By all means point out and criticise THEIR stance on Freedom of Speech, FD.  Do not however ascribe THEIR stance to all Muslims.  That would be fallacious. 

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:


How the hell would I know how many muslims they represent?

But as usual you miss the point. The protest is a perfectly legitimate expression of free speech and is in no way any sort of anti-freedom demonstration. The protest is against being pidgeon-holed as either terrorist supporters or muslim-mocking cartoon supporters - with no tolerance for being anything else. I explained this in my last post.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:


Again, show me where they are demanding free speech be curbed.

Thats just idiotic FD.

We are against *YOUR* freedom - as in the version of "freedom" that states that you must be either a muslim-mocking cartoon supporter or be a freedom hater. All the while turning a blind eye to the actual banning of speech that is deemed offensive to a certain group of people. *THAT* is what they mean by we are against your freedom. The hypocritical type of freedom.

Nowhere do they say they are against freedom of speech - as in supporting the banning of particular expressions of speech - as the French government, as well as several other European governments do.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 8:12am:


No. But then again its Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, who most Australian muslims despise. Most likely it was only the people in their circle who turned up. They are idiots, but in this case the protest is legitimate IMO, and I don't imagine many Australians - muslims or non-muslims would disagree with them on this one. I think even you would have difficulty spinelessly apologising for a government that proudly marches down the street hand in hand with other world leaders in the name of "freedom" - at the very same time their authorities are arresting someone over a facebook comment deemed insensitive to jews.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:



What does this tell you Gandalf ? A small Islamic group here in Australia rejects freedom, right ?

Number 6 preservation "Justice or Liberty" will not be a preservation until Islamists decide which it's going to be, or both, and until then the rest of us can do nothing but accept that those two virtues are not in Muslims' mindsets

And it's why there are "dissidents" within the Muslim faith fighting for freedom to dress differently, drive cars, in the case of women (yes I think they can do that in OZ), and so on

Islam must feel pretty insecure about something, not sure what

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 12:50am:



Ummah.

Please explain, Brain.

Gandalf, do you have any quotes to back up your alternative version of reality where these lunatics were actually promoting freedom of speech by highlighting the hypocrisy of the government and calling for an end to all forms of censorship?

Quote:


No Gandalf. What they mean is that they are against freedom of speech. They are not whining about the labels we use. They want an end to our right to draw funny pictures of Muhammed.

Quote:


I doubt they care much about holocaust denial or whatever it is you are referring to. What they want is an end to freedom of speech. They could not have said it more clearly Gandalf. Why are you so desperate to misinterpret what they say?

Quote:


Halelujah! We have an answer.

Quote:


What do you mean by 'most'?

Quote:


Legitimate as in legal, or legitimate as in you support their cause?

Quote:


You mean this bit? "We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said. You think no-one disagrees with that?

Quote:


I agree that it is hypocritical. But that does not mean I agree with a bunch of lunatic Muslims who completely reject freedom on principle.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:50pm:



Talking about sharia law in the caliphate.  The full verse, our dishonest little distorter, is this:

(4:59) Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end.

And the next one:
(4:60) (O Messenger!) Have you not seen those who claim to believe in the Book which has been revealed to you and in the Books revealed before you, and yet desire to submit their disputes to the judgement of taghut (the Satanic authorities who decide independently of the Law of Allah), whereas they had been asked to reject it.And Satan seeks to make them drift far away from the right way.

And then thjis:
(4:61) When they are told: 'Come to that which Allah has revealed, and come to the Messenger', you will notice the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.





I am amazed how knowingly and readily you lie, Brain, you dishonest little spineless ideologue.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:


Read the article again FD:

Quote:


Just show me where they were specifically calling for bans on insulting the prophet. Obviously you won't find it, because that was not what they are saying. They are saying very clearly that they are against the arrogant western view that in order to be a 'freedom lover', you have to accept insults to the prophet. That is not freedom, and its quite amusing that it needs to be explained to you by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir of all people. Freedom is both being able to insult and equally being able to condemn such insults as unacceptable. Demanding that certain viewpoints must be accepted without protest is the very opposite to freedom. Yet that is what you would have us believe freedom is about.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:


Yes, and they say this so clearly that they don't even say it at all. Taqqiya perhaps?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:


Because you seem incapable of understanding what freedom of speech even is. You think condemning a certain view and protesting the idea that it must be accepted is somehow anti-freedom. You even condemned muslims when they defended Hizb-Ut-Tahrir against calls for it to be banned, and couldn't bring yourself to acknowledge they were standing up for freedom in that case.