A blog about everything.
For all those bloggers who suddenly discovered free speech when Macleans started to publish Islamophobic articles, please watch this because its Maclains who actually censors views that are not in sync with their view of the world:
[wp_youtube]PeenAJx-Zjk[/wp_youtube]
oops, typo … the ‘am’ above should be ‘are’.
But, if free speech is the issue, do I have the right to speak freely as well? Including the 6 year old bride (I could go on, but let’s use that as a starting point).
Yes
However, Maclains went a lot further than just bring up certain points, the least they can do is publish alternative points of views. If Maclains really believes in freedom of speech, why would they censor those who do not agree with them when they do make inflammatory statements? Canada’s only national magazine should at least have some type of mechanism to deal with those type of complaints if they want to be considered a legitimate source of information.
Unless I’m thinking of a different magazine, correct the spelling of Macleans.
Macleans is a private magazine. They cater to their readership. They are under no obligation to publish anything. If they go bankrupt, then they know they did a poor job. Vote with your $ and all of that.
There are plenty of magazines out there that I find one-sided and offensive. Playboy, let’s say. But forcing Macleans to publish articles that their readership won’t enjoy is an encroachment on their freedom more than anything. It’s also stupid. You know how many frustrated writers there are out there who’d love to sue the rags that rejected them? Imagine the precedent. Or hey, I can’t remember the last time the Economist published an article recommending communism. Let’s sue them and fix that, too.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean we buy everyone a printing press. Free speech means we don’t fine or jail the dissent. If you think Macleans is a piece of trash, buy a different magazine and tell all of your friends. Skip the lawsuit and don’t pervert our right to free expression.
Here’s how you could frame the story: “Look at Macleans! Crazy bastards! But lo! Free speech to the rescue! The opposition found their voice on CTV! No need for a human rights tribunal, the system works!”
I wonder if you’d feel the same if Macleans (guilty as charged, never been a great speller) published articles that suggested the same thing that Salman had said and encouraged people to attack Canadian troops.
Or, if Macleans said that about Jewish people (drinking blood and all they other stuff they’ve said).
There would be a public outrage, just as you were outraged when Salman made those comments and called for his explosion.
However, when it comes to Muslims, all of a sudden its “freedom of speech”.
I think Macleans, as Canada’s only National Magazine should publish at least one letter allowing someone from the Muslim community to respond… they don’t have to, but they should and thats what this case is about because its the only avenue these guys have. Most other major media do have bodies that deal with complaints like that, Macleans should too (they don’t have too, but they should).
I had to dig a bit … but this is apparently the article (by Mark Steyn) in question:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898
Entitled ‘The future belongs to Islam’.
What specific allegations are made in that article that ‘the muslims’ don’t like? It seems like a well written, (long) article, expressing one man’s opinion that essentially, the demographics are worrisome. More Muslim babies are being born than Western babies, hence western ideals, culture, (yes race too), will die out.
Whether you care or not, is up to you.
And I think most Canadians have very little sympathy for Muslim pleas for ‘free speech’. They are still trying to kill (yes, kill) the guy that drew the Muhammad cartoon in Denmark (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html).
FOR THE RECORD: I did not call for Hossain’s “explosion”. That is disgusting and messy.
I am, and have always been, adamant that Hossain should not be charged federally. I support his expulsion from UTM because it seems to me that he broke the student code of conduct. Whether or not the code of conduct is “just” is a conversation that I’m willing to entertain - maybe we shouldn’t punish hate speech at all at our University. As it is, stipulations pertaining to willfully entered-into contracts are in no way an encroachment on anyone’s right to freedom of speech.
I would defend Maclean’s right to publish whatever anti-Semite, anti-troop tripe they wanted without hesitation. I am a proponent of absolute freedom of speech. This whole business of Hossain’s comments being Treasonous is especially alarming. We really must take the greatest care in protecting our right to speak against the state. As Voltaire said “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
Your last paragraph was entirely reasonable… and I’ve never been a great speller either.
I would like the well-informed gentlemen to tell me where he found the idea of Mohammed and the six year old bride? Yes you can go on and on. And you know what, so can I. But, it is much diffciutl to go on and on when you actually have to resort to facts rather than bringing in “facts” that are not true and are not verified. Anyways, no point in arguing with such bigots anyways. These people have hardly bothered to read about the life of Mohammed or any religious figures for that matter.
Hi Modrun:
From the hadith’s, of course. Where else can we learn about the life of Muhammad?
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years)….Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
“No Name”, its really annoying to hear people who haven’t done any Islamic studies, talk and discuss about Islam. 6 yr old bride, really??? This is hilarious. Even the scholars of Islam haven’t reached a consensus about Ayesha’s (may Allah be pleased with the lady) age, so how come majority of the West already has reached a consensus???
Kindly view this article. I am going to quote it a bit here.
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375
“To begin with, I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm……
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) - if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.”
There is no consensus among scholars of Ayesha’s (may Allah be pleased with the lady) about her age. Some say she got wed after she reached puberty. On average, girls reach puberty around 9-13 years. Yet another set of scholars contest that she was a teenager at the time she got married and moved in with Mohammad (peace be upon him). So scholars aren’t so sure themselves.
Another thing should be noted here. In Islam, forced marriage, without the consent of a mature person, are invalid. Mature means, mentally mature to understand what marriage means etc. Given that, Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) was mature enough to understand what marriage meant and gave her consent for marriage, there was no force or anything horrendous there. Secondly, Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) never got married after Mohammad (peace be upon him) died. Why? B/c this woman fell in love with that man. Get it!!!!!! So, when you people go around saying negative things about prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), please at least do some research so you don’t sound so silly:-)
Another thing, the fact that Ayesha was young (most likely a teenager) was very important. This woman studied prophet Mohammad and learned a lot from him. As a result, she became the greatest scholar of Islam. Prophet Mohammad and Ayesha’s relationship was deeply spiritual and intellectual. Ayesha understood many intricate details of Islam really well and became a women of stature, integrity and knowledge. After Mohammad (peace be upon him) died, the best scholars among men would seek Ayesha’s advice on religious matters. Ayesha’s marriage with Mohammad was Allah’s way of ensuring that people continue learning about Islam after Mohammad’s death.
I hope this shed some light on this contentious issue. Kindly don’t look at Mohammad (peace be upon him) so negatively. At least do your research properly before backing anyone’s negative claims about him (peace be upon him)
Take care
Peace and Blessings
“No Name”, do check out this article as well
Yawn … I give you a nice concise quote from the Hadith’s (from Bukhari’s collection no less!) and that still isn’t good enough. If one cannot rely on Bukhari’s collection, which collection of Hadiths are reliable then? Are any of them reliable? Will the ’science’ of hadith need a re-think :)
Your post saldy is an example of al-takkeya.
Takkeya is a Shi’a concept and not a sunni concept. Shi’a is minority Sunni is majority. Anyways, I dont want to carry out a discussion with someone who has demonstrated twice now, that their understanding of Islamic culture, civilization and its sacred knowledge lacks basic understanding. Anyways last piont from me here about the hadith which says ENGAGED me at 6 and then handed over at 9 and if you look at other ahadith you will find that the consummation took place at 12. Anyways, thanks for proving my point “no name” Oh, and understanding the richness of Arabic text, and the problems that come about with translation will also be in your best interest. I sure dont want to see “open-minded” people such as yourself make these sort of comments in a larger public area, only to find themselves being refuted from not only the muslims but also the western historical academia - which unlike you, do their research objectively.
Yo Modrun! thanks. :-) Jazakallah Khair
re. takkeya, good point. I didn’t mean to split the Ummah :)
re. ‘richness of Arabic’ and impossibility to translate into English (or any other language). Muslims use this argument when difficult issues in the Koran are raised. If the Hadiths are being discussed with a Kafir, Muslims usually refer the Kafir to a contradictory Hadith or claim ‘Silly Kafir, that is not a Hadith that Suni/Shia/whatever Muslims believe in’ :o) So, you need to get this part straight.
re. Aisha, it’s a boring and tangential argument. I don’t care if she was 6,9,or 12. Whatever you like.
Anyways, I am more interested in the origins of the Koran itself. Stories written 200-300 years after the emergence of Islam (i.e. the earliest Hadiths, such as Bukhari’s).
It is so amazing at how people don’t want to owe up to their comments…how can we validify a comment made by a “No Name”?
What are you afraid of? The truth?
It’s http://www.macleans.ca
.
I don’t deny anyone’s rights to free speech … including the Muslims. They are free to say anything they want.
But am we free to bring up Muhammad’s six year old child bride? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha)
Yes or no?