Why would prophets/religious beliefs be off-limits to criticism?!

[outhouse]

Sorry. I don't find spitting into the wind to be productive.

There is progress to be made. But it is your own choice.

 

[outhouse]

No the state should follow the rulings based on quran and sunnah.

Isnt having laws regarding mythology and theology wrong and rather primitive?

That is if the apostasy is proven and the apostate does not want to prevent.

What if we in a court of law, show your prophet to have plagiarized the bible, and because he copied mythology and thought it was real, he did not know later down the line the whole world would find this truth out? what then? what if your prophet was shown just to be a copy artist? how would you feel with all those dead people on your hands?

You do know all credible historians claim the prophet used the bible as his source?


You do know there is not a single historian in the whole world that uses the Koran for any historical study what so ever!!!!! in Jesus, or pre Jesus Israelite cultures, because there is no historical value in Plagiarized material?????

How do you even want to condemn people to death for what most claim is not true?

 

[outhouse]

There are no other ethical thought processes from him as an individual which requires me to judge him as a radical.

Is this not a perfect example of the danger of islam? It shows how thin the line is between a normal moderate muslim and how easy religion's can produces terrorist?

My point, he is showing us a very thin line between what is supposed to be a loving religion, and instead shows us the same one filled with hate a terror and blatant murder.


This is not hungry or poor, it is not political or turf war, it is terrible violence in the name of nothing but religion.

 

[outhouse]

There is progress to be made. But it is your own choice.

To expand.

Its not the person your debating to you will ever get through, but those reading or lurking on the fence, you might have a chance at effecting their thinking.

By pointing out logical flaws and poor reasoning of fanaticism and fundamentalism, and better education to their children, we are gaining ground.

 

[Twilight Hue]

" "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.""

Yes.
Seems the better you know someone ....

 

[Job]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being facicious. But, that is the crazyiest thing I've ever heard. Why would you ever think it would be rational in the slightest to assume I would even think for a second about a historical figure's (Muhammad) feelings before expressing an opinion of his character, misdeeds, or beliefs I find troubling. You can't expect anyone who isn't already a muslim to "steer clear" of Muhammad. He was a real person, open to criticism just like the rest of us.

Actually what he is saying is the most dominant opinion in Islamic orthodoxy and sharia law; that anyone who insults the prophet or God and doesnt repent (in case its a Muslim) should be killed in an Islamic state. So if you find a traditional Muslim that tries to live according to the sharia as much as possible and believes in "an Islamic state" you will find 9 out of 10 times that he endorses the death penalty for who'm insults the prophet. Its not a coincedence that this part of sharia law that forbids blasphemy is adopted in quite some Muslim countries' law even ones that are not (yet) fully governed by sharia law alone.

 

[philbo]

It has always seemed to me that belief in an all-powerful god makes a law against blasphemy unnecessary: why would anyone need a human law to protect an omnipotent deity?

If your religion needs legal protection, that can only be because in your heart of hearts you know that there isn't a god behind it. Ditto apostasy: if you think there ought to be a sentence of death for leaving the faith means you don't believe that there will be appropriate punishment afterwards. If you really, honestly believe in an all-powerful God-with-a-capital-G then there is absolutely no need for such temporal punishments.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

Agreed.

I would add that it should be painful to listen to some of the criticism. It should be difficult to justify child marriages, eternal torment and overall bad cosmology. These things are difficult to sustain for very good reasons.

I also get tired of religion being redefined as some sort of poststructuralist enterprise, where the texts have no meaning and we must all adhere to the most liberal and rational interpretation that is floating out there, even when it cannot be sustained by the text and when the vast majority of believers reject that interpretation. This is just another way of shielding bad ideas from criticism.

Many of the more traditional textural interpretations cannot be sustained by literal reading of the texts. Frequently passages are taken completely out of context, and few bother to look to other books of the bible to see of they support the interpretation.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

I don't understand why there are so many religious people these days complaining about blasphemy. While I wholeheartedly agree that people have a resposibility (not legal) to be civil, we should be able to speak our minds about historical figures without worrying about people taking it personally. A personal insult is not a subjective term. It is an insult directed at the individual being spoken to or about. While Muhammad would rightly be able to take criticism of his lifestyle personally, no one else can. Beliefs are personal, but criticisms of beliefs should not be taken personally. We all have the responsibility to have thick-skin in this world so that words don't initiate violence. Those that become violent over words should recieve 100% of the ridicule in these situations.

Religious claims comes prepackaged with a great deal of hope and expectation. Early 'Christianity' for example was preoccupied with the return of Christ and the end of the world, even today many fringe groups prepare for an 'event' that both never arrives and defies description. And when the 'religious' see their teaching and their God and prophet mocked, ignored, denied or failing to fulfill it's goals, frustration leading to super sensitivity and destructive extra religious activity happens. Christianity within Western countries and cultures have mostly tamed such activity by secular authority but within those countries where religion has a broad cultural impact but no centralized theological authority, there is an interpretive free-for-all, able to rationalize any conduct however contrary to the claims of the tradition, as God's will! It remains the tragedy of religion that it doesn't come with the honesty and critical self scrutiny to avoid it's own self deception!

 

[Mycroft]

I've always found the idea of blasphemy to be amusing. The idea that you can offend a superbeing is quite ridiculous, really. But that aside...

Either god is real, or it isn't. And if it is real, then it doesn't need anyone to defend it.

 

[Conceivia]

Christ himself said that blasphemy against Christ can be forgiven, along with all other sins except one. The one that can't be forgiven is to have had prevented God's plan to save mankind from succeeding. No forgiveness if we succeed in destroying mankind.

Tony

 

[leibowde84]

Actually what he is saying is the most dominant opinion in Islamic orthodoxy and sharia law; that anyone who insults the prophet or God and doesnt repent (in case its a Muslim) should be killed in an Islamic state. So if you find a traditional Muslim that tries to live according to the sharia as much as possible and believes in "an Islamic state" you will find 9 out of 10 times that he endorses the death penalty for who'm insults the prophet. Its not a coincedence that this part of sharia law that forbids blasphemy is adopted in quite some Muslim countries' law even ones that are not (yet) fully governed by sharia law alone.

Thanks for your explanation. I did not realize that so many "Orthodox Muslims" were OK with this insanity. Opens my eyes quite a bit. I just can't believe that people would be so naiive.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Blasphemy is dealt with death penalty within muslim state. I think it is unwise for an apostate or atheist or disbeliever to commit blasphemy in a country where the law of Allah is applied.That person must have death wish. Otherwise why commit blasphemy when u know there is death penalty for that?

 

[leibowde84]

Blasphemy is dealt with death penalty within muslim state. I think it is unwise for an apostate or atheist or disbeliever to commit blasphemy in a country where the law of Allah is applied.That person must have death wish. Otherwise why commit blasphemy when u know there is death penalty for that?

Probably because no one in their right mind would ever think that blasphemy should necessitate any physical penalty, let alone death. It is so inconcievable for anyone who doesn't believe in Shria Law and/or Islamic values that this would be the case, it is completely understandable that they wouldn't know. The death penalty as punnishment for words spoken = ridiculousness.

 

[Etritonakin]

Critical thought often leads to negative action.

People are often sensitized to criticism of themselves or their beliefs because of prior negative action, regardless of whether or not the two are directly related.
Some may also be more sensitive to criticism of their own beliefs by those whose beliefs are seen to be associated with injustice.
As it relates to religious beliefs, God is often considered by many to be a champion against injustice -though, unfortunately, often an excuse for their own unjust acts.

We do not live in a world where everyone is free to agree or disagree without it affecting their situation.

It is also one thing to disagree and another to find fault and express it somehow -one thing to live and let live or live (being critical of things in order to choose one's own path), and another to minimize or eradicate that which is criticized (and stand in the path of others).

Mankind has crossed that line so many times that tensions are running very high.
Many are defensive or preemptive based on historical memory -associating criticism with actions which may follow.

We as humans should be able to do many things which we are not able to do without risk.

Apart from those willing to openly discuss their beliefs with each other and acknowledge criticism of ideas without offense, it is not wise or good to speak out against people or their beliefs unless their actions and beliefs directly affect you adversely -and even then, the interaction should be toward some just resolution toward peace.

Sometimes, however, one or more parties are not willing to truly be just and peaceful.

The pendulum is rarely, if ever, stopped immediately or by willingness from only one side.

Those who do not seek or will not accept justice and peace are not likely to find it.

 

[catch22]

I'm rather surprised some of you are surprised to find out there's really not much line between moderate and radical Islam. Moderate islam is sort of an oxymoron, really.

Might be time to take a look at the child-marrying, rape approving, murder and violence commanding religion... finally? Hey, seizures and visions from a known epileptic who plagiarized the Jewish texts... divine inspiration, right?

No "moderate" muslim would deny 95% of what is attributed to radical Islam. There is no radical Islam. There's just Islam.

 

[leibowde84]

Religious claims comes prepackaged with a great deal of hope and expectation. Early 'Christianity' for example was preoccupied with the return of Christ and the end of the world, even today many fringe groups prepare for an 'event' that both never arrives and defies description. And when the 'religious' see their teaching and their God and prophet mocked, ignored, denied or failing to fulfill it's goals, frustration leading to super sensitivity and destructive extra religious activity happens. Christianity within Western countries and cultures have mostly tamed such activity by secular authority but within those countries where religion has a broad cultural impact but no centralized theological authority, there is an interpretive free-for-all, able to rationalize any conduct however contrary to the claims of the tradition, as God's will! It remains the tragedy of religion that it doesn't come with the honesty and critical self scrutiny to avoid it's own self deception!

This is exactly the reason why I think that religious beliefs are the most dangerous aspect of the modern world.

 

[leibowde84]

Critical thought often leads to negative action.

People are often sensitized to criticism of themselves or their beliefs because of prior negative action, regardless of whether or not the two are directly related.
Some may also be more sensitive to criticism of their own beliefs by those whose beliefs are seen to be associated with injustice.
As it relates to religious beliefs, God is often considered by many to be a champion against injustice -though, unfortunately, often an excuse for their own unjust acts.

We do not live in a world where everyone is free to agree or disagree without it affecting their situation.

It is also one thing to disagree and another to find fault and express it somehow -one thing to live and let live or live (being critical of things in order to choose one's own path), and another to minimize or eradicate that which is criticized (and stand in the path of others).

Mankind has crossed that line so many times that tensions are running very high.
Many are defensive or preemptive based on historical memory -associating criticism with actions which may follow.

We as humans should be able to do many things which we are not able to do without risk.

Apart from those willing to openly discuss their beliefs with each other and acknowledge criticism of ideas without offense, it is not wise or good to speak out against people or their beliefs unless their actions and beliefs directly affect you adversely -and even then, the interaction should be toward some just resolution toward peace.

Sometimes, however, one or more parties are not willing to truly be just and peaceful.

The pendulum is rarely, if ever, stopped immediately or by willingness from only one side.

Those who do not seek or will not accept justice and peace are not likely to find it.

What is the difference between "disagreement" and "finding fault?" How can express disagreement without finding and expessing fault?

 

[leibowde84]

I've always found the idea of blasphemy to be amusing. The idea that you can offend a superbeing is quite ridiculous, really. But that aside...

Either god is real, or it isn't. And if it is real, then it doesn't need anyone to defend it.

Exactly what I think!! If anyone thinks that prophets or God need defending, their beliefs are logical fallacies which cannot be accurate. Why on earth would Muhammad care about people insulting him if he really was God's chosen prophet?!

 

[leibowde84]

Blasphemy is dealt with death penalty within muslim state. I think it is unwise for an apostate or atheist or disbeliever to commit blasphemy in a country where the law of Allah is applied.That person must have death wish. Otherwise why commit blasphemy when u know there is death penalty for that?

For a while, I kind of agreed that the US should stay out of the affairs of the Muslim world. If they wanted to enact archaic, out-of-date, tyranical, unjust, dispicable rules that completely disregard the value of human life, that was their problem. But, regimes that think that blasphemy or words of any kind should be met with physical violence against the "perpetrator" must be taken out of power. I cannot tell you how insane it is to think that Muhammad would need anyone's help in defending his name. And, if anyone thinks that Allah (God) needs our help defending himself, how is Allah God? Logically it doesn't make sense that either Muhammad or Allah would care about what we think of them.