#FreeRaif
Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error*:
256 of Al-Baqara
Not much to state here apart from disgust at the treatment of blogger and Saudi national, Raif Badawi for the heinous crime of ‘insulting Islam through electronic channels’. The thugs and gangsters that control his country have upheld the sentence of one thousand lashes and ten years imprisonment for encouraging debate on religious and political issues.
[wiki link HERE] – [some of Raif’s blog posts HERE via Ian Black @ The Guardian]
They themselves had debated, earlier, as to whether Raif had actually committed apostasy – that’s leaving the faith, punishable by death. It’s confusing, I know, but when you’re making shit up as you go along your train of thought can get kinda’ messy. Here’s how it can go… follow the logic here, Campers: to question is to blaspheme, blasphemy is disobedience to submission, disobedience to submission is insulting to Islam, an insult to Islam is a rejection of the faith, a rejection of the faith is the same as leaving the faith, leaving the faith is apostasy, apostasy is punishable by death.
Simples.
The level of linguistic gymnastics required to get from an imaginary theocratic misdemeanor to a capital crime is staggering and thus is generally seen as the purview of the wisdom of the Scholar or Jurist, but… this can often be abrogated in various Islamic jurisdictions – presumably for the logically challenged – by simply applying the death penalty directly to blasphemy.
I’m not too sure how this works region by region? It may have something to do with local SAT scores?
It does save both time and thought, though, which is handy as, let’s face it, most of these clowns – sorry, Scholars, are hardly the sharpest scimitars in the knife draw. It’s what comes of spending valuable educational time trying to work out whether a telescope, or a cat, is un-islamic or not.
Can you imagine trying to write under a regime such as this?
Can you imagine living in a society unsure as to whether your next word or action could be twisted to justify your imprisonment or death at the hands of the state.
Picture yourself living in a society where the tyrannical finger of accusation could cause you to be burnt alive – as happened to tens of thousands of women in the Middle-Ages for the imaginary crime of witchcraft, and continues to this day in Christian Africa and Hindu India.
Imagine living in a society where some fuckwit of a neighbour, offended or insulted by you – or merely having a keen eye on your new lawn-mower, could utter the word blasphemy and watch as you are beaten to death by a mob – and this implicitly condoned by the state, as happens today in Pakistan and elsewhere.
A prerequisite against such tyrannies is the encouragement, development and protection of free-speech. It is free speech and freedom of expression which guaranties freedom of thought, and it is freedom of thought, unconstrained by the inability to impart or receive information, which will allow us to attain anything that we may legitimately regard as wisdom.
I hate to sound like some kind of Social Justice Warrior here, but these people are just twats. Okay, David Cameron is a twat, too, but I at least get to call the twat a twat without my front door being kicked in. Watch:
“David Cameron is a fucking twat!”
See. No doors kicked in. No baying mob with burning torches.
I don’t doubt that freedom of speech has its problems: privacy; incitement to violence; lies; commercial interest; the media; fuckwit neighbours; the curtailment of wealth to buy access to the media; some twat calling you a twat, to name but a few, but these are issues that are only solved by the greater application of the very thing that raises these issues – more freedom of speech.
The problems of free speech are solved, in the main, by free speech itself. We do not solve the problems of free speech by having less free speech. We do not solve the problems of free speech by allowing groups, individuals or states the ability to deem what can and cannot be spoken of.
This is why freedom of speech must go hand in hand with a secular state.
No ideas, concepts or ideologies should be immune from discussion, debate, criticism, irreverence or mockery. What is sacred to me may not be sacred to you. I cannot be allowed to stifle or stop your opinion of what is sacred to me – especially when what is sacred to me may have implications as to how you may live your life.
We live in a time where freedom of speech is constantly under threat. Where media manipulation can win elections or, worse still, take nations into illegal wars. The world, my friends, is full of twats.
We need to be in state of constant vigilance against twatism.
Tony Blair, Arch Twat, [who really should be in the dock at the Hague] and a man supposedly steeped in the history of democracy will soon – having resigned as Middle East Peace Envoy [sic] – take up a new role as Chair of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) an organisation that promotes a tougher stance on extremism – particularly anti-semitism – and one that also seeks to impose a law across Europe that will make Holocaust denial a criminal offence.
Do we really want to censure or even imprison people for believing the delusion that something that happened, never really happened at all? Or for holding a thought or idea that may offend us?
We could, of course, choose the cheaper ‘free speech’ route and simply ask them to put up or shut up – to justify their claims with evidence, with reason, and with logic. In failing to meet these requirements they could simply be banished from public discourse to those shadowy parts of the web inhabited by truthers, birthers, and people who have been probed, to be made available occasionaly for universal mockery or filed forever under the letter ‘T’.
This strategy may not lie well for groups in our society who seek to silence others as they themselves believe in unevidenced things that patently didn’t happen – talking snakes, magic apples, virgin births, zombie gods – yet cling as dearly to their own delusion as the Holocaust deniers do theirs. These very same people – people presently lauded in our society and given high office – hold thoughts that are, in my view, as despicable, immoral and objectionable as the people they seek to silence. They should remain, however, as entitled to these views as their opponents and I would defend this entitlement to my last breath.
That said, I’d want these Twats in Hats out of the House of Lords, chop chop – another reason to demand a secular state.
Listen up… I want to know what Holocaust deniers are saying. I want to confront their evidence. I want to know who they are and why they are saying what they are saying. However unpalatable that may seem to me.
Without debate there can be no democracy.
I want to be able to take part in that debate.
I want to be able to call a twat a twat.
We need to support people who want to call a twat a twat.
I would appeal to all to click the link to the Amnesty petition. [HERE & below]
Sorry, meant to just quickly post the link to the Amnesty petition – ended up having a bit of a rant. It’s late, I’ll leave the corrections, links and typo’s till tomorrow [Yay! Done that now… I think?] as I wanted to get this up. Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah, I’m not normally one for online petitions, but… SIGN THE FUCKING PETITION!
PETITION – Amnesty International UK – Free Raif Badawi! – PETITION
The Truth only Stands Out Clear from Error when you can distinguish Truth from Error.
Anvil Springstien.
:
:
This from Amnesty International:
Someone present at Raif Badawi’s public flogging on 9 January described this account of Raif’s flogging for us. The witness has not been identified for security reasons.
‘When the worshippers saw the police van outside the mosque, they knew someone would be flogged today.
They gathered in a circle. Passers-by joined them and the crowd grew. But no one knew why the man brought forward was about to be punished. Is he a killer, they asked? A criminal? Does he not pray?
Raif Badawi had been brought to the square in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah just after midday. There was a huge security presence – not just accompanying Raif but also in the streets and around the mosque. Some roads had also been closed.
Raif was escorted from a bus and placed in the middle of the crowd, guarded by eight or nine officers. He was handcuffed and shackled but his face was not covered – everyone could see his face.
Still shackled, Raif stood up in the middle of the crowd. He was dressed in a pair of trousers and a shirt.
A security officer approached him from behind with a huge cane and started beating him.
Raif raised his head towards the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back. He was silent, but you could tell from his face and his body that he was in real pain.
The officer beat Raif on his back and legs, counting the lashes until they reached 50.
The punishment took about 5 minutes. It was very quick, with no break in between lashes.
When it was over, the crowd shouted, “Allah-hu Akbar! Allah-hu Akbar!” – as if Raif had been purified.
Raif was taken away in the bus, back to prison. The whole scene had lasted less than half an hour.’
:
This from Ian Black. Middle East Editor. The Guardian
7th January 2015 [in reference to the Charley Hebdo attack]
Saudi Arabia called it a “cowardly terrorist attack that was rejected by the true Islamic religion”. The Arab League and Egypt’s al-Azhar university – the leading theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world – also denounced the incident in which masked gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar” – “god is great ” in Arabic.
[See what these twats did here?]
:
Note:
The article title is taken from one of the most used verses in the Qur’an:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error*:”
256 of Al-Baqara
*Caution: Doublespeak Alert: May not mean what you think it means. May mean that there is Compulsion in Religion after all. May mean that Truth may not stand out clear from Error. May only apply during times of War. May only apply during times of Peace. May apply only to Infidels. May apply only to Muslims. May apply to Third Party’s. Always consult a Qualified Scholar. Always read the small-print. Contents may settle. The Truth only stands out clear from Error when you can distinguish Truth from Error.
meVolution 