Is there any place for blasphemy laws in the twenty first century?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where and when did that happen?

All the time.
Ever seen an episode of south park starring Jesus, to name just one example?
Or perhaps google the following: "charlie hebdo jesus" and click on "images".

The only reason you don't hear about it, is because christians and jews don't react like radical muslims do.

 

[Rival]

Tell me. Do you accept the documentary hypothesis?

I don't, no; but I've been taught it. That's my concern here; are such things being taught. Most Christian schools I know teach deutero-Isaiah as standard; I'm asking if there's anything like this in the Islamic school world.

 

[firedragon]

I don't, no; but I've been taught it. That's my concern here; are such things being taught. Most Christian schools I know teach deutero-Isaiah as standard; I'm asking if there's anything like this in the Islamic school world.

Ive already answered this.

But lets see if you are fair. Please as I asked can you show me some narrative, form, redaction and source criticism in the Jewish tradition from about 2000 years or 1500 years ago?

 

[Windwalker]

Where did i say that?
All i asked was to respect that drawing of Muhammad (pbuh) should not be made.
The question is since most people today it is a sensitive topic for muslims, non muslims still chose to draw and show it publicly.
Why?

What I was responding to originally, and subsequently, was your comment in this post #7:

I do not support any form of killing someone, but blasphemy law is important since it is clear that not all people can accept the religioues view of others. Why should some people be allowed to do their best to damage a religion just because they do not like it them self?
In some muslim countries the sharia law is practiced to hard, that i agree to. But the lW is there for a reason.

That's what I was responding to. You are saying blasphemy laws should be applied to non-muslims. That, in your words, they basically should "not be allowed" to do that. That is forcing one's own religious laws upon outsiders. It's is force, and as force, it is a form of violence.

It's great you don't agree they should be killed. But you are suggesting they not be allowed to do that. What do you suggest? Prison? Some other form of enforcement of this religious law imposed upon non-religious peoples?

Do you see why I am being critical of this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great argument. Good for you.

The argument was in the part you didn't quote. You know... the other 90% of the post you are replying to.

 

[Rival]

Ive already answered this.

But lets see if you are fair. Please as I asked can you show me some narrative, form, redaction and source criticism in the Jewish tradition from about 2000 years or 1500 years ago?

Why 2000 or 1500 years ago? I'm not talking about those times; you brought that up. I'm talking about modern Qur'an criticism being taught specifically. The DH wasn't proposed until the 19th c.

 

[firedragon]

I don't, no; but I've been taught it.

You were taught the Documentary Hypothesis? Okay so what do you have to say about it since you have been taught on the hypothesis? Now see, this doesnt come from Jews, it comes from post Christian 19th century scholarship. So do you stand accused that Jews did not come up with this the same way you are accuse Muslims without even doing a bit of research?

So tell me. Whats your explanation of the documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen?

 

[firedragon]

The argument was in the part you didn't quote. You know... the other 90% of the post you are replying to.

No no. This is good enough. Great argument. Kudos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who is the "moderate muslim" here mate?

The majority. You know, the ones that aren't, or don't express sympathy for, islamic terrorists.

 

[firedragon]

Why 2000 or 1500 years ago? I'm not talking about those times, you brought that up. I'm talking about modern Qur'an criticism being taught specifically. The DH wasn't proposed until the 19th c.

Well, you asked about Islamic studies in the medieval period. So I asked a similar question.

Okay. So I have given you some studies. You never game me anything from Jewish sources. Okay so if you can't provide anything from 1500 years ago, can you give me some from the Medieval period? The same period you asked me from.

Lets practice at least some similar standards. Please go ahead.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What I was responding to originally, and subsequently, was your comment in this post #7:

​

That's what I was responding to. You are saying blasphemy laws should be applied to non-muslims. That, in your words, they basically should "not be allowed" to do that. That is forcing one's own religious laws upon outsiders. It's is force, and as force, it is a form of violence.

It's great you don't agree they should be killed. But you are suggesting they not be allowed to do that. What do you suggest? Prison? Some other form of enforcement of this religious law imposed upon non-religious peoples?

Do you see why I am being critical of this?

Yes, i am for a law saying blasphemy is not allowed, not only toward muslims but toward any person who holds a religioues/spiritual belief.
Critique when it is clearly been done something criminal is different, if a religioues person on purpose do criminal action, of course you can critique that.

 

[firedragon]

The majority. You know, the ones that aren't, or don't express sympathy for, islamic terrorists.

So that's your definition of a "Moderate Muslim"? A lot of people define them as fundamentalist Muslims.

So who in this thread is this "moderate muslim"?

 

[Rival]

You were taught the Documentary Hypothesis? Okay so what do you have to say about it since you have been taught on the hypothesis? Now see, this doesnt come from Jews, it comes from post Christian 19th century scholarship. So do you stand accused that Jews did not come up with this the same way you are accuse Muslims without even doing a bit of research?

So tell me. Whats your explanation of the documentary hypothesis of Wellhausen?

I live in a Christian nation, so obviously I'm taught that way. The DH is standard explanation here for the Bible; you won't hear anything else unless you're part of a really conservative Church. The Bibles are printed with notes explaining things like 'J wrote this' or 'This shows evidence of a redactor' or 'Daniel wasn't written until 200 ce' or whatever it is they want to write. Jewish Mediaeval scholars such as Ibn Ezra did assert that verses had been added into the Torah; there are other views that the Great Assembly had a hand in the Torah; but so? That's not my discussion. There are Jewish schools that teach these things; there are Chumashim printed with notes that support non-Mosaic authorship. Do we have this for the Qur'an?

 

[firedragon]

I live in a Christian nation, so obviously I'm taught that way. The DH is standard explanation here for the Bible; you won't hear anything else unless you're part of a really conservative Church. The Bibles are printed with notes explaining things like 'J wrote this' or 'This shows evidence of a redactor' or 'Daniel wasn't written until 200 ce' or whatever it is they want to write. Jewish Mediaeval scholars such as Ibn Ezra did assert that verses had been added into the Torah; there are other views that the Great Assembly had a hand in the Torah; but so? That's not my discussion. There are Jewish schools that teach these things; there are Chumashim printed with notes that support non-Mosaic authorship. Do we have this for the Qur'an?

Did you read my comment or did you just ignore it? twice I gave you sources. Please go back and read or reread please because me repeatedly telling you I gave you four different sources and you repeatedly asking the same question is kind of strange to me.

So do you agree that there was a Yahweist source and a Lawgiver where none of these sources are related to Moses?

If not, why do you ask this question from Muslims the way you did?

Please. Dont be bias. Its beneath you. Every question you ask another, ask yourself first. And do more research. Your knowledge in Islam is purely from anti-islamic websites which have given you absolutely bogus information. Thats why you are making these statements. Sorry to say this but you have absolutely no clue.

Please go back and read my older comment. Cant repeat the same thing again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No no. This is good enough. Great argument. Kudos.

lol, how mature

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So that's your definition of a "Moderate Muslim"? A lot of people define them as fundamentalist Muslims.

So who in this thread is this "moderate muslim"?

I already answered your question.

 

[firedragon]

lol, how mature

Thanks for the recognition.

 

[firedragon]

I already answered your question.

Ah so the answer is a generic definition, not a specific pinpointing. Hmm. Nice.

 

[firedragon]

Its actually hard to believe that in this modern world with all the technology people are still so ignorant in topics they themselves are bringing up. At least one must have the decency to not make such statements as if they are experts in the subject. There is nothing to lose on a page with only avatars on display. But we can still be mature individuals by asking when we dont know something humbly, and avoiding statements we have no proper understanding of.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, i am for a law saying blasphemy is not allowed, not only toward muslims but toward any person who holds a religioues/spiritual belief.
Critique when it is clearly been done something criminal is different, if a religioues person on purpose do criminal action, of course you can critique that.

A few things. First, what is blasphemous and offensive to some, is nothing to someone else. That is imposing your religious values upon those who don't share them. A drawing of Muhammad, is not considered blasphemy to a Christian, for instance. He's not considered sacred in their religion. You should not inject him into it, any more than they get to judge you for blaspheming the Son of God by claiming he wasn't crucified, for instance.

What you aren't seeing, is this is in fact force. You take a system of laws that are not part of another culture's laws or values, and try to force them upon them to comply with your own. That, by definition what an act of war is. It would be like China forcing its beliefs and values and systems of laws upon other sovereign countries. You don't get to do that. Americans get to call the leader of China, Winnie the Pooh if they like, while in China, you'd be killed for that "blasphemy".

One last thing, the fact that you feel that should be done, indicates a weakness of faith. Forced compliance, is about insecurity, that cannot allow diversity of views, beliefs, opinions, or even the making of offensive statements to exist. Peace at the end of a sword, is not Peace at all. It's slavery.