Festival Hall should have called Hussain's bluff. So much Islamic rhetoric is based on hyperbole and exaggeration. This is how they intimidate and control other Muslims who believe what they say to be true.

They might be able frighten Muslims but they should not frighten legitimate businesses. It is not what they say that matters but what they do. Let them have the freedom to say what they like but threats are not actions and we should not be controlled by their threats.

This is where the fight against Islam has to be fought - in day to day ordinary battles. The more we stand up to this kind of bluster the less effective it becomes.

In Australia they are welcome to protest all they like but we have laws and rules which govern protests. They won't get away with the mayhem that they might in undemocratic fundamentalist countries. We already have in place the structures to safeguard our freedoms but if we allow ourselves to be manipulated by these drama queens then we have only ourselves to blame.

“A country can have the most liberal freedom of speech and association laws in the world, but if its citizens are not animated by the spirit of the laws, if they do not believe in them, then these laws are a dead letter.”

So true, and Australians are too self-centred and apathetic to believe in anything, any more. If they were different, we would not have the totalitarian, anti-free speech, Section 18c of the HRC; we would not have the HRC, but rely on the common law that we have.

Australians are ripe for take over and oppression!

The threat of 5,000 scabby pro-Islam protesters? Real men and women would have countered with 10,000 protesters. Just not in Australia. In Australia, the population has already surrendered to Islamic threats, and the 'authorities' and organisers of events and venues know this and are not going to stick their necks out for people who do not care about their own freedom and safety. Too busy whining about SSM, house prices and the cost of child care.

All together now: 'Australia is rooted'.

It is amazing to find such common-sense in an academic. Three cheers for  Stephen Chavura!

if you look at how nutty the jacobin revolution was, it was silly to ever buy into their 'values'. But we live and learn.

2 things, don't agree that the gay community are suppressing anyones right to speak! Just the usual highly flawed and hugely offensive homophobia and inequality before the law!

Conversely, the only ones apparently offended by fearless and frank dialogue, or the plain unvarnished truth, are mainly Muslims, with entrenched unproven/unprovable medieval belief systems, white supremacists, the anti gay brigade, reverse apartheid supporters or idealogues of the far right? Austral otherwise stands out as a bastion of free speech and telling it like it is!
Alan B.

Correction, Austral should read Australia.
Apologies. Alan B.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, all powerful international organisations, see her as a dangerous enemy and are determined to silence her. They have enlisted allies, on the so-called Left, who insist that criticism of Islam is a “neo-colonial” phenomenon and should be denounced as racist and bigoted. This shameful alliance of conservative Muslims and self-styled Leftist “progressives” has been conducting a campaign to attack, discredit and silence Ali. And her response: “The radical Islamists and the Leftie idiots who align with the Islamists, they’re becoming more shrill, and that’s because they’re being more exposed,”

Hi Leslie,

I suppose that, in a cock-eyed way, Islamists - as well as the pseudo-Left and much of the homosexual lobby - are Gramscians, out to bring down Western institutions (such a equality, democracy, marriage) any way they can. So they 'co-operate' even if their stated principles conflict somewhat. And they might be winning.

As for criticism of Islam, and speaking as an atheist and ex-communist, one doesn't have to read much of the Koran to realise that it is, on the face of it, almost psychotic in its prescriptions for non-Muslims, especially Jews. Much of it is pinched from earlier folk-stories, in garbled forms, so it seems quite loony, probably even to Muslims.

Clearly, very few of the pseudo-Left and homosexuals have ever opened it. But, of course, it is available on-line, on Google: just type in "Koran". No, they won't do that: opportunists don't need principles or documentation to destroy.

Cheers,

Joe

“Totalitarian-minded citizens challenge our freedom of speech”

Should marriage be redefined in Australia, in light of the bullying tactics employed recently by LGBTI-rights activists and based on what transpired in Canada, following legalisation of so-called same-sex marriage around 2005, the above quote would need to be amended along the lines of “Totalitarian-minded citizens (LGBTI-rights activists) suppressed (in the very least) our freedom of speech, freedom of association, the rights of parents, the right to preach and practise one’s religion.“

No wonder the SSM supporters are doing their best to avoid having to debate what SSM legalisation would mean for Australia.

Hi Raycom,

What are we talking about: 5 % or less of the population, dictating to the rest ? One effect of current social media platforms is the power of a tiny minority to try to bully the rest of society. That seems to work with companies eager to avoid the loss of customers, and with those churches who want to please and be all things to all people. It's probably a bit harder with individuals with opinions on-line - hopefully, anyway.

So we get into strange situations - for example, where a church mob can be sued for issuing a pamphlet advocating something which is legal, or the many situations in which someone can be castigated for expressing their quite legal opinion.

We need to remind the homosexual lobby that, in a democratic society, everybody should be able to express their opinions freely, including, but not only, themselves. If they wish to change people's attitudes, there are civil and non-personal ways to present one's argument. To resort to bullying mean they have lost the moral high ground from the outset, even if they seem to 'win'.

Joe

Quote:

Opponents of Islam claim it denies freedom of speech and censors those who insult Islam. This is factually incorrect. Islam does not prescribe any worldly punishment for unseemly speech. So people who insult should not be persecuted. Islam grants everyone the right to express disagreements with others. After all, the Prophet Muhammad called differences of opinion a blessing in society and never sought to censor or threaten those who verbally attacked him.

According to the Quran, disbelievers called him “a mad man,” “a victim of deception,” a “fabricator” and treated him as a liar. Some claimed he was taught by another person instead of receiving revelations from God. They called the Quran “confused dreams” and “mere stories of the past” and even tore it into pieces.

Through this all, he courageously endured all verbal assaults. Rather than calling for any punishment, the Quran instructs us to “overlook their annoying talk” and “bear patiently what they say.” The lesson here for all Muslims is that we are not to be afraid of insults. Rather, we must have the same courage as our Prophet to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech. Muslims must learn how their faith instructs them to respond when they are verbally attacked. No riots; no violence. We respond to speech with speech, but our speech is to be better and more dignified.

End quote

source: Harris Zafar Islam and Free Speech: Principle vs. Privilege, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-zafar/islam-and-free-speech-principle-vs-privilege_b_2831793.html

Hadith (traditions or narrations) reflecting the Prophet's view in regard to freedom of expression:

Abu Huraira reported: A man reviled Abu Bakr while the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was sitting down. That made the Prophet impressed by Abu Bakr and he smiled. Then, Abu Bakr reviled the man with the same words as him and the Prophet became angry and he stood to leave. Abu Bakr went to the Prophet and he said, “O Messenger of Allah, the man reviled me and you were sitting, but when I responded you became angry and stood up.” The Prophet said, “Verily, there was an angel with you responding on your behalf, but Satan appeared when you responded with the same words as him and I will not sit in the presence of Satan.”

Then, the Prophet said, “O Abu Bakr, there are three persons who are given a right. No servant is wronged by an oppressor and he forgives him for the sake of Allah except that Allah the Exalted will support him. A man does not open the door of charity to strengthen family ties except that Allah will increase his wealth. A man does not open the door to begging to usurp wealth except that Allah will increase his poverty.”

Abu Bakr was one of the first to enter Islam, a very close companion to the Prophet and went on to become the first to rule an Islamic community after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

source:http://dailyhadith.abuaminaelias.com/2014/09/02/hadith-on-satan-the-devil-sits-in-the-presence-of-those-who-curse-each-other/

According to another report (14/146) a group of Jews asked for permission to enter upon the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they said, “Al-saam ‘alaykum (death be upon you).” ‘Aa’ishah said, “Bal ‘alaykum al-saam wa’l-la’nah (No, death be upon you and curses)!” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “O ‘Aa’ishah, Allaah loves gentleness in all things.” She said, “Did you not hear what they said?” He said, “I answered, ‘Wa ‘alaykum (and unto you).’” According to another report, he said, “I answered, ‘ ‘alaykum’” – without the “waw” (i.e., wa meaning “and”). According to the last hadeeth (14/148), he said, “Do not initiate the greeting of salaam with the Jews and Christians, and if you meet one of them on the road, push him to the narrowest part of it.”

Source Al Bukhari vol 1

So the Prophet did not respond to those insulting him but criticised his wife for her response

Let the circus continue.....

grateful,

Fair bit of cherry-picking there, and a load of bulldust.

Come off it, Grateful, some of us have read the Koran: time and again, Muhammad calls down the most dreadful punishments on anybody who seems to have insulted Islam: for example, Surah 5: (from memory) verse 33, which speaks of cutting off a persons right arm and left leg if they insult the prophet or Allah.

One can open the Koran at random and find quite brutal demands on unbelievers, anybody who fight against Islam, Jews especially, and apostates. Why did Malala Yusufzai get shot in the head, if not for somehow insulting Islam (or at least its patriarchal core) by championing the right of girls to get an education, which somehow transgresses against Islam ?

Why are homosexuals thrown off high buildings by ISIS if not because they have offended Allah somehow ? Perhaps they should restrict their activities to young boys ?

I'm beginning to think (I'm a slow learner) that one major difference between Islam and Christianity is that, at least on paper, Islam is all about POWER, a god with total power, while Christianity is, at least on paper, about LOVE, a god who loves all including sinners. I'm struck by the parochiality of the one (the 'ummah'), and the universality of the other (cf. the Good Samaritan story). In that sense, Islam is essentially inward-directed, right-wing, verging on fascism, while (perhaps to draw a long bow) Christianity is outward-directed, left-wing - putting it all very crudely. I'm sure some could nit-pick that to their heart's content, specially those on the faux 'Left', the friends of Islamist-fascism, totalitarians together.

Someone remarked to me that Islam is focussed on shame while Christianity is focused on guilt. I'm not sure what the consequences of that might be, except that one is group-oriented while the other is individual-oriented. And I'm not using 'group' there in a positive way, but in a parochial way, as 'anti-Other' or 'anti-outsider'.

Grateful, we're not all mugs out here: we can see you coming.

Joe

What good are freedom of speech and association laws when our own citizens seek to make them too costly, or inconvenient, or too unsafe to enjoy?

That is a great question but might I pose another in contrast?

What good is living an independent fulfilling life when our own citizens seek to make them too costly, or inconvenient, or too unsafe to enjoy?

Now don't get me wrong I actually support complete freedom of speech. I really do. I like knowing exactly what people are thinking, unfiltered and uncensored.
I think that makes it way easier to pick the arseholes in the room.

Having said that though I also recognize that for people who have been discriminated against (Muslims, Aboriginals, Homosexuals, woman and on and on...) for people who have been barred or excluded from certain activities based on their age or gender of ethnicity etc... I do understand and sympathize with the knee jerk urge these people have to shut down any and all conversation that further degrades, offends or impugns these parts of their identities. Especially when hurtful words or hateful ideologies often serve as a prelude to physical violence.

So whilst freedom of speech is tremendously important I think certain people need to spend less time waxing lyrical about how they don't get enough of it and consider instead why that is. Why are people afraid of what might come out of your mouth at any given moment and what can be done to fix it.

Joe said: "Come off it, Grateful, some of us have read the Koran: time and again, Muhammad calls down the most dreadful punishments on anybody who seems to have insulted Islam: for example, Surah 5: (from memory) verse 33, which speaks of cutting off a persons right arm and left leg if they insult the prophet or Allah."

Thankyou Loudmouth. Here are the verses (Q 5:33-34):

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

I consulted a Tafsir (interpretation of Quran) by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, eminent scholar in Islamic jurisprudence (see his bio below).

The verses you refer to have nothing to do with insulting the prophet or freedom of expression. They relate to punishments that can be meted out for acts of violence committed by armed gangs unless they repent prior to being caught (in which case they can still be convicted but would not be subjected to these punishments). Please consult pages 129-140 of Maariful Quran Vol 3 (Versus 33-34, Surah 5) for the details and cases.

Maariful Quran Vol 3: http://www.maarifulquran.net/index.php/maarifulquran/maarifulquran-english-pdf

Bio of Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi: https://www.deoband.org/2011/12/history/biographies-of-scholars/shaykh-muhammad-shafi%E2%80%98-the-mufti-of-pakistan/

cont...

cont...

Of course in "more civilised Western society" we would prefer to have gangs and mafia take over than impose such "draconian punishments" ... which just happens to save a lot of innocent lives and allow people to lead their lives free of intimation and terror: in peace!. But that's a separate issue.

So in stark contrast to your claims (which are clearly false) we have the hadith I quoted in the previous 2 posts which, far from calling for punishment for those who insult the Prophet, in fact call for tolerance and allow freedom of expression.

As for the article, I agree that laws and declared values are meaningless without commitment of individuals. But I think in Australia we do have that commitment.

It is the author who is engaged in subtle game to impose his own views and silence dissent. Anyone who dares speak out against Ayaan Hirsi Ali is stigmatised as being "animated" by a "spirit of forced conformity". No debate, no consideration is given to their position at all!

Let the circus continue…