Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Credible, mainstream date to consider.

Arguments should not rise or fall on the basis of crappy Fox news.

They don't and a quick scan of those studies don't back up the claims made on Fox to any degree either (I will spend some more time with them, but at first glance they simply don't).

 

[kennylmao]

Why are we not sanctioning Saudi Arabia again?
http://rt.com/news/221175-saudi-ara..._medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

According to the petition, this is apparently his first 50 lashes.

The West: *crickets*

Spoiler: If I'm gonna be honest

it didn't look that bad. My mom did way worse when I was a kid. Though I don't know if the punishment will be ramped up as it progresses. I imagined him on his knees getting lashed by a guy holding a 10 foot long whip or something. Not saying that this is okay, being punished for thought crimes is still absurd.

 

[Scaff]

The West: *crickets*

Are you inferring that no one in the west has said a word about this?

The west is a rather large catch-all and I think you will find that's not the case at all.

 

[Carbonox]

Quite simply because you seem to be equating religion with crime.

Is the St Paul's area of Bristol a Christian no-go zone? Or the Gorbals in Glasgow the same?

No one (in particular myself) has said that areas with higher levels of criminality doesn't exist in the UK or even Europe (and we have said so repeatedly), it's the cause that is the question. A great deal of evidence exists and has existed to show that socio-economic factors drive this. I'm not aware of any evidence to show that religion however drives this.

So why in the areas with a higher Muslim population (but still interestingly not a majority) would they be labeled 'Muslim no-go areas'?

For a grain of truth to exist in the Fox piece that would have to be the reason, they quite literally claimed that these no go-areas exist because they have been taken over by Muslims, who have imposed Sharia law and are now run as an effective Caliphate.

Now I would ask you, do you have any evidence at all to support such a claim? Have you seen any evidence to support such a claim?

Just my £.02...

I feel that you're falsely starting from the assumption that any religion, while forming a significant majority in an area, would cause it to become a potential no-go zone. There are lots of differences between them though, and knowing how Islam tends to get special treatment in the West, it's no surprise its adherents are going to grow entitled and think they can do and take whatever they want in areas that are under their control. Doesn't really work that way with, say, Hinduism, or Christianity (which is an old horse beaten almost to death anyway).

By the way, I see no one has yet brought up the treatment of emergency workers in no-go zones. Not juts cops, but firefighters and paramedics too. I've only read reports on it from Sweden thus far (oh, and guess what? The country that used to be approximately the best and safest in the world now has 55 no-go zones). Anyway, it's downright disturbing to hear just how hostile the people's attitudes are towards the hand that feeds them.

Also, want to take a guess as to what Europe's most dangerous city is? Hint: It's pretty easily accessible from North Africa.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...ulation-is-the-most-dangerous-city-in-europe/

 

[KSaiyu]

It is disheartening that with an almost unprecedented chance to show a united front against Islamism some leaders over here have continued past trends with the leader of the Muslim Alliance of Britain saying:

"My reaction to the cartoon is disgust, but tending more to annoyance as well because I feel that what’s happening here is not that different from what we witnessed back in 2005 with the Danish cartoons when media outlets went into a cycle of just publishing the cartoons just to show defiance. And what that caused is more offence.”
Speaking on Today, he said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech."

An Imam for the MCB in an interview on LBC condemned the attacks and defended free speech, with the caveat being the Prophet should not be a target of ridicule.

If only our muslim leaders were like the mayor of Rotterdam or Sajid Javid.

 

[Scaff]

Just my £.02...

I feel that you're falsely starting from the assumption that any religion, while forming a significant majority in an area, would cause it to become a potential no-go zone. There are lots of differences between them though, and knowing how Islam tends to get special treatment in the West, it's no surprise its adherents are going to grow entitled and think they can do and take whatever they want in areas that are under their control. Doesn't really work that way with, say, Hinduism, or Christianity (which is an old horse beaten almost to death anyway).

No what I am saying is that no evidence exists that religion (of any kind) is the principal driver behind 'ghettoisation' of areas of towns and cities or that religion has been the cause of so called 'no-go areas'.

In the UK no areas are "under their control" so that starts with a false premise to begin with, however the claim that those on benefits/welfare 'grow entitled and think they can do and take whatever they want' is also not unique to any one group and as such again has not been shown to be driven by religion.

Are you able to show any detailed (and peer reviewed) studies to show that this is the case. or is this simply based on hearsay and assumptions?

Oh and that old horse almost beaten to death is still the largest religion on the planet.

By the way, I see no one has yet brought up the treatment of emergency workers in no-go zones. Not juts cops, but firefighters and paramedics too. I've only read reports on it from Sweden thus far (oh, and guess what? The country that used to be approximately the best and safest in the world now has 55 no-go zones). Anyway, it's downright disturbing to hear just how hostile the people's attitudes are towards the hand that feeds them.

Also, want to take a guess as to what Europe's most dangerous city is? Hint: It's pretty easily accessible from North Africa.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...ulation-is-the-most-dangerous-city-in-europe/

You are aware that Marseille has long had a problem with violence related to drug smuggling and all that piece does is point and shout 'its all because of Muslims'.

It links drug violence to them without evidence, it blames a drunken attack on the fire service on them without evidence (and ignores the attitude of Islam to alcohol), the only claim in the piece that has any kind of validity is that of the Bus incident.

I do also find it slightly worrying that once again the source you use is one that has been described as 'far-right' by the SPLC and ADL.

Do you seriously believe that if all of the Muslims were removed the problems in Marseille would simply evaporate?

Yes Marseille is a violent place, that has unfortunately long been the case and its absurdly simplistic to blame that violence on a single factor, yet that's what you continue to do.

It is disheartening that with an almost unprecedented chance to show a united front against Islamism some leaders over here have continued past trends with the leader of the Muslim Alliance of Britain saying:

"My reaction to the cartoon is disgust, but tending more to annoyance as well because I feel that what’s happening here is not that different from what we witnessed back in 2005 with the Danish cartoons when media outlets went into a cycle of just publishing the cartoons just to show defiance. And what that caused is more offence.”
Speaking on Today, he said causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech."

I'm still not sure how the current cover is even causing offence (aside from the claim - unsupported by religious text - that you can't 'show Mo'), as it shows him as being disturbed at the attacks being carried out in his name. Personally I think it struck an excellent balance.

An Imam for the MCB in an interview on LBC condemned the attacks and defended free speech, with the caveat being the Prophet should not be a target of ridicule.

Its not free-speech when you have caveats.

If only our muslim leaders were like the mayor of Rotterdam or Sajid Javid.

Indeed

 

[kennylmao]

Are you inferring that no one in the west has said a word about this?

The west is a rather large catch-all and I think you will find that's not the case at all.

I am implying your fearless leaders who do not take a hard stance on such blatant violation of human rights. There's the UN who go, "No, this is bad, don't do this" and America's best buddy over there continues to make heads roll. lol life goes on.

 

[Famine]

Also, want to take a guess as to what Europe's most dangerous city is? Hint: It's pretty easily accessible from North Africa.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...ulation-is-the-most-dangerous-city-in-europe/

Oddly the only places I can find that carry that information are "far right" racist websites and the source for it all seems to be a 12 month old speculative piece with no actual source of its own and no numbers.

Of course Marseille is also a port and major route for drugs into Europe, has a lot of the associated organised crime and has nearly twice the population below the poverty line as the French average, but who cares about socio-economic factors eh?

Incidentally, it seems that Marseille's murder rate is lower than that of Tallinn, Minsk, Chishinau, Riga, Vilnius and Moscow - and about equal to that of Amsterdam. For violent crime it's ranked lower than Rome or Belgrade.

 

[Scaff]

I am implying your fearless leaders who do not take a hard stance on such blatant violation of human rights. There's the UN who go, "No, this is bad, don't do this" and America's best buddy over there continues to make heads roll. lol life goes on.

Then be clearer, as the clear inference of your post was that the entire west was silent.

Which was not even close to true, the response from the public, press and governments has been varied to a great degree and while I would certainly agree that much firmer action should and could have been taken a claim of silence from the entire west is inaccurate.

 

[spacecowboy73]

Well this Emerson guy's apologizing for his statements:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...g-birmingham-totally-muslim-city-9971666.html

Glad I can go to Birmingham now if I ever visit the UK again!

 

[PeterJB]

Well this Emerson guy's apologizing for his statements:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...g-birmingham-totally-muslim-city-9971666.html

Glad I can go to Birmingham now if I ever visit the UK again!

There's a sentence I never thought I'd hear.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm curious to know what some of the Muslims in this thread think about the views of Irshad Manji. It's a long interview but her enunciation is exceptional and makes her extremely easy to listen to. I knew there was something special about her and this was confirmed when I looked her up and found out she was Canadian

 

[Scaff]

I knew there was something special about her and this was confirmed when I looked her up and found out she was Canadian

Isn't she one of those immigrants we've been warned about..........

 

[ECGadget]

I'm curious to know what some of the Muslims in this thread think about the views of Irshad Manji. It's a long interview but her enunciation is exceptional and makes her extremely easy to listen to. I knew there was something special about her and this was confirmed when I looked her up and found out she was Canadian

Thanks for sharing this, it was a great watch. Some pretty great debating there too. My thoughts:

1) Yes, there are problems with Muslims today. It is a sad truth and no Muslim should ignore this. - Point Irshad
2) I agree with Mehdi, problem is with Muslims not Islam in itself. Islam should not be defined by what Muslims do but rather what Islam teaches. That goes for any religion. - Point Mehdi
3) However, if nobody has read the Quraan or studied the religion (which of course billions have not) then Muslims will inevitably define what Islam is and thus need to "buckle up" and sort themselves out.
4) Moderate Muslims part. I both agree and disagree there. A Muslim should say that this is against the teachings of Islam, BUT cannot deny that in the Quraan there are verses (few as they are) that CAN be interpreted in such a way that can give way to terrorism, if pretty much 99.9% of the rest of the religion is ignored.
5) I disagree with the things that Irshad said that Imams did not condemn quickly. They did condemn very strongly.
6) Ibrahim Mogra is one Imam I mentioned in an earlier post. This man is honestly (and I can tell you personally because he is someone I class as a friend) a wonderful man and does nothing but teach peace and friendship. And he does engage (maybe others do not so much), since he is based in the city I live and I see him hanging out with people whenever he can, be it children or adults, civs or police, Muslim or non.
7) I disagree with Irshad about not looking at the expertise (and being DIY Muslims), BUT Muslims CAN think for themselves. But I will make something very clear here, you cannot have any subject matter without experts. And I have never seen Mr Mogra ever use his "power". BUT there are some who are power hungry, and would give rulings such as "kill the Jews", but an overwhelming majority would never give a ruling like that.
8) Muslims worship Allah, follow the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) and do not worship the religious leaders.
9) Mehdi is correct in saying that she has a lot of good points, but also does not have some good ones.
10) I think for myself, I think I have proved that I think for myself. I am not scared to tell my parents if they are doing something wrong, or my teachers. As a matter of fact I have questioned Mr Mogra once or twice, so we're definitely not just mindless machines (though some may be).
11) Women: yes there is A LOT of violence against women in many cultures that have muslims. As to the topic of Hijab. Hijab is not exactly forced upon anyone, or should not be anyway. So just putting that out.

Part 2:
1) I think that she is (not entirely) taking this from examples from her childhood. Beating a child, anti-semitism etc is all against Islam but she does mention her father was not exactly a practising Muslim
2) A good point by Irshad about the the fact that these beatings etc all DO happen by Muslims and need to be sorted out.
3) Gay or not gay, really does not matter overall.
4) I am glad EVERYONE can agree that the extremists are wrong
5) Islam supremists? I completely disagree so here is my opinion: A Muslim believes Islam is the truth. That is NOT to say that a Muslim is to insult another religion in anyway, or discriminate against another religion or athiests.
6) I agree that many (and I have seen this personally) Muslims do not take the holocaust seriously and that is very wrong.
7) Partly agree with Irshad on the freedom of expression. I said before that the Prophets sayings take the stance of "peace is better than fighting". But as I also said, there are limits to what should be said, when it gets up to thvery important figures in religion. But that still does not mean to respond with fighting.


Overall:
She does make good points yes, and there is no doubt about the facts that Muslims in the world have certain issues. Culture mixes with religion and causes problems. However, a criterion of a Muslims IS:
- There is no God but the one God, and Muhammad is his messenger.

However, in more detail it is:
- Belief in One God
- Belief in His Angels
- Belief in His Books
- Believe in The Prophets (all of them)
- Belief in The Last Day

The Quraan and Hadith go hand in hand, when you take one or the other out, you have an incomplete or an unexplained religion

Now what I did not like about this debate was what I saw as a political undertone from both sides. But overall like I said I agree with somethings she said, but disagree with others.
That is my humble opinion on it, but I am really glad you shared the video!

 

[KSaiyu]

Its not free-speech when you have caveats.

And apparently it's not even confined to Islam - just look at what our 'dear leader' has come out with:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/pope-francis-limits-to-freedom-of-expression

“There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”

He gestured to Alberto Gasparri, who organises papal trips and was standing by his side, and added: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

 

[kennylmao]

I tell you man, one day these religious people, the Christians, the Muslims and to an extent other religious people, are gonna join forces towards a common cause.

 

[ECGadget]

At the end of the day, it is not Freedom of Speech that needs to be limited (otherwise it is not exactly freedom, right?) But rather humans need to have the sense that certain things should not be said. Respect and courtesy is all we need. That way Freedom of Speech will remain intact, but nobody would insult the foundations of people, i.e. insulting parents, religion, historical events that shaped a community (the Holocaust for example)

 

[Scaff]

At the end of the day, it is not Freedom of Speech that needs to be limited (otherwise it is not exactly freedom, right?) But rather humans need to have the sense that certain things should not be said. Respect and courtesy is all we need. That way Freedom of Speech will remain intact, but nobody would insult the foundations of people, i.e. insulting parents, religion, historical events that shaped a community (the Holocaust for example)

Doesn't work.

Someone will always take something as an insult regardless of the speakers intent.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Someone will always take something as an insult regardless of the speakers intent.

But that doesn't give you a blank cheque to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want. If we're going to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of expression, then we need to accept that a) people may be upset by what we say, and b) they are entitled to do so. You cannot claim to be exercising your freedom of speech or expression as if it automatically invalidates the position of someone who is upset by it.

 

[ECGadget]

Doesn't work.

Someone will always take something as an insult regardless of the speakers intent.

That is true, but there are some things that you know will insult people and you do it on purpose, would it not be better if we just avoided that part?

 

[Famine]

If we're going to exercise freedom of speech or freedom of expression, then we need to accept that a) people may be upset by what we say, and b) they are entitled to do so.

Of course they're entitled to do so - it's freedom of expression for them to be upset.

But that doesn't give you a blank cheque to say whatever you want, whenever you want, and however you want. [...] You cannot claim to be exercising your freedom of speech or expression as if it automatically invalidates the position of someone who is upset by it.

Point missed.

Anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time - even nothing. This makes it impractical to limit freedom of expression in order to avoid causing offence, because avoiding causing offence is impossible - indeed taking offence is protected by the same freedom of expression that we're talking about. They're free to take offence and tell you that they have taken offence - and you're free to do something about it if you want (or not).

Being offended about what someone says is every bit a part of freedom of expression as causing that offence (intentionally or not) and every bit as valid as it.


What they can't do is what the Pope suggested and punch someone or what the CharlieHebdo murderers did. That violates rights, and not the right to freedom of speech that's been suggested here since the start, but the right to self and the right to life. That's not an appropriate response to being upset about something someone said.

Had a large group of Muslims (or Jews, or Christians, or Scientologists, or anyone else CharlieHebdo offended) turned up outside CharlieHebdo's offices protesting about the offence they caused, no-one should claim that freedom of speech is under threat, rather a group of consumers are pointing out a commercial product they don't like. Even if they're carrying banners like this:

I don't agree with their message, but they're allowed to express how upset they are about words and pictures with some other words and pictures - under the exact same principle that allowed the original words and pictures to be expressed - not with punching or guns.


Insult me and I'll insult you back. Punch me and I'll punch you back. If you insult me and then I punch you, I probably am whatever it was you called me in the first place.

 

[Dotini]

At the end of the day, it is not Freedom of Speech that needs to be limited (otherwise it is not exactly freedom, right?) But rather humans need to have the sense that certain things should not be said. Respect and courtesy is all we need. That way Freedom of Speech will remain intact, but nobody would insult the foundations of people, i.e. insulting parents, religion, historical events that shaped a community (the Holocaust for example)

Unfortunately, common sense, common courtesy, politeness, a decent respect for the opinions of others, all these things are lost in the modern world. If there is a freedom, a privilege or a right, the tendency is to abuse it to the extreme, to a breaking point. IMO this narcissistic tendency arises from an exagerated sense of entitlement by individuals, a rejection of the family and larger community in the quest for ever greater physical sensations of self-gratification and entertainment in a self-centered world of growing alienation from society. The problem is not our rights or laws, it is us and the society we have created. The story of human life on Earth is all about the choices we face and the decisions we take.

 

[Carbonox]

@Famine, do you think it's OK to wave around the infamous "Behead those who insult Islam" sign though?

I mean, to me it's a pretty obvious call for violence against a specific group (even if in this case it's rather vague), which shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Anyone can take offence at anything for any reason at any time - even nothing. This makes it impractical to limit freedom of expression in order to avoid causing offence, because avoiding causing offence is impossible - indeed taking offence is protected by the same freedom of expression that we're talking about. They're free to take offence and tell you that they have taken offence - and you're free to do something about it if you want (or not).

Being offended about what someone says is every bit a part of freedom of expression as causing that offence (intentionally or not) and every bit as valid as it.

​

I only missed the point if you assume that I was calling for freedom of speech to be limited. I didn't.

I think that anyone who is going to exercise their right to freedom of speech should stop for a moment and say to themselves "Okay, I'm going to exercise my right to freedom of speech, but some people might not like what I say" and then make their peace with that before saying anything, rather than saying "You can't be offended! I was exercising my right to freedom of speech! Nothing that you say has any merit!" after the fact. That's what I mean when I say that I think people use things like freedom of speech as an excuse rather than a right - if somebody doesn't like what they say or do, they immediately counter with "I was exercising my rights" as if it can just shut down a conversation, and if there is any further disagreement, then clearly the person doing the disagreeing is opposed to exercising your rights. It's less about freedom of speech, and more about positioning yourself to be morally and infallibly right.​

​

 

[Famine]

I only missed the point if you assume that I was calling for freedom of speech to be limited. I didn't.

No, what you did was suggest that some advocates of freedom of speech think that using "it's my freedom of speech" is a valid way to shut down an argument.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to express dislike. I'm not familiar with any individual who's said anything along the lines of "You can't dislike what I say because it's my right to say it"...

I think that anyone who is going to exercise their right to freedom of speech...

That's what we call "speaking".

should stop for a moment and say to themselves "Okay, I'm going to exercise my right to freedom of speech, but some people might not like what I say" and then make their peace with that before saying anything

And this is what you do every time you speak, is it? Seems laborious, particularly as there is absolutely no way to guarantee you will not say something that someone doesn't like.

Personally, I just speak. Occasionally someone gets offended. I've got no problem with that - it's just how things are.

rather than saying "You can't be offended! I was exercising my right to freedom of speech! Nothing that you say has any merit!" after the fact.

Being offended is freedom of speech. What's the disconnect here?

That's what I mean when I say that I think people use things like freedom of speech as an excuse rather than a right - if somebody doesn't like what they say or do, they immediately counter with "I was exercising my rights" as if it can just shut down a conversation, and if there is any further disagreement, then clearly the person doing the disagreeing is opposed to exercising your rights. It's less about freedom of speech, and more about positioning yourself to be morally and infallibly right.

But who's done that and where?

In all the discussion I've seen on this everywhere, the people advocating limitations on free speech have been calling for words, phrases and ideas to be banned, while those advocating free speech have responded that what they're saying is moronic, but they're entitled to say it. No-one's said the offended can't be offended because it's just freedom of speech - quite the opposite.​

 

[Dotini]

@Famine, do you think it's OK to wave around the infamous "Behead those who insult Islam" sign though?

I mean, to me it's a pretty obvious call for violence against a specific group (even if in this case it's rather vague), which shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech?

It is not protected speech in America to incite violence.

Denying the holocaust is not protected in places in Europe.

Some are calling for prohibiting the denial of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, what you did was suggest that some advocates of freedom of speech think that using "it's my freedom of speech" is a valid way to shut down an argument.

Yes, I do think people do that. I have seen it happen plenty of times in this very subforum. For every right, there is a responsibility. This is an analogy that I have drawn several times, but it's like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Sure, you're exercising your right to free speech, but if there is no fire and the end result is a stampede that causes death or injury, then you're going to be held responsible for it. No court is going to accept "I was exercising my right to free speech and those people caught up in the stampede should have realised that there was no fire" as a defence. Now, that's an extreme (and simplified) example, but I think the point holds true - your rights aren't something that entitles you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, because that's a nine year-old's way of thinking. Rights simply outline what you can do without fear of unreasonable consequence, provided that you exercise them responsibly. On a certain level, this is guided by morality; or what we consider to be right in the absence of law.

We self-censor every day, and it's not a negative thing. If a student hands me a draft of an essay that, if it were submitted for marking, would receive less than 25%, am I going to say "That's terrible and there is no hope that you can turn this around in two days"? Of course not. Sure, I would be exercising my right to freedom of speech, but I also know it's going to do more harm than good. For one, it's not appropriate. Two, it does nothing to actually address the issues with the work. And three, it's likely to turn the student against me in future, which makes it harder for me to teach, harder for them to learn, and will ultimately result in their under-achievement. Since none of that is worth exercising my right to freedom of speech by saying that their work is terrible, I'm going to be responsible about it and instead concentrate on what works and what does not. If the work is not of a high standard, then I will make that clear, but I won't be brutal about it and I will always show a student the way forward. Some may call that self-censorship, but I think of it as being responsible about what I say because I know what the power of my own words is.

 

[ECGadget]

Unfortunately, common sense, common courtesy, politeness, a decent respect for the opinions of others, all these things are lost in the modern world. If there is a freedom, a privilege or a right, the tendency is to abuse it to the extreme, to a breaking point. IMO this narcissistic tendency arises from an exagerated sense of entitlement by individuals, a rejection of the family and larger community in the quest for ever greater physical sensations of self-gratification and entertainment in a self-centered world of growing alienation from society. The problem is not our rights or laws, it is us and the society we have created. The story of human life on Earth is all about the choices we face and the decisions we take.

I agree, but maybe we as individuals can try to make that change right? Nobody should have a problem with religion, or atheism either. Yes, we can open religion to debate which there is nothing wrong with or indeed anything, but we must do it in a respectful manner.

@Famine, do you think it's OK to wave around the infamous "Behead those who insult Islam" sign though?

I mean, to me it's a pretty obvious call for violence against a specific group (even if in this case it's rather vague), which shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech?

Personally, this is just plain wrong BUT under the rules of Freedom Of Speech/Expression, it is allowed. Does it incite anger and hatred on both sides? Yup. But it is protected under law. That being said, people should use a little bit of wisdom and common sense when exercising their right to Freedom Of Speech, but as @Dotini rightly says, these things are "lost in the modern world", something I agree with. Give someone a hand, they take the whole arm off. I have been on the receiving end of this lots and lots of times. You offer someone something, whether it be a right or assistance or whatever and nine times of ten they will abuse it to meet their own selfish needs. Not exactly what morality, or religion, teaches...

 

[Carbonox]

Personally, this is just plain wrong BUT under the rules of Freedom Of Speech/Expression, it is allowed. Does it incite anger and hatred on both sides? Yup. But it is protected under law.

It's not merely an incitement of anger, it's a threat.

 

[ECGadget]

It's not merely an incitement of anger, it's a threat.

Actually, I will agree on that as well. It is a threat. An empty threat by those who are threatening, but if certain others can get wind of it then it becomes a proper threat. It has no place in society, but again taking in the whole idea of "Freedom of Expression" can they be arrested for that? Personally I would take it as far as saying that it is inciting terrorism.