
The Canadian government has refused demands from the country's Muslim leaders to expand a law banning hate propaganda so that it covers cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad such as the ones that have sparked worldwide protests.
Patrick Charette, press secretary to Justice Minister Vic Toews, told Reuters that Canada's new Conservative government has no plans to broaden the scope of the 36-year-old law.
"The provisions covering hate propaganda ... as they stand strike a balance between the freedom of expression and also the rights of minorities to be protected from hatred," Charette said. "It's broad enough right now."
Or too broad, but either way, opening it up now, in this environment, would lead to an inevitable expansion of the law that no one would be able to say anything about Muslims except that they're great.
And let's be real here. This is not about protecting all faiths. This is about kowtowing to Islamic sensibilities. This is about implementing Islamic law here, to apply to everyone, Muslim or not.
Of course, they wouldn't actually say that:
Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said the law must be expanded to outlaw insults against "all prophets and messengers of God, all divine books," including those of Christianity and Judaism.
"If somebody insults them, if somebody makes fun of them, they should be guilty of a hate crime and the law should be changed to reflect that," he said.
The problem with these "moderates" is that their attitudes really aren't all that moderate. Take Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D., of Louisville, Kentucky, who wrote that apostasy is not a capital offense, despite what many Muslims believe.
Sounds moderate, right?
Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha'ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for "simple apostasy" (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet.
Right, abuse and slander by the apostate gets you a date with the guy holding the scimitar. Much more moderate than killing app apostates, I suppose.
To be fair, Syed makes it clear that people must not be compelled to convert.
Sounds moderate, right?
From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty.
In fact, the death penalty should only be applied in two specific circumstances.
More moderation, right?
Furthermore, the Qur'an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa'd fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc.
An activity that creates unrest. Like doodling a cartoon, perhaps?
The fact is, the Sharia is not a model for Canadian jurisprudence. Even in its most liberal implementation, one that is not the typical implementation is most Islamic countries, it seems, the code still runs counter to the basic tenets of Western liberalism.
And given the wildly different interpretations of Islamic law (which always amazes me, since Islam is supposed to be so straightforward and literal), there is no guarantee that a law to protect Muhammad from ridicule today won't be expanded dramatically over time.
Would naming the prophet without the traditional "peace be upon him" written afterward be considered an act of disrespect?
The government can see the slippery slope, and aren't going anywhere near it. That means that people like Soharwardy are going to be sorely disappointed. Canadians are not going to make special rules for the Prophet, since it is clear that rules like those are potentially dangerous to everyone, Muslim or not.
I guess they'll have to put up with Ezra Levant doing his job as a journalist and a publisher.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
it's one thing to be an angry white guy who votes (what else) conservative. but sometimes you're just plain mean. have you thought of moving to the States ?
Posted by: the dood at February 24, 2006 07:31 PM
Hey dood,
Have you thought of moving to Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Johannes at February 24, 2006 07:55 PM
What a bunch of bull!
Hate crimes by definition are attacks on individuals or groups. They are not criticisms of ideology or actions of groups or individuals.
I am so sick and tired of every bunch of whiners that comes along demanding to have the rules of our nation rewritten to suit their own agenda.
People who can't have their way through civil persuasion or simple hard work and truthfull expression of their point have no business demanding anythinf from our society.
The only thing worse than these self righteous bigots who want to impose their third world standards on us is the hypocrisy of the spineless bleeding hearts who try to defend them.
Posted by: PGP at February 24, 2006 08:21 PM
Anything
Posted by: PGP at February 24, 2006 08:22 PM
A parable, of sorts:
A muslim is walking in the desert and notes an object embedded in the sand. Picking it up, he discovers that it is a lamp. As he rubs the dust away, a genie appears. The genie says "In gratitude for you freeing me from the lamp, I grant you one wish...wealth, fame, beautiful women, whatever you want, but only one wish".
The muslim thinks for a moment and says "My neighbour has a goat that is better than mine...make it die."
That, folks, goes a long way to explain the mindset of these fundamentalist Islamist assholes.
Posted by: Bruce at February 24, 2006 08:34 PM
the Australians have the right idea. Their idea is "if you can't accept the laws and customs in Australia stay to hell out.
Posted by: Rob at February 24, 2006 09:15 PM
Is it only me that see the similarilty between the Inquisition and Islamic Courts.
Muslims have to shake free of the 16th Century.
Posted by: By Mohameeds Foreskin at February 24, 2006 09:23 PM
I think "Isreal" would agree with me, the stupid ass Muslims need to be Wiped OFF the Map! End of Story!!!
Posted by: Danny Kochevar at February 24, 2006 10:13 PM
A country is like a house owned by the homeowner.
Outside there is a vast and ever changing diversity of people with all kinds of different, and, on their own terms, within their own understandings, equal beliefs and cultural forms.
Yet, the whole point of being a homeowner, is that you enjoy the right to determine who enters your home and how they will act in order to remain welcome in your home.
The Australians are right in their stance that says: 'When you come into my home, you do so under the standards that operate in my home.'
Canada and Europe need to follow this Australian lead. The Australians are only following the Muslim lead in their own homes, in this.
Posted by: brock at February 24, 2006 10:42 PM
BMF: "Muslims have to shake free of the 16th century."
I can hardly wait to see the new Victorian outfits the ladies will be wearing in Instanbul.
Gives new meaning to "victoria secrets".
Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 10:43 PM
...in other news, we have good news on body parts.
Drive down to your local Pick-ur-Parts store and get a new valve job.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/7394500/detail.html
Posted by: toamx at February 24, 2006 10:49 PM
Australians are right. And Ontario was right to not allow Sharia Law.
Posted by: Cheri at February 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Check what Bat Ye'or, an Egyptian expat living in the UK, has to say about Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis in her site http://dhimmi.org/. Also scroll to the bottom right on that same page and click on www.dhimmitude.org to see what Islamists really want to do to the Judao-Christian world. Canadians stay aware. In the USofA where political correctness has run amok we are already in deep doo doo.
Posted by: fubarpi at February 24, 2006 11:40 PM
Hotlinked:
http://dhimmi.org/
www.dhimmitude.org
Posted by: backhoe at February 25, 2006 05:16 AM
Dood’s “it's one thing to be an angry white guy who votes (what else) conservative. but sometimes you're just plain mean. have you thought of moving to the States ?”
Funny how Dood demonstrates the behavior he/she seems to condemn.
“angry white guy”
Emotional, racial and gender labels that seem to imply negative stereotypes
“who votes conservative” Even though we have a free and confidential vote, this person seems to have access to concrete information
“sometimes your are just plain mean”
Multiple accusations accused with no evidence presented. Surely a “mean” person is self evident, and would spew many clear example of meanness, especially with a posted history column in this blog, correct?
“have you thought about moving to the States?”
Let’s label a whole country as being white, angry, conservative, mean men. All 300 000 million of them.
Would a reciprocated comment sound like this? Exchange a few words…
It is one thing to be an angry black women who votes liberal, but sometimes you are just plain ignorant. Have you thought about moving to Africa?
It is one thing to be a angry gay guy who votes NDP, but something you are just plain fruity. Have you thought about moving to San Francisco or the Florida Keys?
it's one thing to be an angry white guy who votes (what else) conservative. but sometimes you're just plain mean. have you thought of moving to the States ?
Which of these comments are the vilest and disgusting?
Answer: All of them.
Posted by: at February 25, 2006 09:29 AM
"Religion" of all persuasion and flavour, has lost its usefulness...time for them ALL to dissappear into the mist...
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at February 25, 2006 09:33 AM
please read verses 534 and 535 of the koran everyone then we will see the folly of jackasses like dood and his liberal ilk that think one should just move away. easy when you live in a 1 room apartment dood not so easy to take 4.5 sections of ranch and move you moron.
Posted by: bartinsky at February 25, 2006 09:55 AM
Say Ray - is declaring something useless intolerant? Not with the beauty of free speech!?!
'sides, atheists and nihilists have lost their usefulness having declared subscription to the tenents of fact and science (I know its a large brush - bear with me).
But believing in nothing is believing in something - thus whether a godhead is affixed to your heart, or simply a blank sticky note - you got faith man.
Hallelujah.
Posted by: Andrew at February 25, 2006 10:06 AM
Leave it to a moral secularist to heighten the level of the debate:
"Religion" of all persuasion and flavour, has lost its usefulness...time for them ALL to dissappear into the mist...
We should review how well atheism and secularism has done in the past century.
Let's tally the death counts:
80 million+ in China
50 million+ in the Soviet Union
8 million in Cambodia
1 million in North Korea
This isn't including Hitler, who called Christianity a "social scandal" against the German people and vowed the destruction of the Catholic church after he finished with the Jews.
I also omit the North Vietnamese communists because no one actually knows how many they killed.
And I also omit the number of aborted babies in the North America, which has exceeded the current population of Canada (30,000,000).
When it comes to killing the innocent, nobody can beat the Atheists... although the position of militant Islam is becoming most troubling.
But Raymond, please don't let me from stopping you from making any more interesting comments in this thread, m'kay?
mhb23re
Posted by: MHB at February 25, 2006 11:24 AM
MHB, thanks for pointing that out to the "all religions are bad" people in the crowd. Liberalism is a mental disorder it seems. It is statistics like those that you cited above which moved me onto the road to recovery.
Posted by: ex-liberal at February 25, 2006 12:53 PM
Guys, if you study some history, philosophy and thinkers such as Hume, Jefferson, Ricardo, Mill, von Mises, Hayek et al, you will soon realize that communism and nationalsocialism are essentially the same as fundamentalist religion.
I.e. there is an objective truth that an enlighened few have seen, the ignorant masses are used and manipulated, and opponnents are burned at the cross (in some cases literally).
Liberalism, on the other hand, with its focus on the individual and individual rights, freedom and free speech, and free enterprise and limited givernment, is the complete antithesis of such totalitarianism.
Liberalism is the fundamental idea behind the modern secular democracy, as manifested in many Western countries (such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and many others).
(And, please, liberalism has nothing in common with Canadian Liberalism.)
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 04:23 AM
Yep, MHB and ex-Lib, if religion is the opium of the masses, then liberalism is the mental disorder that caused it.
Good points.
Posted by: tomax at February 26, 2006 05:57 AM
Tomax,
It appears you don't know what liberalism is.
Tip 1: Liberalism has nothing in common with the Canadian Libs.
Tip 2: The US bill of rights is one good example of liberalism.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 06:37 AM
Tomax -
I once shared your apparently cynical view on religion; in fact, I once affected an intellectually superior attitude that eclipsed yours.
I've mellowed since then, I think. I've come to believe that religion can be a good force in people's lives, it's just that people tend to warp and corrupt it to suit their own needs. And those are often corrupt or fascist.
I believe most people find comfort in the thought there is some type of Divine Power watching over them, and that there is more to a person's life than birth, living, and eventual decay in the ground.
I tend not to have faith in mankind that it can find its way, morally-speaking, without religious influence. I cited the death tolls above as proof of this, and before somebody croaks about the Inquisition, I acknowledge that religion has caused its share of heartache and murder over time.
As a Catholic, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a moral compass (even as an atheist) if you looked to, say, 8 of the Ten Commandments (two are omitted for obvious reasons in the case of atheism). And of course, there tenets of other faiths that are equally as applicable, too.
It's unfortunate, however, that over the last 30 years it's become fashionable for the moral secularists to openly mock religion and those who believe (especially Christians and Christianity). The rationale appears to be, "In order for me to feel good, I need to ridicule Christians for their beliefs in something other than Big Government and social engineering that cater specifically to the "what about me?" attitude.
And when we look at some of today's problems and are honest with ourselves, it's not hard to recognize that moral secularism isn't the smashing success we con ourselves to believe it is.
mhb23re
Posted by: mhb at February 26, 2006 09:02 AM
Subscription and adherence to any basic set of aligned tenets is faith - after all.
Worse - I believe our resident Johan confuses libertarianism with the liberal approach.
Classical liberalism will inevitably suppress - due to subrogation of the individual (are you sure you've read Hume man? Johan - might I suggest your reading move towards Ayn Rand).
At any rate - morality - vis a vis the historical formation of stable societies - is part and parcel of adherence to faith. Whether a godhead (Abrahamic) or trancendental (Bhuddist) approach to creating a set of mores is performed, the mores themselves define a contruct of what the society does to stabilize and preserve itself.
Thus (all you secular swine!), beliefs in liberalism are built upon a foundation of theology - one way or another - sans church.
Sadly, Christians in the western hemishpere (Catholics/Mormon esp.) have been savaged - simply for being very, very easy targets.
Self disclaimer: I am Pagan. And I love trees.
Excellent post mhb.
Posted by: Andrew at February 26, 2006 11:15 AM
JohniK...Where did you get I equated liberalism and Liberal Party of Canada from my statement?
Don't put words into my mouth, but I will admit I may have misused the word "liberalism" for sake of cutting my post short.
Whereas I probably should have said "liberal thinking", as in the "hippy dippy free sex of false freedom from responsibility mentality that shaped the 60's and 70's".
But I digress. There are various definitions of liberalism found via Google. Some good, some bad. Basically it is man enlightening himself from government restraint, but the ultimate end is man becomes a god onto himself.
The Good:
Helping poverty, and avoiding government restraints.
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2755&issueID=420
The Bad:
By proclaiming man's absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supernatural religion. If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God.
Posted by: tomax at February 26, 2006 11:25 AM
mhb - if I may share my thoughts.
Religion is man trying to reach God by works and sweat, blood, and tears. We'll never do it. I know I was totally frustrated by ritualism and tradition from the church.
Faith is God reaching us. God is love. Nothing we can do can make us forgiven, but if we receive His reaching "down" to us, it is a wonderful thing.
Fear has to do with punishment, but God is love and perfect love casts out fear.
Does it mean we can go around sinning any more, definately not, but like John Bunyan's book "Pilgrim's Progress" that big back pack (sin) fell off at the cross and it feels good!
Posted by: tomax at February 26, 2006 11:43 AM
Tomax,
Your characterization of liberalism as
the "hippy dippy free sex of false freedom from responsibility mentality that shaped the 60's and 70's" is based on your misunderstanding of what liberalism is.
Individual responsibility is a fundamental tenent of liberalism.
Thus your argument is false.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 01:21 PM
WE don't need expanded "hate laws".
Christ is a "big boy". He will deal with those that insult him.
We don't need to burn down churches or behead.
Christ said "Revenge will be mine"
In other words.........he'll look after it.
Posted by: notasocialist at February 26, 2006 04:27 PM
This comments thread is practically dead, but I just now had a chance to get back to it. Here are some more of my 2 cents.
I too used to think that religion was old fashioned, silly stories, and a bunch of meaningless rules. I am Jewish and grew up some what observant. The 60s turned my older brothers into hippies and my parents followed along a road of permissive liberalism. In my 20s I thought that the whole bible thing was just a bunch of meaningless stories. 9/11 was an epiphany for me. The death of Danial Pearl really hit home. Here was this liberal Jew who probably didn't keep kosher, go to shul, observe Yom Kippur, who was forced to say "I am a Jew" before they cut his head off. I realized there is no escape from being a Jew and so I started to look again at the Torah with adult eyes. I saw that secular humanism is a "religion" and one that has the potential to drive the whole thing into the ditch. I began to realize that thanks to Jesus and Paul the whole world reads the Bible. Thanks to the Bible we have our idea of equal rights before the law and the sanctity of each and every life. Even if you do not believe in G-d, you cannot rationally deny that our society/civilization was built on Biblical principles.
Posted by: ex-liberal at February 26, 2006 05:35 PM
Ex-Liberal. While I do not sign on to any religion, I will agree there is great wisdom in those books that make up the bible.
The rules are spelled out in such direct manner that many people can not get past them.
The *Love thine enemy* is difficult for people to accept. Especially at the darkest of times as with these impossible bad actors, the Jihadists.
At one time the Japanese and Germans were very bad actors and today we do business and interact well with them.
There are many moderate and decent Muslims. We have to be careful not to lump them all in with the bad guys.
There are a large number of progressive *yuppie* Iranians who are very unhappy with their thug style leadership.
I hope the US will give five days notice so that women and children can evacuate before they administer a green glow to the poppy fields of Iran. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 12:46 AM
Calling Mohammad 'The' prophet, assumes too much. There are plenty of historical facts to the contrary. The plagierizing (including the outright lies and twisting toward moe/Islams own end) of Jewish, Apocryphal/Enoch and Christian texts is the basis of the Koran. Add in a little thieving, rapine, mass murder, world domination and presto - a prophet. His life is another basis for fact that won't pass the test of him being a prophet. Let alone a nice guy.
Let them have their so-called prophet. Nobody else has to submit to his supposed title.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 27, 2006 11:48 AM
A little cranky today Irwin?
This could never happen under the restricted rule of the *Prophet*... Enjoy. TG
the Tube
Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 27, 2006 12:48 PM
Yeah, a little cranky I suppose. But I get a little intolerant of Muslims attempting to change tolerance laws in order for us to tolerate their intolerance, if you know what I mean.
But now that there are Cartoons of Mass Destruction (CMD's)
I suppose I feel less cranky.
And before you say, 'Well that's intolerant.' Read Sira's take on it (a former Muslim) faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60219p5.htm
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 27, 2006 02:21 PM
This medication has a calming effect. It is used to relieve anxiety, nervousness and tension in the treatment of anxiety disorders and panic disorders.
Posted by: at April 5, 2006 02:34 PM
Consumer and prescribing information.
Actonel with Calcium, Actoplus Met, Aczone, Angeliq, Arranon, Avandaryl, Estrogel, Exjade, Levemir, Hylenex, Increlex, Kepivance, Lyrica, Migraten, Nepafenac Ophthalmic, Nexavar, Orencia, Proquad, Relenza, Revlimid, Rozerem, Tamiflu, Vaprisol...
Posted by: at April 12, 2006 03:05 PM
 
|
|
