Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[oldbadger]

When will France learn?


Muslim backlash against Macron gathers pace after police raids
www.theguardian.com › world › oct › muslim-backlash...
5 days ago — Similar attacks, described by French officials as a “cyberjihad”, happened after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack, in which 12 people were killed by ...
Top stories

After Terror Attacks, Muslims Wonder About Their
Place in France
The New York Times·2 days ago

France's Emmanuel Macron seeks to calm
tensions with Muslims
DW·4 hours ago
View all

After Terror Attacks, Muslims Wonder About Their Place in ...
www.nytimes.com › World › Europe
3 days ago — While these statements and others from French officials have engendered a backlash in some Muslim countries, they have mostly caused ...

Muslim Countries Denounce French Response to Killing of ...
www.nytimes.com › World › Europe
3 days ago — In France, a nation still traumatized by some 36 Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in the last eight years, including two that together killed ...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/29/timeline-how-muslim-anger-towards-france-flared


​

 

[danieldemol]

Ridiculous ! Since when science and progress are dependent on what people’s belief ??!

Since people have held erroneous beliefs which oppose science and progress.

And to imply science and progress can only take place if people are disrespectful and insensitive to other people’s belief is a sign of a deprived soul.

Ad hominem, do you respect the belief of the polytheist tribes which buried their daughters?
Beliefs must be worthy of respect and sensitivity, they are not automatically entitled to it.

Nobody is saying freedom to harm should be accepted as an essential freedom….. and no government on earth has ever think of making that as part of the Constitutional Law.

Not true, in the past several governments have had killing for apostasy and blasphemy as part of the law.

But the fact remains if you provoke someone on what they believe, you are bound to get a reaction

True, from mature people you get a mature reaction, from evil people you get killing etc as a response.

it’s as simple as that ! So why provoke in the first place ?? You can challenge someone’s belief if you don’t share the same belief, BUT, you don’t mock or ridicule him, his belief or those whom he loves or holds dearly to - that’s the basic value of a good human character !

Again with the ad hominem, mockery can be educational, and we should not deprive ourselves of education because of hypersensitive nutcases who should be identified and imprisoned for rehabilitation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I do not think they reject everyone else in their teaching but maybe some followers do it by misunderstanding the meaning of the teaching.

In islam too it is said Allah is the only God, but could it mean, Allah is the only god to worship in Islam, but that there is other Gods for other religions? So its not exluding other religions, but to be a muslim Allah is the only God to follow and pray to.

I too would claim there is only one God. We have agreement and a starting point!

The question of how we assess true and false revelation is therefore relevant to both of us.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I too would claim there is only one God. We have agreement and a starting point!

The question of how we assess true and false revelation is therefore relevant to both of us.

Actually i have stopped worry about what others believe or not, as long i do my best to be the best version of me that i can, others can have their personal belief

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actually i have stopped worry about what others believe or not, as long i do my best to be the best version of me that i can, others can have their personal belief

Isn't that relative truth? It works for you, but may not be the answer for someone else.

I don't actually believe in a plurality of gods, a pantheon of relative truth. I believe in one God. One Truth. This, I guess, is what got the Jews and Christians into such trouble with the Romans.

 

[JerryMyers]

Since people have held erroneous beliefs which oppose science and progress.

Beliefs, erroneous or not, have been around long before science even became a common term. Fact is, as far as science and progress are concern, we are where we are because science and progress are NOT dependent on what people believe. To say “if peoples beliefs are protected from criticism science and progress would come to a standstill” is simply BS !

Ad hominem, do you respect the belief of the polytheist tribes which buried their daughters?

The belief that daughters are bad omens to the family of the polytheist tribes and so, they kill by burying their daughters alive is not only against my own belief, but its also against human logic…. But that does not give me the right to mock and ridicule the polytheist tribes. If I do, then I have no right to complain for any reaction or retaliation, violent or not. So, why would I want to mock and ridicule the polytheist tribes in the first place ?

Beliefs must be worthy of respect and sensitivity, they are not automatically entitled to it.

And who is going to declare whether a belief is worthy of respect or not ?? You ?? What makes you think your own belief, whatever that is, is worthy of respect by others ?? Because you said so ?? Give me a break !

Not true, in the past several governments have had killing for apostasy and blasphemy as part of the law.

That would be remote cases, and not generally accepted. In any belief or faith, there will be extremists who will digress from the true teaching of that belief/faith.

True, from mature people you get a mature reaction, from evil people you get killing etc as a response.

Yes. But why would you want to mock and ridicule in the first place ? If you have issues with Muhammad as a prophet, then, come to debate forums such as religiousforum.com and bring your issues with Muhammad… but what you don’t do is making a claim and offer no backups to your claim.... and you definitely don’t, mock or ridicule the faith/belief of others because that only expose your own inability to act and think maturely and rationally.

Again with the ad hominem, mockery can be educational, and we should not deprive ourselves of education because of hypersensitive nutcases who should be identified and imprisoned for rehabilitation.

How is mockery educational ?? Can you quote examples ?

 

[rosends]

But that does not give me the right to mock and ridicule the polytheist tribes. If I do, then I have no right to complain for any reaction or retaliation, violent or not. So, why would I want to mock and ridicule the polytheist tribes in the first place ?

Who establishes what rights anyone has? If a government says I DO have the right to mock (or I do have the right to criticize in a way that the people criticized will think of as mockery) then I also have a right to complain if there is retaliation which, under that same body of law is illegal behavior. Are you positing some transcendent and objective collections of rights which would exclude the right to criticize (because it could be taken as mockery by those criticized) or even the right to mock?

Satire, social, political, religious or otherwise is mockery in that sense. If there is no right to point out flaws and question behaviors because a particular group feels that even asking questions or posing challenges is inappropriate then we have to outlaw satire.

It is important to note, by the way, that the teacher beheaded in France was not actually criticizing anything. He was teaching a class about the idea of freedom of expression, using the picture of Muhammed as an example in a lesson.

 

[Bree]

If you happen to live in a secular society, such as France, you may believe that secularism provides a framework for democracy where:
1. There is a separation of state and religion
2. There is freedom to practice one's faith (theist, agnostic or atheist), without harming others, and to change faith if one so wishes.
3. There is equal treatment of faiths and ideologies by the state, so long as a citizen acts within the law.

Does the lampooning and portrayal of Muhammad amount to blasphemy, and is this harmful to Islam/Muslims?

Doesnt blasphemy mean speaking against God?

If Mohammad is God or viewed to be as equal to God, then perhaps thats why Muslims view a cartoon of the prophet as blasphemy. But regardless of how they view him, its not nice to pick on someone the way a cartoonist does. Its a form of bullying and I think the people who like to make fun of other people should stop doing it.

if one kid does that to another kid at school we call it bullying and call it out for what it is. Why should it be any different in this case?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Doesnt blasphemy mean speaking against God?

If Mohammad is God or viewed to be as equal to God, then perhaps thats why Muslims view a cartoon of the prophet as blasphemy. But regardless of how they view him, its not nice to pick on someone the way a cartoonist does. Its a form of bullying and I think the people who like to make fun of other people should stop doing it.

if one kid does that to another kid at school we call it bullying and call it out for what it is. Why should it be any different in this case?

I have to admit that I don't know exactly what was said in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. I do know that a cartoon is a depiction, and that Muslims consider it an insult to depict the Prophet Muhammad.

There's an interesting story in the Bible. In 1 Kings 18 we are told about a time when Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal. He invited the prophets of Baal, four hundred and fifty in number, and the prophets of the groves, four hundred in number, and all Israel to witness to the event. He said, 'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word'.

Well, the time had come for a showdown. Elijah's challenge was for the prophets of Baal to demonstrate the reality of their god by pleading with their god to bring down fire to burn up a prepared sacrifice. Elijah would make a similar sacrifice, and pray to the LORD to burn it up. As he said, 'the God that answereth by fire, let him be God'. So, it was agreed.

When the prophets of Baal failed in their efforts to get an answer from their god, Elijah mocked them mercilessly. 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked'.

This mockery led to all kinds of self-harm by the prophets of Baal, but it achieved nothing. Then Elijah took his turn, added water to his rebuilt altar and prayed 'Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God'. And the LORD sent down fire and consumed his water-soaked sacrifice.

Israel then turned on the false prophets and killed them all.

SO, I ask you, does Allah answer with fire?

 

[danieldemol]

To say “if peoples beliefs are protected from criticism science and progress would come to a standstill” is simply BS !

Are you familiar with the fact that ,"The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is... meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India and 1.48 percent by Spain. Twenty Arab countries contribute 0.55 percent as compared to 0.89 percent by Israel alone."1

Or, "science still lags in the Muslim world, according to Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, who has written on Islam and science. According to his own informal survey, included in his 1991 book ''Islam and Science, Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality,'' Muslims are seriously underrepresented in science, accounting for fewer than 1 percent of the world's scientists while they account for almost a fifth of the world's population. Israel, he reports, has almost twice as many scientists as the Muslim countries put together."2

1 Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world
2 How Islam Won, and Lost, the Lead in Science (Published 2001)

If failure to criticise erroneous beliefs does not stall science how do you explain the woeful undercontributions of modern Muslims to science?

The belief that daughters are bad omens to the family of the polytheist tribes and so, they kill by burying their daughters alive is not only against my own belief, but its also against human logic…. But that does not give me the right to mock and ridicule the polytheist tribes. If I do, then I have no right to complain for any reaction or retaliation, violent or not.

Firstly I notice you confused mocking the tribes with mocking the beliefs of the tribes. Secondly didn't Muhammad smash the idols of the Kaaba once He had power? Is smashing idols not a form of mockery/insensitivity? Thirdly I notice how easily you excuse unnecessary violence. It is not necessary to retaliate violently simply because one's ideas are mocked, and many people don't react violently when they are mocked.

And who is going to declare whether a belief is worthy of respect or not ?? You ?? What makes you think your own belief, whatever that is, is worthy of respect by others ?? Because you said so ??

I'm not the one demanding that my beliefs are entitled to respect here so the question is irrelevant.

That would be remote cases, and not generally accepted. In any belief or faith, there will be extremists who will digress from the true teaching of that belief/faith.

Regardless of whether your claims in this paragraph are truthful, they raise an interesting question. If Blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are against your religion, why are you arguing for the criminilisation of blasphemy, are you opposed to your own religion?

How is mockery educational ?? Can you quote examples ?

Sure, heard of Galileo who popularised the heliocentricity of the earth? He did it in his book "Dialogue" in which he placed the arguments of the Pope in favour of the geocentricity of the solar system in the mouth of his character Simplicio.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia

 

[JerryMyers]

Who establishes what rights anyone has? If a government says I DO have the right to mock (or I do have the right to criticize in a way that the people criticized will think of as mockery) then I also have a right to complain if there is retaliation which, under that same body of law is illegal behavior. Are you positing some transcendent and objective collections of rights which would exclude the right to criticize (because it could be taken as mockery by those criticized) or even the right to mock?

Mocking and drawing offending cartoons or caricatures is not about what is legally right or what is legally wrong, it’s about what is morally right or what is morally wrong. Establishing what is morally right and what is morally wrong is more closely related to one’s Faith and good character values rather than what the government of the day said. No Faith or Belief has really said killing of innocent lives or mocking and ridiculing others for their beliefs are morally good character values. If a government or anyone says you have the right to mock and criticize others just for the fun of it, then your own moral character values and your Faith should instinctively tell you that’s not right - you don’t need anyone to tell you that !

Satire, social, political, religious or otherwise is mockery in that sense. If there is no right to point out flaws and question behaviors because a particular group feels that even asking questions or posing challenges is inappropriate then we have to outlaw satire.

Criticizing with the intention of pointing out mistakes or flaws is totally different from mocking or criticizing simply for the sheer fun of it or with the intention of ridiculing one’s Faith. If you want to point the flaws of ANY Faith or its followers, then, just say it and back up as to why you said so. Why resort to mocking and ridiculing ??

It is important to note, by the way, that the teacher beheaded in France was not actually criticizing anything. He was teaching a class about the idea of freedom of expression, using the picture of Muhammed as an example in a lesson.

Well, it’s really sad and unfortunate as to what happened to the French teacher, but, surely, there are many other ways of teaching freedom of expression other than offending Muslims by using a caricature of Prophet Muhammad. Don’t tell me you can’t think of any other better ways to teach freedom of expression ?? Really ??

 

[JerryMyers]

Are you familiar with the fact that ,"The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is... meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India and 1.48 percent by Spain. Twenty Arab countries contribute 0.55 percent as compared to 0.89 percent by Israel alone."1

Or, "science still lags in the Muslim world, according to Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, who has written on Islam and science. According to his own informal survey, included in his 1991 book ''Islam and Science, Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality,'' Muslims are seriously underrepresented in science, accounting for fewer than 1 percent of the world's scientists while they account for almost a fifth of the world's population. Israel, he reports, has almost twice as many scientists as the Muslim countries put together."2

1 Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world
2 How Islam Won, and Lost, the Lead in Science (Published 2001)

If failure to criticise erroneous beliefs does not stall science how do you explain the woeful undercontributions of modern Muslims to science?

Firstly, what is your definition of ‘erroneous beliefs’ ?

Secondly, Muslims’ contributions to the advance of Science is a fact –
Muslim Contribution to Science
The greatest scientific advances from the Muslim world

Thirdly, the advancement of Science and Technology is through continuous researches and studies, and NOT through criticisms of beliefs as you tend to suggest.

Firstly I notice you confused mocking the tribes with mocking the beliefs of the tribes. Secondly didn't Muhammad smash the idols of the Kaaba once He had power? Is smashing idols not a form of mockery/insensitivity? Thirdly I notice how easily you excuse unnecessary violence. It is not necessary to retaliate violently simply because one's ideas are mocked, and many people don't react violently when they are mocked.

Firstly, what’s the difference between mocking the tribes and mocking the belief of the tribes ? Both will most likely invite a reaction from the tribes.

Secondly, when Muhammad smashed the stone idols, he was not mocking the idolaters but rather he was making a point to the idolaters that the stone idols they made and worship as their Gods are not able to help them and thus, their worship of the idols are in vain.

Thirdly, I am not making excuses for unnecessary violence but the fact is, you cannot control how a person will react to your continuous mocking and provocations, but you can control your own actions – so, unless controversy is your middle name, why mock and provoke in the first place ?

I'm not the one demanding that my beliefs are entitled to respect here so the question is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If you demand that your family and your privacy be respected, which I am sure everyone does, why won’t you demand your Belief/Faith be respected too ? Don’t you respect your own Belief/Faith ?

Regardless of whether your claims in this paragraph are truthful, they raise an interesting question. If Blasphemy laws and apostasy laws are against your religion, why are you arguing for the criminilisation of blasphemy, are you opposed to your own religion?

Blasphemy and apostasy are unforgiven sins in Islam and even in Christianity and that’s why when the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus, they framed Jesus of blasphemy of claiming to be God the Son which Jesus never claimed to be. They falsely accused Jesus of blasphemy because they knew the punishment for blasphemy is death by crucifixion.

Sure, heard of Galileo who popularised the heliocentricity of the earth? He did it in his book "Dialogue" in which he placed the arguments of the Pope in favour of the geocentricity of the solar system in the mouth of his character Simplicio.
Galileo affair - Wikipedia

How is that educational ?? Are you implying if Galileo, in his book “Dialogue”, did not place “the arguments of the Pope in favour of the geocentricity of the solar system in the mouth of his character Simplicio”, readers will not have understood his book ?? Highly likely Galileo inserted that just to get under the skin of the Pope as the Pope demanded his arguments be included in his book, rather than for educational purpose.

 

[danieldemol]

Firstly, what is your definition of ‘erroneous beliefs’ ?

Beliefs that are in error, in other words, beliefs that are false or untrue.

Secondly, Muslims’ contributions to the advance of Science is a fact

The contribution of Muslims to ancient science is a fact, the relative lack of contribution by Muslims to modern science is also a fact.

Thirdly, the advancement of Science and Technology is through continuous researches and studies, and NOT through criticisms of beliefs as you tend to suggest.

Do you really think that a Muslim who believes that the earth is a disc (as opposed to spherical), or that the sun revolves around it 1 and that (s)/he will eternally burn in hell if they are tainted by the alternative belief wants to research and study astronomy? Do you really think that a Muslim who rejects evolution and believes they will spend eternity boiling in hell if they believe it wants to research and study biology? etc etc. If these erroneous beliefs are open to criticism then their self imposed barriers to research and study will be lifted.

1 Why Muslims should not fear science

Firstly, what’s the difference between mocking the tribes and mocking the belief of the tribes ? Both will most likely invite a reaction from the tribes.

Well if we mock the tribes, for example if we mock a black tribe for being black, we are mocking something which is an unchangeable non faulty part of them. But if we mock an erroneous belief, it is not a part of them, it is faulty, and it is changeable. It would only elicit a violent response from a primitive tribe, and this would only demonstrate that positive change requires courage on the part of the driver of the change.

Secondly, when Muhammad smashed the stone idols, he was not mocking the idolaters but rather he was making a point to the idolaters that the stone idols they made and worship as their Gods are not able to help them and thus, their worship of the idols are in vain.

You are defending this evident blasphemy towards the polytheistic beliefs on the basis that it was educational towards them (ie educating them that idols can't help them) which precisely demonstrates my point that blasphemy can be educational. And you ignored that it was insensitive because you are attached to Muhammad. He could have said that the worship of the idols are in vain without insensitively smashing them, that He did so indicates that He clearly did not respect their belief.

Thirdly, I am not making excuses for unnecessary violence but the fact is, you cannot control how a person will react to your continuous mocking and provocations, but you can control your own actions – so, unless controversy is your middle name, why mock and provoke in the first place ?

Provocation is often more percieved than intended. Of course it is morally wrong to set out to provoke someone, but one cannot legislate against provocation since we can't read the mind of the mocker to know whether their intention is educational or provocative, so we must leave that to God to be the judge of.

Of course it's relevant. If you demand that your family and your privacy be respected, which I am sure everyone does, why won’t you demand your Belief/Faith be respected too ? Don’t you respect your own Belief/Faith ?

I respect my own belief, however I am not obsessed with the control of others, they are free to respect or disrespect my beliefs as they see fit. If it turns out my beliefs are wrong in the future I may benefit from them expressing their disrespect for my beliefs, particularly if they express why they disrespect my beliefs. Alternatively if they are wrong then by expressing their disrespect they give me the opportunity to demonstrate why my beliefs are true.

Blasphemy and apostasy are unforgiven sins in Islam and even in Christianity and that’s why when the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus, they framed Jesus of blasphemy of claiming to be God the Son which Jesus never claimed to be. They falsely accused Jesus of blasphemy because they knew the punishment for blasphemy is death by crucifixion.

You should help advance the knowledge of the Muslim world by researching / studying history, because only a little of what you have said in this paragraph is historicaly likely to be true from a scientific perspective

 

[rosends]

Mocking and drawing offending cartoons or caricatures is not about what is legally right or what is legally wrong, it’s about what is morally right or what is morally wrong. Establishing what is morally right and what is morally wrong is more closely related to one’s Faith and good character values rather than what the government of the day said. No Faith or Belief has really said killing of innocent lives or mocking and ridiculing others for their beliefs are morally good character values. If a government or anyone says you have the right to mock and criticize others just for the fun of it, then your own moral character values and your Faith should instinctively tell you that’s not right - you don’t need anyone to tell you that !

But this isn't about what anyone thinks is morally proper. Morality is subjective and local, and faith is personal and only communal by local social contract. If a government confers a right superseding, then it is incumbent on people to object to that in a legal fashion. This isn't about defending mockery, but about defending the legal right to mock.

Criticizing with the intention of pointing out mistakes or flaws is totally different from mocking or criticizing simply for the sheer fun of it or with the intention of ridiculing one’s Faith. If you want to point the flaws of ANY Faith or its followers, then, just say it and back up as to why you said so. Why resort to mocking and ridiculing ??

Mockery and ridicule are methods. Criticism is an objective. Satire is most often accomplished through some level of mockery. Swift's Modest Proposal works because it is such mockery. Are you mandating that one can only criticize through literal and direct criticism? OK, I want to criticize the Islamic forbidding of showing images of Muhammed. If I can't do that by picking up a picture and saying "it is wrong in Islam for me to show you this picture" without fear of being beheaded then what is left?

Well, it’s really sad and unfortunate as to what happened to the French teacher, but, surely, there are many other ways of teaching freedom of expression other than offending Muslims by using a caricature of Prophet Muhammad. Don’t tell me you can’t think of any other better ways to teach freedom of expression ?? Really ??

There is a better way to show that there is a controversy over freedom of expression by showing an image that would be subject to the controversy but which is protected by law (and allowing those who would be offended to leave the room)? Sure, a teacher could simply say "there is stuff that you are allowed to see but that some people will kill me if I show it, so we can't feel protected by the law of the land. Sorry guys."

That's much more effective.

 

[JerryMyers]

Beliefs that are in error, in other words, beliefs that are false or untrue.

And we are back where we started – who’s going to say which belief is an error, false and untrue ?? You ??

The contribution of Muslims to ancient science is a fact, the relative lack of contribution by Muslims to modern science is also a fact.

Well, you just don’t brush aside the role your parents played in your life as without them, you won’t even exist ! Likewise, without the contribution of Muslims to ancient science, development of modern science might not be as we know it today.

Do you really think that a Muslim who believes that the earth is a disc (as opposed to spherical), or that the sun revolves around it 1 and that (s)/he will eternally burn in hell if they are tainted by the alternative belief wants to research and study astronomy? Do you really think that a Muslim who rejects evolution and believes they will spend eternity boiling in hell if they believe it wants to research and study biology? etc etc. If these erroneous beliefs are open to criticism then their self imposed barriers to research and study will be lifted.

Firstly, what make you think Muslims “believe the earth is a disc (as opposed to spherical), or that the sun revolves around it” ?? Here’s what the Quran really said on the shape of the earth and validated by NASA - The Earth is Egg Shaped: NASA Validates Quran, Ancient Scripture - NewsRescue.com

Secondly, evolution is not only rejected by Muslims and Christians, it’s also being rejected by Science - Science Proves Evolution Wrong-Human Evolution Is False - Wise-Health-Wealth So, all the erroneous beliefs you are so against with turns out to be your own beliefs !!

1 Why Muslims should not fear science

I would not say I don’t trust science just because it came from the West. Science will always be science irrespective from where it originated. Nevertheless, the tittle of this article is quite misleading as not trusting Western Science is not fear of science in general.

Well if we mock the tribes, for example if we mock a black tribe for being black, we are mocking something which is an unchangeable non faulty part of them. But if we mock an erroneous belief, it is not a part of them, it is faulty, and it is changeable. It would only elicit a violent response from a primitive tribe, and this would only demonstrate that positive change requires courage on the part of the driver of the change.

That only proves the faulty logic of your thinking.…. just as your erroneous belief on evolution.

You are defending this evident blasphemy towards the polytheistic beliefs on the basis that it was educational towards them (ie educating them that idols can't help them) which precisely demonstrates my point that blasphemy can be educational. And you ignored that it was insensitive because you are attached to Muhammad. He could have said that the worship of the idols are in vain without insensitively smashing them, that He did so indicates that He clearly did not respect their belief.

Blasphemy can be educational ??! Well, coming from someone who believe in evolution, I guess I should not be surprised.

Provocation is often more percieved than intended. Of course it is morally wrong to set out to provoke someone, but one cannot legislate against provocation since we can't read the mind of the mocker to know whether their intention is educational or provocative, so we must leave that to God to be the judge of.

How can provocation be educational if it is morally wrong ?? That’s like saying stealing is morally wrong but its educational so, lets continue stealing to educate ourselves further !!

And to say “but one cannot legislate against provocation since we can't read the mind of the mocker to know whether their intention is educational or provocative, so we must leave that to God to be the judge of” is really nonsense as the very definition of 'provoke' is to cause a reaction and its normally a negative one. Fact is, we can roughly know the minds of the provokers, but we can’t really read the minds of those who are being provoked as different people react differently to provocations. So why, in God’s Name, would anyone provoke others for their beliefs and risk the possibility of a violent retaliation and put many innocent lives in danger too ?? Provoking and disrespecting the beliefs of others is not only morally wrong but it reflects on the provokers’ selfishness, immaturity and total disregard for the lives of his/her own community.

I respect my own belief, however I am not obsessed with the control of others, they are free to respect or disrespect my beliefs as they see fit. If it turns out my beliefs are wrong in the future I may benefit from them expressing their disrespect for my beliefs, particularly if they express why they disrespect my beliefs. Alternatively if they are wrong then by expressing their disrespect they give me the opportunity to demonstrate why my beliefs are true.

What exactly is your belief ?? Do you believe in a Supreme Creator, God ?

You should help advance the knowledge of the Muslim world by researching / studying history, because only a little of what you have said in this paragraph is historicaly likely to be true from a scientific perspective

What exactly is “only a little of what you have said in this paragraph is historically likely to be true from a scientific perspective” ??

 

[JerryMyers]

But this isn't about what anyone thinks is morally proper. Morality is subjective and local, and faith is personal and only communal by local social contract. If a government confers a right superseding, then it is incumbent on people to object to that in a legal fashion. This isn't about defending mockery, but about defending the legal right to mock.

Unfortunately, this IS everything about morality. How one treat another fellow being is about morality and to ridicule and mock others for what they believe is morally wrong. The basis of what is legally right is morality. Actions cannot be legally right if those actions were already morally wrong.

Mockery and ridicule are methods. Criticism is an objective. Satire is most often accomplished through some level of mockery. Swift's Modest Proposal works because it is such mockery. Are you mandating that one can only criticize through literal and direct criticism? OK, I want to criticize the Islamic forbidding of showing images of Muhammed. If I can't do that by picking up a picture and saying "it is wrong in Islam for me to show you this picture" without fear of being beheaded then what is left?

No, mockery and ridicule are not methods but they are intentions. You don’t mock or ridicule without any underlying intention. If you don’t have any intention, why mock and ridicule in the first place ?? just for the sheer fun of it ??

And what do you expect to achieve ‘”by picking up a picture and saying "it is wrong in Islam for me to show you this picture"’ ?? To let everyone knows that you know what is forbidden in Islam but lets do it anyway and offend the Muslims ??

There is a better way to show that there is a controversy over freedom of expression by showing an image that would be subject to the controversy but which is protected by law (and allowing those who would be offended to leave the room)? Sure, a teacher could simply say "there is stuff that you are allowed to see but that some people will kill me if I show it, so we can't feel protected by the law of the land. Sorry guys."
That's much more effective.

Really ?? And you believe provoking and mocking the beliefs of others is a more effective way to make the world a safer place ??! Really ?? Are you by chance, a Trump supporter ?? The thinking logic is sure familiar.

Speaking of freedom of expression – well, I got news for you - there’s no such thing as absolute freedom of expression. If there is, then, we find no wrong in people walking around publicly in the nude and the authorities cannot arrest and charge them for indecent exposure or if a man passionately grab your wife in the street because he has the hot for your wife, you have no right to stop him because he’s just exercising his rights to freedom of expression ! Come on, get real !

 

[rosends]

Unfortunately, this IS everything about morality. How one treat another fellow being is about morality and to ridicule and mock others for what they believe is morally wrong. The basis of what is legally right is morality. Actions cannot be legally right if those actions were already morally wrong.

Except that they ARE legally right. You cannot discount actual law because there should be, in your mind, an additional layer of regulation based on one person's moral compass. Unless you live in a theocracy where the law and the local moral code are synonymous, or in some philosopher's construct in which everyone agrees on a set of specific values and behaviors in all cases, you have to rely on an institutionalized set of laws. As it stands, what you and I think of as "morally" wrong are two different things which is the simplest proof that using the notion of "morality" as a guideline as if we all have the same morality is a fool's errand.

No, mockery and ridicule are not methods but they are intentions. You don’t mock or ridicule without any underlying intention. If you don’t have any intention, why mock and ridicule in the first place ?? just for the sheer fun of it ??

No, they are methods by which you can correct behavior, expose folly, register discontent, educate or amuse (among other things). Why would the great writers have used satire laced fiction instead of just writing non-fiction? Why did Chaucer use mockery to make his points against the church? Was his intention "for the sheer fun of it"? No. He wanted societal change and used a method which had a better chance of making a difference.

And what do you expect to achieve ‘”by picking up a picture and saying "it is wrong in Islam for me to show you this picture"’ ?? To let everyone knows that you know what is forbidden in Islam but lets do it anyway and offend the Muslims ??

I expect to achieve the transmission of fact in the pursuit of educating. If I can't show the picture, but I am teaching about religion, I have to explain the religious prohibition and the consequences of breaking it. If I am teaching in an Islamic school, I would approach educating this fact differently. But that sensibility isn't the driving force of curricular construction if I'm NOT in an Islamic school. No object was destroyed. No person was harmed. The teacher was making a point about the laws which govern different religions. His action (in simply explaining -- he wasn't mocking anything) was offensive in its existence. That's what you are talking about stifling.

Really ?? And you believe provoking and mocking the beliefs of others is a more effective way to make the world a safer place ??! Really ?? Are you by chance, a Trump supporter ?? The thinking logic is sure familiar.

I like how you tar with a broad brush. Is that the way to make the world a better place? It is immoral to jump to such conclusions so your comment can't be legal. And, yes, often, mocking the beliefs of others is the best way to make the world a safer place because it exposes problematic approaches to public scrutiny i a way that simply stating those facts would not.

Speaking of freedom of expression – well, I got news for you - there’s no such thing as absolute freedom of expression.

I don't recall mentioning any absolute freedoms, that's true, but under a variety of codes of governmental law, there is "protected expression" which includes mockery. Simply deciding that something SHOULDN'T be protected doesn't change the fact that it IS protected. Are you advocating an absolute lack of freedom in which all modes of expression are scrutinized and regulated? Such a system does not exist in France, or the US.
Do you really not know this?

 

[oldbadger]

I don't actually believe in a plurality of gods, a pantheon of relative truth. I believe in one God. One Truth. This, I guess, is what got the Jews and Christians into such trouble with the Romans.

True.
Christians were the first folks to be branded 'atheists' because they rejected the Roman and Greek Gods.

 

[oldbadger]

I still cannot figure out how France could allow nasty-minded folks to publish pictures which certainly upset 8 million of its citizens. Crazy!!

I still cannot figure out what purpose such pictures have for any readers..... or any school children! What was the point of such stupid and nasty exhibitions?

And look at what has happened over all this.

President Macron's support for such junk is now falling under the spotlight of the World, it seems, and French Nationalism can be seen for what it is...... extremist and Islamophobic imo.

 

[oldbadger]

Unfortunately, this IS everything about morality. How one treat another fellow being is about morality and to ridicule and mock others for what they believe is morally wrong. The basis of what is legally right is morality. Actions cannot be legally right if those actions were already morally wrong.

No, mockery and ridicule are not methods but they are intentions. You don’t mock or ridicule without any underlying intention. If you don’t have any intention, why mock and ridicule in the first place ?? just for the sheer fun of it ??

And what do you expect to achieve ‘”by picking up a picture and saying "it is wrong in Islam for me to show you this picture"’ ?? To let everyone knows that you know what is forbidden in Islam but lets do it anyway and offend the Muslims ??

Really ?? And you believe provoking and mocking the beliefs of others is a more effective way to make the world a safer place ??! Really ?? Are you by chance, a Trump supporter ?? The thinking logic is sure familiar.

Speaking of freedom of expression – well, I got news for you - there’s no such thing as absolute freedom of expression. If there is, then, we find no wrong in people walking around publicly in the nude and the authorities cannot arrest and charge them for indecent exposure or if a man passionately grab your wife in the street because he has the hot for your wife, you have no right to stop him because he’s just exercising his rights to freedom of expression ! Come on, get real !

Hi......
Some folks just don't wan t to get real.
I cannot be sure but one or two posters supporting such nasty pictures do seem to feature quite regularly on threads which criticise either Islam or Muslims. Islamophobia possibly?

France has now fallen under the World spotlights as a Nationalist centred country which just doesn't care about the feelings of 8 million of its citizens, and when a very few total nutters commit dreadful murders the whole Muslim community can be turned upon.

France only supports free media when it suits, and it soon tears down posters featuring Turkish opinions and its Leader's claims.

France supports free-speech when it wants to.

You'll notice that any who post up support for the Muslim feelings about nasty pictures being shown to its children ..... the main response is 'Look at what the terrorists have done! You are supporting these dreadful actions!' But that's a falsehood intended to suppress indignation about Islamophobia, imo.

I pity the Muslims of France, many whose families have fought for France through generations. They've been let down, imo....