Islam’s teaching on response to abuse and mockery

[outhouse]

...and we should take so-called "religious authority" seriously because?

There is no excuse for placing mythology before academia in any way shape or form.

Were dealing with levels of fanaticism here which factually retards society.

 

[Nakosis]

It's pretty simple, you are asserting your own sense of authority and that is why you (and I) tend to pee all over accepted "authority".

Perhaps we are wise enough to be wary of whom we bestow our allegiances to... Jus' sayin'....

What is problematic is that some individuals manage to enhance the power of their own position by appealing to the number of followers who hold similar or the same positions. It's like a religious/philosophical echo chamber, not dissimilar to the "left wing" or "right wing" political echo chambers.

Asserting your own sense of authority, is that a "good" thing? Maybe not if it threatens the survival of the group.

I'm pretty much a moral nihilist in the sense I see no absolute basis for right and wrong. In that case I don't see a reason to judge my behavior as morally superior. It just happens to be the way I behave.

I get angry, I control it. I don't even like being controlled by my own emotions. I've always been like that. Religions like Buddhism seems like a good thing to me. So I'm just wondering if I had been born with different DNA, if I mightn't be one of those folk feeling righteously justified in chopping off the head of non-believers.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no excuse for placing mythology before academia in any way shape or form.
Were dealing with levels of fanaticism here which factually retards society.

There are fanatic Atheists as well who pronounce themselves as Anti-Theists and would like to annihilate even the innocent civilians theists from the world like Christopher Hitchens.
Regards

 

[Aquitaine]

There are fanatic Atheists as well who pronounce themselves as Anti-Theists and would like to annihilate even the innocent civilians theists from the world like Christopher Hitchens.
Regards

When or where did Christopher Hitchens ever say he wanted to annihilate innocent civilians for being Theists?

He called himself an "anti theist" as in "opposer of religious authority", not "lets murder believers".

 

[paarsurrey]

When or where did Christopher Hitchens ever say he wanted to annihilate innocent civilians for being Theists?
He called himself an "anti theist" as in "opposer of religious authority", not "lets murder believers".

The way he ridiculed, derided and mocked the religion and the way he supported the New Atheists movement or Anti-Theists movement and struggled politically as well and issued statements, that means something like that.
Right?
Regards

 

[Aquitaine]

The way he ridiculed, derided and mocked the religion and the way he supported the New Atheists movement or Anti-Theists movement and struggled politically as well and issued statements, that means something like that.
Right?
Regards

Again, I will ask: when or where did Hitchens support the idea of innocent people being murdered because of their faith?

 

[paarsurrey]

One may find such things from him from the following:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It's folks like you and me who make religion what it is.

I disagree ... and for a reason that you're about to conce--[/quote]

Religion really is in the hand of it's followers.

See?

Might as well blame evolution while you're at it.

Q. - Are you suggesting that having a leader provides a reproductive benefit to the group?

Because if you can't demonstrate that, I'm struggling to see how you can attribute the existence of authoritarian figures to evolution. Unless of course, you simply mean that most people are smart enough to not tangle with someone who's obviously stronger (or more powerful) than they are. However, that still fails to convince me that leaders exist because they provide a reproductive benefit. Isn't it much more likely that authority figures are the inevitable consequence of a communal society that can tolerate their existence rather than the explanation for that communal society's success?

Anyway, none of this seems like the sort of argument that's going to gain much traction with folks who (for ideological reasons perhaps) prefer to deny that evolution actually occurs in the first place. And it's wildly off-topic, no?

 

[Looncall]

I disagree ... and for a reason that you're about to conce--

See?



Q. - Are you suggesting that having a leader provides a reproductive benefit to the group?

Because if you can't demonstrate that, I'm struggling to see how you can attribute the existence of authoritarian figures to evolution. Unless of course, you simply mean that most people are smart enough to not tangle with someone who's obviously stronger (or more powerful) than they are. However, that still fails to convince me that leaders exist because they provide a reproductive benefit. Isn't it much more likely that authority figures are the inevitable consequence of a communal society that can tolerate their existence rather than the explanation for that communal society's success?

Anyway, none of this seems like the sort of argument that's going to gain much traction with folks who (for ideological reasons perhaps) prefer to deny that evolution actually occurs in the first place. And it's wildly off-topic, no?[/QUOTE]
Desmond Morris, in his book, The Naked Ape, suggested that our propensity to follow leaders comes from our primate ancestry. Many primate bands are organized around an alpha individual. He also suggested that the idea of gods comes from our missing such an alpha individual in our social life and so making one up.

Many species, such as wolves, organize around an alpha leader. It must be a successful way to do, for whatever reasons.

I don't know how current his notions are these days. The book is a good read.

 

[Nakosis]

I disagree ... and for a reason that you're about to conce--
See?
Q. - Are you suggesting that having a leader provides a reproductive benefit to the group?
Because if you can't demonstrate that, I'm struggling to see how you can attribute the existence of authoritarian figures to evolution. Unless of course, you simply mean that most people are smart enough to not tangle with someone who's obviously stronger (or more powerful) than they are. However, that still fails to convince me that leaders exist because they provide a reproductive benefit. Isn't it much more likely that authority figures are the inevitable consequence of a communal society that can tolerate their existence rather than the explanation for that communal society's success?
Anyway, none of this seems like the sort of argument that's going to gain much traction with folks who (for ideological reasons perhaps) prefer to deny that evolution actually occurs in the first place. And it's wildly off-topic, no?

You speak of religion as if it were a living entity enforcing it's will on folks. My point is that it is just people themselves which create religions for their our purposes and evolution has passed down genetically a tendency for authoritarianism.

You blame "religion" and the actual culprit remains nebulous. We have good leaders and bad. I'd rather people identify the person who promotes their religious agenda and determine the quality of their leadership.

Sometimes people won't take responsibility for their own actions and claim they are doing the "Lord's" work. To me that's BS. You act, you take responsibility for it, don't blame it on your religious belief.

I refuse to accept people blaming their own actions/justifying them because of religion. Religion is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. If you are going to keep blaming their actions on their religions, I suppose they will too. Me, I will continue to insist that folks take responsibility for their own action and refuse to allow folks to use their religion as an excuse.

 

[leibowde84]

Imagine how different the history of the world would be if your assertion were true?

Why don't you think it's true?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Why don't you think it's true?

Because the evidence suggests otherwise. People have been incessantly judging other people based on religion since ... I dunno ... the inception of religion. Basically.

...

Remove religious prejudice from human history and what are you left with? It'd still be heftier than a mere pamphlet, but there'd be an almost incalculable decrease in violence and suffering.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You speak of religion as if it were a living entity enforcing it's will on folks.

Not really. Religion is merely the pretext that actual living entities employ to (en)force their will on other people.

My point is that it is just people themselves which create religions for their our purposes and evolution has passed down genetically a tendency for authoritarianism.

Aren't humans also rather prone to rebellion? Are leaders built up just so they can be torn down? And are leaders simply a by-product of organized, communal societies?

You blame "religion" and the actual culprit remains nebulous. We have good leaders and bad. I'd rather people identify the person who promotes their religious agenda and determine the quality of their leadership.

The divine beings never seem to materialize ... yet the planet is simply swarming with the self-appointed terrestrial representatives of said divine beings. I'm obliged to envision a plague of locusts.

Sometimes people won't take responsibility for their own actions and claim they are doing the "Lord's" work. To me that's BS.

I concur wholeheartedly.

You act, you take responsibility for it, don't blame it on your religious belief.

Yes. That sounds great ... but will it play in Peoria?

I refuse to accept people blaming their own actions/justifying them because of religion. Religion is not an acceptable excuse for bad behavior. If you are going to keep blaming their actions on their religions, I suppose they will too. Me, I will continue to insist that folks take responsibility for their own action and refuse to allow folks to use their religion as an excuse.

You're preaching to the choir. Preach on.

 

[leibowde84]

Because the evidence suggests otherwise. People have been incessantly judging other people based on religion since ... I dunno ... the inception of religion. Basically.

...

Remove religious prejudice from human history and what are you left with? It'd still be heftier than a mere pamphlet, but there'd be an almost incalculable decrease in violence and suffering.

How do you reconcile the fact that the majority of violence and destruction has been done in the name of certain religious beliefs and differences? It seems that the evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim.

 

[Sabour]

This?

"Show patience under provocation, disregard abuse and politely turn away from abusers. Violence not allowed."

"According to the religion of Islam, Muslims can only respond to verbal abuse, mockery and lampooning of their faith and its sacred figures in the following forms.
1. Any criticism of Islam, or allegations against it, which underlie the abuse must be refuted and answered by means of words and speech.
2. Apart from answering specific criticism, all possible efforts must be made to present the true and accurate picture of Islam in general. With more enlightenment and less ignorance prevailing about Islam and its Holy Prophet Muhammad, the instances of abuse, vituperation and mockery will decrease.
3. As regards the offence or hurt that Muslims naturally feel as a result of such abuse, they are taught to respond by:
a) bearing the provocation with resolute patience,
b) ignoring the abuse,
c) separating themselves temporarily from the company of the abusers while the abuse continues,
d) exercising forgiveness in view of the ignorance of the abusers." - http://ahmadiyya.org/islam/abuse.pdf

or this?

"Undoubtedly, the States politicians who turn a blind eye to those who mock the prophets are not censure in isolation because Allah s.w.t authorizes the destruction of the cities and villages where they mock the prophet peace be upon him. We can see the darkest injustice is abusing and mocking the Prophet peace be upon him, it violates the divine and it runs counter of rules and systems." - http://en.islamway.net/article/8328...phet-peace-and-blessings-of-allah-be-upon-him

"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed." - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

I am not a scholar myself, but I will give what I believ anyways.

Islamically I think they are both correct. The difference lays in the intention of the abuser. Muslims should always go for the first option and assume that the person is speaking out of ignorance about Islam and not for just provoking them. However if the person continued and it was proved he has no good intention than there will be a certain process which starts with the person sitting with islamic scholars and discussing islam over. If the person insisted on abusing our prophet peace be upon him, than things will go to the last resort.

However, I believe that in our days that we are living we should only go for the first option because no body nowadays know the real islam and there is a big confusion. The prophet peace be upon him said that Islam will start strange and will become strange again.

Looking around me, I see even muslims who know nothing about Islam. If muslims are that way, how can we punish non muslims?

Besides, there is no caliphate nowadays. Before, islam was in its gold ages and Islam was well known for what it is. Nowadays, almost all people relate terrorism to Islam out of their lack of knowledge about Islam and believing ehat history and media says about Islam.

Our responsibilty in that case is to try and show the others what Islam really stands for. In our days, I believe it is the first option only.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One may find such things from him from the following:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

 

[leibowde84]

One may find such things from him from the following:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Lol. He is condemning Islam for teaching that murdering people for apostasy is ok, among other things. Hitchens has never condoned murdering people because of their faith. In actuality, he is explicitly against it.

 

[leibowde84]

One may find such things from him from the following:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Way to slander a guy who died recently from cancer. You should be proud of yourself.