The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Je ne suis pas Charlie > Comments

Je ne suis pas Charlie : Comments

By George Morgan, published 21/1/2015

If social media is anything to go by, the chattering classes have been preoccupied with only one question for the past week: to be or not to be Charlie?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
To George Morgan.

Muslims believe that anybody who insults their prophet should be murdered. That has been Sharia Law for 1400 years and importing Muslims into western societies is not going to change their opinion. That does not mean that if you insult Muhammad that every Muslim will attack you and either beat or kill you, but some of them most certainly will because it has always been socially approved behaviour within their communities for centuries.

Now, I am not going tio walk up to a Muslim and say that Muhammad was a war mongering, genocidal, ant Semitic paedophile, even though he was all of those things. To start with, the Muslim may violently attack me, but the main reason I would not do it is because such behaviour is offensive and extremely impolite.

But when an Australian converts to Islam and gives his 11 year old daughter in marriage to a Muslim man (as what happened in Maitland NSW only recently) then it is pertinent to ask why Muslim men think that marrying and having sex with 11 year old girls is OK. And the reason is, because Muhammad did it, and he was beloved of God, so it must be OK.

So then we are obliged to point out to Muslims that Muhammad was a paedophile. What he did was wrong. And if that bloody well "offends" Muslims, then that is just too bad. If Muslims want to live in the west, either accept our values, or as the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam recently said, '"Ferk off!"

The freedom to comment upon any social issue is fundamental to a free society. There is a huge difference between being offensive just for the sake of being offensive, and being offensive for a good reason. Most of us can make that connection. Freedom of speech does not mean that anyone has the right to walk down a beach and call young Australian women "cat meat sluts" or walk in front of a mosque screaming that Mohammad was a paedophile.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 23 January 2015 3:15:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

In order to have Muslims stop marrying 11 year-old girls, telling them that Muhammad was a paedophile is the least to achieve this ("if Muhammad was a paedophile, then proudly so am I").

Instead, you should point out to them that Muhammad was NOT a paedophile, that these are just late stories about him.

Neither Muhammad's name nor "Islam" was strangely ever mentioned in all conquered lands at least until 690 A.D. when some king claimed in passing to have written the Koran himself (in contradiction to the claim that it was written in 634 A.D.), then nothing else was mentioned until 710 A.D. and throughout the 8th century there was very scant information about Muhammad, including coins that had his name on one side and a cross on the other (which is of course an abomination by current Muslim standards). It is only in the 9th century that vast information about Muhammad suddenly appeared, which was full of contradictions, thus someone assembled and declared 3% thereof as "Hadith Sahih", ascribing a [fake] lineage to it, while the rest was either forgotten or declared unreliable.

The Koran itself mentions on the one hand that it is perfect and on the other that many other verses were lost (some according to one Hadith because Aisha's sheep ate the manuscript). I suppose that the sheep ate the verses where Muhammad speaks against paedophilia...

It would be so much more effective to tell Muslims about this good and saintly man Muhammad, who's personal history was later besmirched by 9th-century power-seekers and paedophiles in order to justify their own perverse rule!

"The greatest enemies of God are those who are entered into Islam, and do acts of infidelity, and who without cause, shed the blood of man."
- Muhammad, http://muslimcanada.org/hadiths.html#Islam
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 23 January 2015 10:03:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hal mentioned last week,

" the abuse of the privilege of free speech."

Isn't that the point ? That free speech should be able to be exercised right to the limits of that 'privilege' ? What does it mean to abuse such a privilege ? If it's a right, then it's a right right up to its limits.

Then Yuyutsu dragged this idiotic red herring about pissing on someone's yard. What on earth is the connection with free speech ? [God, what have I asked for :( ]

There would be laws against harassing someone in the next yard, causing a nuisance, intimidating, etc., and most certainly laws of trespass (at least) if you pissed into your neighbour's yard, if he bothered to collect the evidence and bring charges. If you pissed ON him, he could also go you for assault. Give it a go, Yuyutsu, test the law :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 9:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy