Should Qutbism be outlawed?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

For those of you who don't know Sayyid Qutb was a co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood which was the intelligence wing of the Reich during WW2, and it is also the root of all radical Sunni Islamist groups from AQ to Hamas, now Sayyid Qutb taught of Jahilliya or "ignorance prior to the revelations of Mohammad," now according to Qutb the world was falling into Jahilliya and even Muslims were falling victim due to their attaction to western decadence, in order to combat this Qutb taught that the west must be destroyed and reformed into Islamic states under puritannical Sharia law like they have in Saudi Arabia, in order to do this he taught that first all secular states within the ME must come under Sharia in order to establish a pan-Islamic empire under the Caliphate which would be strong enough to conquer the west. Now should those who preach this form of Islamism in the U.S. and throughout the West be arrested. For me it is clearly speech that falls with the clear and present and clear and probable danger tests of the freedom of speech IE much like the Communists of old these Islamists are actively promoting the overthrow of the U.S. and people are heeding those calls and taking action in the form of terrorism against the west.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bump.......................

 

[Onine]

Hello Titus.

Ultimitely I think that muslim's will stand up for themselves and cause a great reformation much like the Vatican's Reformation. I don't like how they are using it as a means to stand against other cultures. I was just thinking about this earlier today watching a documentary on some terrorist. They have been like this since the Turks came into power through the Ottoman Empire. They took lands that didn't belong to them for all the wrong reasons and now they cling to those very same reasons, as you detail better than I, and it just isn't working.

My closing argument is that they are not just against the United States. I think our friends in Israel would all very much agree. This is a factor of jealousy much like the poor look unto the rich. Proof is seen clearly in Osama's responses to liberal american ideology; he embraces them. Part of me says we should stay out of it all. That part of me will likely vote for Ron Paul. The other part of me is so very infuriated that there are actually people out there that are more evil than Bush; At least Bush follows what he preaches. These people do a great injustice to all muslim's, and, again, ultimitely it will be muslim reformation that will see this through.

Though that remains elusive for reasons you detail. That is specifically why the other part of me wishes to see them face justice.

 

[bhkad]

Great thread topic!

I voted, "yes" even though I'm unsure as to how that might be done or even IF it can be done.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Great thread topic!

I voted, "yes" even though I'm unsure as to how that might be done or even IF it can be done.

Legislation similar to the alien and sedition acts would have to be passed and then stand up to the scrutiny in the SCOTUS suit that the ACLU would certainly file. I think it would as Qutbism clearly falls into the clear and present and clear and probable danger tests of the first amendment.

 

[bhkad]

Legislation similar to the alien and sedition acts would have to be passed and then stand up to the scrutiny in the SCOTUS suit that the ACLU would certainly file. I think it would as Qutbism clearly falls into the clear and present and clear and probable danger tests of the first amendment.

Well, thanks for that, as it does clear up part of my confusion.

The other part is this: Exactly how would we know someone was practicing Qutbism?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, thanks for that, as it does clear up part of my confusion.

The other part is this: Exactly how would we know someone was practicing Qutbism?

I'm speaking more along the lines of those who are preaching it to the masses, and they're not exactly secretive about their views.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's some info that's pertanent to the converstation:

The Bad Tendency test - The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

The Clear and Present Danger test - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

The Clear and Probable Danger test - In each case, we must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Contexts too numerable to ponder exist and events are often too remote to foresee. Cases must be decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, considering that the government's reasons for regulation are compelling.

The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

I think it's clear that Qutbism fails everysingle one of those tests and as such should not be considered protected speech.

 

[Kasmos]

Well if someone is preaching an ideology I'm not sure there is much anyone can do for that matter (and I don't think the government has the right to do anything in my opinion).

However, if those preaching this ideology started telling American Muslims (while in America) they need to kill their brethren (i.e. fellow Americans) I can see where the government could get involved and where I would have a problem with that.

But I didn't vote ToT, I think you need to have more then "Yes" and "No" options sometimes :mrgreen: An "Other" would have been nice.

 

[rivrrat]

No. I can't really think of any situation where I would side with censorship.

 

[Gardener]

No. I can't really think of any situation where I would side with censorship.

Not even as you're being forced into your habib to be turned into the sort of chattel who could be killed for "honor" if your master so decided?

 

[rivrrat]

Not even as you're being forced into your habib to be turned into the sort of chattel who could be killed for "honor" if your master so decided?

What does that have to do with anything? We aren't talking about taking my rights away, we're talking about taking away the rights of others to speak their mind. Their views - whether I agree with them or not - do not harm me. Even if they THINK I should be forced to cover myself, they cannot make me by way of speaking their mind. They can stand around and scream about my sinful ways until their heart is content. I don't give a hoot.

Therefore, I have no problem with them preaching their "values" any more than I have a problem with any group preaching their "values": Be it the KKK, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Christians, whoever. The only problem I would ever have with such things is when those "values" are attempted to be made into law. Then I take issue, and would fight that of course.

But talking about it? Nah, I can't side with censorship of ideas.

 

[Gardener]

What does that have to do with anything? We aren't talking about taking my rights away, we're talking about taking away the rights of others to speak their mind. .

Do you really know so little about the subject matter in question that you cannot recognize any the goals of that very subject?

 

[rivrrat]

Do you really know so little about the subject matter in question that you cannot recognize any the goals of that very subject?

I don't care what they say their goals are. They can sit and talk about them all they want. Makes no difference to me what they talk about. Action is the only thing that would matter, and if they take some sort of violent action they should be promptly tried and punished for it just like anyone else. Until that time, there is nothing - IMO - that needs to be done.

Allow them to be out in the open, freely. It's far better to keep groups like that operating in the light of day than to force them underground where they are harder to watch. Let them preach their hate for all to hear, and for most to laugh and ridicule. Let them speak loudly for all the world to know exactly what and who they are. The enemy is much easier to find and capture when you let them operate freely under your laws until such time they commit a crime that requires punishment.

Speaking their mind is not a crime though.

 

[Arillious]

No. People should be allowed to think and preach whatever they want. As long as they dont break or plan to break any laws then no action should be taken against them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well if someone is preaching an ideology I'm not sure there is much anyone can do for that matter (and I don't think the government has the right to do anything in my opinion).

However, if those preaching this ideology started telling American Muslims (while in America) they need to kill their brethren (i.e. fellow Americans) I can see where the government could get involved and where I would have a problem with that.

But I didn't vote ToT, I think you need to have more then "Yes" and "No" options sometimes :mrgreen: An "Other" would have been nice.

The government has every right as is clearly outlined in the balancing tests of the 1st amendment which I listed earlier in this thread.q

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No. People should be allowed to think and preach whatever they want. As long as they dont break or plan to break any laws then no action should be taken against them.

Even if they are preaching for a call to actions in order to overthrow the government of the United States?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What does that have to do with anything? We aren't talking about taking my rights away, we're talking about taking away the rights of others to speak their mind. Their views - whether I agree with them or not - do not harm me.

Umm that's the entire point, their views do hurt you and what they preach is that the murder of the infidel and the overthrow of infidel governments are necessary and that action should be taken, outlawing that is not censorship it's self preservation and the government has every right to limit that type of speech.

 

[rivrrat]

Umm that's the entire point, their views do hurt you and what they preach is that the murder of the infidel and the overthrow of infidel governments are necessary and that action should be taken, outlawing that is not censorship it's self preservation and the government has every right to limit that type of speech.

No, that view doesn't hurt me in any way, shape, or form. I read it, I hear it, and yet I remain unharmed by reading and hearing it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't care what they say their goals are. They can sit and talk about them all they want. Makes no difference to me what they talk about. Action is the only thing that would matter, and if they take some sort of violent action they should be promptly tried and punished for it just like anyone else. Until that time, there is nothing - IMO - that needs to be done.

What a load of crap the radical inflaming rhetoric from these Imans leads to violent action, this is covered in depth by the SCOTUS, in that this type of thing is not protected speech:

The Bad Tendency test - The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

The Clear and Present Danger test - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

The Clear and Probable Danger test - In each case, we must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Contexts too numerable to ponder exist and events are often too remote to foresee. Cases must be decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, considering that the government's reasons for regulation are compelling.

The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

I think it's clear that Qutbism fails everysingle one of those tests and as such should not be considered protected speech.

Allow them to be out in the open, freely. It's far better to keep groups like that operating in the light of day than to force them underground where they are harder to watch. Let them preach their hate for all to hear, and for most to laugh and ridicule.

And for certain segments within Islamic society to take seriously and act upon.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, that view doesn't hurt me in any way, shape, or form. I read it, I hear it, and yet I remain unharmed by reading and hearing it.

Perhaps you don't understand, their views have influence and while the words may not cause physical injury the young alienated Muslim male who takes them seriously then blows up a building does. Qutbism is a call to action and the government has every right to limit that type of speech.

 

[Arillious]

Even if they are preaching for a call to actions in order to overthrow the government of the United States?

Yes. :gunner:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes. :gunner:

Well that's a pretty ****ed up view of the world you have there sparky.

 

[rivrrat]

Perhaps you don't understand, their views have influence and while the words may not cause physical injury the young alienated Muslim male who takes them seriously then blows up a building does. Qutbism is a call to action and the government has every right to limit that type of speech.

Then said young, alienated Muslim male who takes them seriously and decides to take action of his own accord should and would be punished accordingly.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Then said young, alienated Muslim male who takes them seriously and decides to take action of his own accord should and would be punished accordingly.

lol, the people who make those calls to action are just as responsible, according to your logic OBL should not be brought to justice because he did not directly fly planes into buildings, but the fact of the matter is that the people who brainwash these people are just as responsible, and this is not just my opinion the SCOTUS is quite clear on the matter.