Friday, May 28, 2010

Fw: Mufti Kamal - Facebook Talk - Is Banning Facebook the Solution?

Although it is addressed to a particular crowd (college students, Pakistan), it is a beautiful talk worth listening to many times over again for our own self rectification in light of this apparently new concern...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7305909/Thursday%20Nights/05-20-2010%20-%20Cartoon%20Controversy%20-%20Is%20Banning%20Facebook%20The%20Solution%20-%20EKK.wma

Please also read the below, EXCELLENT, article on the matter and understanding from the angle of 'freedom of insult vs. freedom from insult'

adnan

----------------------------------------------------------------------

taken from Shaykh Bilal Ali Ansari's website: www.ilmgate.org

Freedom of Expression?

By Khalid Baig

With the latest in-your-face act of the Facebook, the issue is once again attracting headlines. Should Muslims react? How should they react? Where do they stand on the philosophical issue underlying all this?

In the media the issue has been framed as a clash between two camps. One camp stands for freedom of expression. The other wants to curtail it. Needless to say the first camp is enlightened and virtuous. The other is a relic of the dark ages. The clash in other words is between a civilized and civilizing West and Islam that just refuses to be civilized.

Once you accept this framing of the whole issue, the outcome is already decided. Are you for freedom of expression or not? It is a loaded question, and just like the yes/no question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" no matter how you answer it, you remain guilty.

Look at the typical Muslim response which begins, "We also believe in freedom of expression but…" It matters little what you say after that. It is obvious that you are trying to add exclusions and limitations to a basic moral value while the other side is asking for no such limits. It is not difficult to see which side will come out ahead.

But this predicament is a result of uncritically accepting a false statement about the nature of the clash. For the real clash is not between those who are for and those who are against a freedom. Rather it is between two different freedoms. On the one hand is the freedom to insult. On the other is freedom frominsult. Whether it was the Satanic Verses of the 1980s or the Cartoons of 2005 and their endless reproduction since then, if they stand for any freedom, it is freedom to insult. Pure and simple. Muslims, on the other hand, have stood for and demanded freedom from insult. Nothing more. Nothing less.

These are certainly opposing values. You can be for one or the other. And the question does arise, which one is a better value.

To see that let us imagine a society that truly believes in the first as a cherished moral value. It celebrates freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built.

Actually contrary to the claims of the pundits if the Western society was truly built on this "cherished moral value," it would have perished a long time ago — consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance.

Software professionals sometimes use a term called beature. It stands for a bug turned into a feature. A bug is a defect in the software. A feature, on the other hand, is a desirable attribute. A beature is a defect that is presented (thanks to slick marketing) as a feature. Freedom to insult is also a beature. It is the growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression.

Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions. Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur'an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. "Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged." (Qur'an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.

As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet — from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants. Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.

What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.



Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Facebook Creed? Racism's Bad, Bashing Religion Is Good

The Facebook Creed? Racism's Bad, Bashing Religion Is Good


By Tommy De Seno

- FOXNews.com

Facebook has obliterated civilized discourse by allowing pages related to "Draw Muhammad Day" to stay up.

Recently, in a column for the Fox Forum called "Muhammad Cartoons vs. Piss Christ" I compared the insult Muslims feel when they see a drawing of Muhammad to the hurt Christians felt when an artist photographed a crucifix in a jar of urine, called it "Piss Christ" and received a tax-funded monetary award from the National Endowment of the Arts.

The point I tried to make is that just because the First Amendment allows you to say something doesn't mean you should say it. Freedom comes with responsibility, which includes tactfulness when discussing the revered symbols of another's religion.

Sure you are free to hurl insults – but remember the purpose of criticism is persuasion, and no one has ever been persuaded by first being insulted. Criticism can be made of Islam and Christianity without denigrating either's most sacred symbols.

As Americans we should fight like hell for the right to draw a picture of Muhammad, but then choose not to.

This issue is hot today because some folks short on good criticism and long on juvenile insult declared May 20 "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." I wonder why they didn't include "Everyone Piss On a Crucifix Day," too? That they didn't do just that, suggests that this is not a pro-First Amendment movement, but a purely an anti-Muslim movement.

There are two Facebook pages battling it out. One is called "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." It has about 79,000 members. The other protests with "Against Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." It has about 90,000 members.

So here's my question: Why does Facebook allow a page whose purpose is to spread hate for a religion? After all, Facebook used to ban activity for no other reason than the author was home-schooled (and that's some weird priorities right there).

A Facebook spokesperson defended the company's decision to not ban the "Draw Muhammad" page to FoxNews.com earlier this week:

"Groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs -- even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some -- do not by themselves violate our policies."

But compare that to this quote from an interview with a Facebook spokesman last year with Britain's Daily Mail newspaper. Things were different when the topic was not anti-religion pages, but about pages that include racism:

"However, there is no place for content that is threatening, abusive, hateful, or racially or ethnically objectionable on the site and Facebook will remove any such content that violates our Terms of Use when it is reported… We have already removed a number of groups that violated these terms and we are continuing to be vigilant, immediately removing further postings when we become aware of them."

I see the Facebook matrix: "Racism is bad, but bashing religion is good."

Facebook also said this to FoxNews.com about the "Draw Muhammad" page:

"When a group created to express an opinion devolves into threats or hate speech, we will remove the threatening or hateful comments and may even remove the group itself."

Hey Facebook – have you seen the two pages today? They are both a cesspool of hateful anti-religious commentary, devoid of useful criticism and swimming with the worst of distance-induced Internet hatred and nastiness.

If these pages don't violate Facebook's rules against hate speech, you can't violate them.

Both pages have been taken over by anti-religious zealots whose purpose is to stir up anger for the sake of eliciting an even angrier response – all heat and no light. The folks posting the hate have the advantage of hiding whatever it is they hold sacred, so that no one can employ their own tactics against them. Cowards.

Both pages are filled with drawings, manipulated photos and commentary showing all religious leaders in acts of bestiality, pedophilia and outrages claims to calamities in history that religion couldn't possibly be held accountable for.

Even if you've read hateful speech, you've still probably never read such blind, ignorant rage as is existent on these pages. Both pages should be taken down immediately, but they won't be.

Facebook has obliterated civilized discourse.

Tommy De Seno is an attorney and writer.