Saturday, December 24, 2011

Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari Condemns Freedom of Speech

I keep telling people that Islamic values are inconsistent with Western values such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Whenever I bring up the issue, however, I am labeled a "racist," a "bigot," a "hate-monger," and an "Islamophobe."

But what happens when Muslims themselves say that Islam doesn't allow Freedom of Speech? Should we call these Muslims "racists" or "Islamophobes"?

10 comments:

simple_truth said...

Freedom of speech is limited to what Islam wants you to say. We all know what that means--no freedom of speech.

Radical Moderate said...

"If your going to run your mouth with some stuff you best believe that Islam will hold you accountable to that."

I dont think any Islamaphobe could of defined Islam better.

Radical Moderate said...

I have been seeing alot of this guy lately on the internet. Anyone know who he is? Is he a revert to islam?

Btw at the end of the video it lists other video's by him. There to funny. I learned a few things.

1. Do you know that why "Rappers" like .50 cent are arrogant. Its becasue they wear their pants to low.

2. Do yuo know why it is important to eat with your right hand. Becasue Mohamed did Do Whop on some Muslim who was eating with his left hand and the man could never raise his right hand again.

D. Collaric said...

He mentioned the cartoons (most likely the "danish"). Muslims claim it is not allowed to depict the profeet, BUT the Newspapers in Islamic countries, had no problem whatsoever to PRINT THEM, in fact it was THEY who spread them, not the small "danish paper" in a far away place, in a news-paper only danish folks could read. And then there is another issue, 3 of the (maybe even more?) of the cartoons were not the creations of the danish cartoonists. They were made up (one from a pig squealing contest in France).

So these Muslim leaders lied to their own people. That people died through the hands of Muslims doesn't seem to face this guy, to him a insult to a dead person weighs heavier than the taking of innocent lives by Muslims who "defend the honor" of the dead profeet.

As to "insult" to MoHAMmel, <-- he would even have to read read at least both English as well as "German" and be a mind-reader to know what this means. :-) A miracle! A man who died almost 1400 years ago speaking a Arabic Tongue would understand MODERN times German as well as my lousy American version of "English" all the wile his body was already
eaten by worms. In fact if he has not this ability he would not even understand modern times ARABIC! Now THIS MUST have been the greatest miracle a dead person knowing what is going on! On the day of "Judgment" Muslims claim that their profeet will "intercede" on the behalf of the "faithful". He could not even do so for modern-day Arabs, much less for any other Muslim on the face of gods green earth who happen to speak a different language...

Muslims claim that only the profeet can forgive the "offender" the one who did "wrong" to him. Also they admit that can NOT do so because he is dead!
To repeat: But a dead person would know that he was "offended". And if the "hearer" of the insult happens to be a Muslim, he is NOT THE PERSON against the words are spoken.
Will allah on the day of Judgment tell the profeet, who "insulted" him while he was dead? So that he can "forgive" them?

Unknown said...

"You have the freedom to be a lemming running scared from a 7th century superstition."

Nakdimon said...

I dont know but I tend to agree with Abu Mussa that freedom of speech should not be taken as a carte blanche to spew insults about anyone.

However, should what you say be the truth and you insult people by it, then maybe you should rethink your position and people should be free to say what they find in source material. So if there is basis for saying that Muhammad is a false prophet because his message is incoherent and incompatible with the Bible while he claims the Quran came to confirm the Torah and the Gospel WHICH WE HAVE, then we have the freedom to point that out and that form of freedom of speech seems to be exactly what Abu Mussa wants to forbid and is exactly what Islam wants to forbid. I obviously do not support that position.

Nakdimon said...

Collaric, you are dutch arent you? ;-)

CH Martel said...

The book, "Satan's Trinity: Hitler, Stalin & Muhammad, is available at http://satanstrinity.wordpress.com/ For the first time in history "HSM" appear together on a book cover. The idea behind the book is to make headway against the ludicrous idea that Muhammad should be conjoined with any religious leader/founder. This book uses the specific names of Hitler and Stalin to efficiently identify the nature of Muhammad and by extension Islam. It compares the personalities and approach of each man to such categories as; war, peace, sex, torture, slavery, women, their respective childhoods and deaths, the critical affects of geography and timing, each man’s anti-social and narcissistic personalities. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CHMartel&aq=f

Martin James said...

The generalisation about Islam and Muslims here is ridiculous. If I say "Christians burn 'witches'", that would be a gross generalisation to ALL Christians of what SOME Christians have been doing in Kenya recently, and therefore invalid. Exactly equivalent generalisations are going on here.

But here's one statement which is not even validated by what ANY Muslims say:

"Muslims claim that only the profeet can forgive the "offender" the one who did "wrong" to him."

I neither know nor have heard of any Muslim who "claims" anything of the sort. It is simply a completely wrong statement of what Muslims believe -and I mean ANY Muslims.

focused carter said...

May Allah guide those who are misguided. Most talk out of ignorance. Have you even studied the life of this prophet yourself or just believe what your priest or pastor or what people told you.