Almost forgot,

David F

I did respond to your question about atheists by quoting a verse from the qur'aan which basically states "live and let live" and respect each others differences.

Also, your idea about voting on what is right and wrong is untenable. Would genocide be right if the majority voted for it?

Dear grateful,

I never wrote that voting decides what is right and wrong. Voting cannot decide that. Laws decide what is permitted and not permitted in a society. That is not the same thing as what is right and wrong. If we feel a law is wrong and it is not a trivial wrong then our conscience bids us to break the law.

Genocide was allowed and ordered under Nazi law. Franz Jaegerstatter, an Austrian peasant, was beheaded because he refused service in the army since he thought what the government was doing was wrong.

Sometimes to do what is right we must break the law.

I have looked at what I wrote and cannot find any place where I claimed that voting decides what is right and wrong.

Grateful asks:

"For example, would you defend Martin Luther's right vilify of Jews in light of the Holocaust?"

Absolutely! Free speech includes the right to say things I personally detest.

Would I defend Martin Luther's right to INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS?

Here's the thing. Luther did NOT simply describe his loathing for Jews. He advocated violence against Jews and their property.

Here are some quotes from Part XI of "On the Jews and Their Lies" published in 1543 by Martin Luther (1483-1546)

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?

[…]

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools

[..]

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. [Luther didn't like gypsies either]

[..]

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings… be taken from them.

[..]

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

[..]

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

This, as any sane person can see, goes beyond merely saying I find your religion loathsome. It is incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is, rightly, considered a crime in almost every civilised jurisdiction.

You've quoted a number of ahadith. How about this one from Sahih Muslim:

Book 041, Number 6985:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."

Does this hadith and those like it constitute incitement to violence?

On a lighter note see:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/026.smt.html

Scroll down to chapter 35

Cont'd:

When it comes to Jew baiting Luther has his rivals among Muslims. Unlike the long dead Luther many of these are still in the land of the living.

Would I in the light of the Holocaust defend the right of Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, the Saudi government appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca to say:

"read history," in order "to know that yesterday's Jews were bad predecessors and today's Jews are worse successors. They are killers of prophets and the scum of the earth. Allah hurled his curses and indignation on them and made them monkeys and pigs and worshippers of tyrants. These are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, evil, and corruption...."

Absolutely I would. He is not inciting violence merely expressing an opinion. However unhinged I would consider that opinion, he has a right to express it.

Of course I draw my own conclusions when the Imam of the Grand Mosque expresses such an opinion. But that's another matter.

Now grateful,

Would you forbid the Imam of the Grand Mosque from having his say about us Jews?

Or are you perhaps simply going to deny he ever said it?

So there Grateful sits blowing his booboozella – barracking for team Islam.

He protests that he hasn’t given the Victorian anti-vilification legalisation much thought & is undecided.It all sounds strangely reminiscent of “honest ref. my hand didn’t touch the ball” or “Gee ref that wasn’t offside”.

If Grateful hasn’t given thought to the Vic legislation , he could hardly have failed to be cognisant of similar injunctions in most Muslim societies. And the recent attempt by many of the same societies to enshrine similar injunctions as international law, through the UN (as well outed by Steven ).

But perhaps I’m too harsh in my judgement, perhaps he’s telling the truth . He may just have been so preoccupied cheering leading for his team he genuinely didn’t have time consider changes to the rules, like the Vic legislation, or similar elsewhere . And after all, why should he , none of it seems to have any impacted on his teams performance . His teams is still at it printing fanmail which portrays opposition team members as monkeys and morons. And in their recent friendlies in Darfur , southern Thailand and Mindanao , his team has been literally slaying the opposition.

Grateful implores us that his team always plays by the rule book –and his copy of the rule book doesn’t have anything contradictory or untoward! And, anything unsavoury that happens could only have been done by unregistered players –called fund-a-mentalists.
What’s really weird though is, many of those unregistered players sat for a long time on his teams bench, and scored many goals for his team –goals which have never been disowned or subtracted from his teams score-sheet.

Sorry Grateful, I don’t buy it – it’s a red card for you and your whole team –FIFA off!

Horus

Like you I have great difficulty in believing a Muslim living in a Western country has not thought about laws that outlaw "vilification"