Channel 4 to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer every morning during the holy month of Ramadan

and it wasnt a rape, wrong wordings! and do you think her father would have let it happen if he thought it was bad! you are the sick one, blinded by your hatred..
 
That has obviously changed with culture and tradition however Mohammed, from an Islamic point of view, is meant to be a role model of how to be a good muslim so his actions should be timeless.

That is disingenuous. From an Islamic perspective the actions of Mohammed were within the law of the time, so it is reasonable to assume as long as a Muslim follows the law of this time then they are following Mohammed's example. Not that a Muslim is required to follow each specific act of Mohammed in the first place, only use his life as a guide in the form of the Sunnah.

Most Islamic Countries have a higher age of consent then the UK anyway.
 
Anyhow your point falls flat considering we have established channel 4 were not broadcasting to provoke the EDL.

I didn't say they exclusively were, though we've been over this already - the point was that the intent of the broadcast was to be provocative.


Secondly the "freedom of speech" comes with responsibility as already proven by laws in this country and recent high profiles arrests because of online comments.

A cartoon of an historic figure doesn't break any laws - your comparison is invalid.


Now I don't thinking freedom of speech would help my defence one bit if I thought it was funny putting up a cartoon drawing of Lee Rigby head rolling around the floor on Facebook with "lol" written across the top. Would you defend my freedom of speech to do that? Its only a cartoon right?

It's a rather more distasteful cartoon (depicting someone's death) but it's still just a cartoon? If you were advocating people copy the act or the cartoon was detailed enough to be classed as obscene etc.. then perhaps it would be close to the boundaries - other than that it's still a cartoon.
 
I didn't say they exclusively were, though we've been over this already - the point was that the intent of the broadcast was to be provocative.

It seems you have read the word provocative and pretty much singled it out and ran with it, as shown above the full statement paints a different picture.


A cartoon of an historic figure doesn't break any laws - your comparison is invalid.

Which one, you 're flip flopping between so many I don't know which you are referring too, I guess it's the Danish one. Putting up a cartoon drawing in a national news paper of a Prophet of another religion with a bomb on his head, whilst numerous Muslims countries were currently under occupation and a mass hysteria towards Muslims in general was not a sensible thing to do.

It's a rather more distasteful cartoon (depicting someone's death) but it's still just a cartoon? If you were advocating people copy the act or the cartoon was detailed enough to be classed as obscene etc.. then perhaps it would be close to the boundaries - other than that it's still a cartoon.

As it is distasteful doing the above, not sure where you picked up the advocating bit....
 
In Spain the age of sexual consent in some regions is as low as 13 iirc.

It is...what many people are perhaps unaware of is that many European countries have ages of 14-16 and many of the AoCs are relatively recent....France and the UK had AoCs of 12 and 11 respectively late into the 19th Century for example.
 
Which one, you 're flip flopping between so many I don't know which you are referring too, I guess it's the Danish one. Putting up a cartoon drawing in a national news paper of a Prophet of another religion with a bomb on his head, whilst numerous Muslims countries were currently under occupation and a mass hysteria towards Muslims in general was not a sensible thing to do.

Any

Yup it's not sensible, I'll agree with that.

As it is distasteful doing the above, not sure where you picked up the advocating bit....

You're talking about limits to freedom of speech and asking about a violent cartoon. A violent cartoon in itself might be distasteful but is still just a cartoon. Depicting violence in itself isn't necessarily illegal... making violence graphic to the point that it becomes obscene or advocating violence is where the limits on free speech come into play.
 
Why is it ok for JAPAN to have age of 12 in this day and age! just answer this?

it seems in your mind, you have totally ignored my post and picked on one thing out of context, same thing you did with Quran! open your eyes, learn to be open!

oh i am sorry, Japan has a legal age of 13 not 12! my point still stands.. and even if it was 15, (france et al) then to you it would still be paedophilia.. so go on why dont you lot do something about that?

dont beat around the bush, if the law says it is 13, it is 13!

The point is that the legal age in Japan is generally 18 at prefecture level. You are misinformed.

So is it acceptable to have sex with a 12 year old? Personally I say no.


That is disingenuous. From an Islamic perspective the actions of Mohammed were within the law of the time, so it is reasonable to assume as long as a Muslim follows the law of this time then they are following Mohammed's example. Not that a Muslim is required to follow each specific act of Mohammed in the first place, only use his life as a guide in the form of the Sunnah.

Most Islamic Countries have a higher age of consent then the UK anyway.

I don't think it is being disengenuous at all as Mohammed also created a whole bunch of laws. If God really was having a chat with Mo do you not think he would have taken the time to say "Good work on the whole Islam thing so far, but I don't think banging a 12 year old is all that good a thing to do."?

Obviously child welfare was much less important than stopping people eating bacon an making them pray five times a day. :D

If Islam isn't divinely inspired then there is no issue at all with Mohammed's actions because it was culturally acceptable at the time. If it is divinely inspired then we have problems as God really isn't all that bothered about old blokes having sex with kids!
 
I don't think it is being disengenuous at all as Mohammed also created a whole bunch of laws. If God really was having a chat with Mo do you not think he would have taken the time to say "Good work on the whole Islam thing so far, but I don't think banging a 12 year old is all that good a thing to do."?

Obviously child welfare was much less important than stopping people eating bacon an making them pray five times a day. :D

Your answer here is also disingenuous....as the laws attributed to Mohammed were not generally codified as such until after his death, and included a range of laws which protected women in general and girls under the age of puberty which were not in existence prior to that.

If Islam isn't divinely inspired then there is no issue at all with Mohammed's actions because it was culturally acceptable at the time. If it is divinely inspired then we have problems as God really isn't all that bothered about old blokes having sex with kids!

I suspect that if there is a God, then puberty would be where he made that demarcation. Which was common practice across most cultures until very recently.....including our own.
 
Is this thread still going on? Blimeh.....
Muslims sure know how to whine up the white folks around :rolleyes:


Seriously get a grip everyone. Like you all give a crap. Move on.
So what, if Channel 4 is broadcasting this. It's not like it's gong to effect your daily life before you wake up? Get a grip.


The moment that a topic is created about Muslims, regardless what ever the topic is about. It becomes a bashing thread towards Muslims.

Full of hatred. Racism? And more, etc...
 
I didn't say they exclusively were, though we've been over this already - the point was that the intent of the broadcast was to be provocative.




A cartoon of an historic figure doesn't break any laws - your comparison is invalid.




It's a rather more distasteful cartoon (depicting someone's death) but it's still just a cartoon? If you were advocating people copy the act or the cartoon was detailed enough to be classed as obscene etc.. then perhaps it would be close to the boundaries - other than that it's still a cartoon.

doesnt matter if it is a cartoon or not when it will hurt sentiments of millions of people.

if i said "holocaust didnt happen" - why is that a crime? it shouldnt matter it is still "free speech"
 
And you would be wrong. Disrespectful, flippant and skipping details for the sake of brevity, definitely! But in no way am I being insincere or anything but candid in my views.

I think you are being disingenuous in reply, I think you know better and are misrepresenting the level of knowledge you have, not that your stated position on Islam is insincere or that you are not being candid on your dislike for Religion, Islam in particular, but rather your responses to questions and comments.

...You also did it with the Japan AoC, which does have a AoC of 13, and then each Prefecture sets its own laws regarding the "corruption of minors"...the laws, both at federal and prefecture level are quite complex and not always very clear and are not always specific to an AoC...if you had read up on this, as I suspect you must have before commenting, then you would realise that.
 
doesnt matter if it is a cartoon or not when it will hurt sentiments of millions of people.

if i said "holocaust didnt happen" - why is that a crime? it shouldnt matter it is still "free speech"

Holocaust denial isn't a crime in the UK...
 
If Islam isn't divinely inspired then there is no issue at all with Mohammed's actions because it was culturally acceptable at the time. If it is divinely inspired then we have problems as God really isn't all that bothered about old blokes having sex with kids!

still stuck at one point, I see..

when I have established in this very day and age, different countries have different age of consent; you still go on about what he did? Hypocricy or what?

you do realise different people become mature at different ages? You werent there, you dont know what happened and how exactly i.e under what circumstances, did she reach puberty or not etc etc.

you claim Islam is bad etc etc. Muslims are all ****** up because of our religion, what is your excuse!
 
Holocaust denial isn't a crime in the UK...

Indeed, we have rejected the EU position that all member states adopt a law criminalising holocaust denial. Denmark, where the Cartoon controversy happened also do not have any laws regarding Holocaust denial.
 
I think you are being disingenuous in reply, I think you know better and are misrepresenting the level of knowledge you have, not that your stated position on Islam is insincere or that you are not being candid on your dislike for Religion, Islam in particular, but rather your responses to questions and comments.

And you would still be wrong. I was condensing for the sake of brevity and the fact I am on my tablet so have no desire to write a well thought out and extensive essay that will likely be ignored by our resident Islamists anyway. In short I am treating this topic with the (lack of) respect it deserves. If it was a topic on the ethical morality of religious actions and their role models in SC I might put more effort in to it, but for this thread? No, not worth the time.


...You also did it with the Japan AoC, which does have a AoC of 13, and then each Prefecture sets its own laws regarding the "corruption of minors"...the laws, both at federal and prefecture level are quite complex and not always very clear and are not always specific to an AoC...if you had read up on this, as I suspect you must have before commenting, then you would realise that.

Jesus H Christ have you seen the semi literate frothing loon I am replying to? Do you honestly think he has the intellectual capability to decipher the nuances of the Age of Consent laws in Japan?

My very first post on Japan's AoC laws mentioned the federal being 13 but then I generalised the many differing prefecture laws to a general 18. Which isn't far off the truth.
 
doesnt matter if it is a cartoon or not when it will hurt sentiments of millions of people.

Yup - it doesn't matter as far as freedom of speech is concerned. If millions of people chose to take offence at something like that then that is their issue. You don't have the right to not be offended by cartoons or ideas or criticisms of beliefs. If you don't like the fact a newspaper has published a cartoon don't buy that paper.

if i said "holocaust didnt happen" - why is that a crime? it shouldnt matter it is still "free speech"
As has been pointed out - that isn't a crime in the uk.
 
Last edited:
And you would still be wrong. I was condensing for the sake of brevity and the fact I am on my tablet so have no desire to write a well thought out and extensive essay that will likely be ignored by our resident Islamists anyway. In short I am treating this topic with the (lack of) respect it deserves. If it was a topic on the ethical morality of religious actions and their role models in SC I might put more effort in to it, but for this thread? No, not worth the time.

Ok, I will concede you the benefit of doubt here. I am on my tablet also, in fact most of my posts are done thusly...;)


Jesus H Christ have you seen the semi literate frothing loon I am replying to? Do you honestly think he has the intellectual capability to decipher the nuances of the Age of Consent laws in Japan?

My very first post on Japan's AoC laws mentioned the federal being 13 but then I generalised the many differing prefecture laws to a general 18. Which isn't far off the truth.

I don't know whether he does or not, but it does misrepresent the situation in Japan.

But again, it isn't worth getting into a big ding-dong over, so likewise as above...
 
Back
Top Bottom