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

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think that would be the opposite of egalitarian (of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Definition from Google).

I'll try to make this simpler. I think you came up with great examples as to the complexity involved in what we think is fair. The concept, as you have demonstrated, is not equally applied in all circumstances: some things are fair in situation X, while the same things are not fair in situation Y.

However, I do not think fairness is a completely artificial construction, codified by rules. I think there is an innate human element to it, our "gut instinct" that weighs in when we determine whether something is fair or not.

You are correct. My understanding of the term egalitarian was under reconstruction. But fair is not necessarily egailitarian.

How can you play poker egalitarian? Everyone would have to have the same cards! What is fair in low in the hole is not fair in follow the lady.

Definition from google.

fair1
fer/
adjective

1. 1.
   in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.
   
   
   This is not the same as equal rights or opportunities; it is not even describing the same aspect of human interaction. LOL it is a side point anyway.
   
   Egalitarian would be "don't start hitting other people"
   Fair would be "don't hit below the belt" IFF your opponent agreed to fight
   Justice would be 'shoot the *******' if you were attacked without provocation.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

And the day will cum when all believers in the false prophet, shame be upon him, will hide their faces in shame for being so ignorant.

Enlightened countries are strong enough to allow tongues to wag. Pathetic backward ignorant countries must stymy speech in order to pretend they know what they are doing. Amazing how one's right to merely open one's mouth says so much about the culture they live in.

Say that rubbish only in ur own country.

But we will cutt off the roots of Shameful disbelievers who thinks they can insult the prophet pbuh within muslim country. Even secular regimes dont tolerate such garbage from shameful disrespectful disbelievers, then how about a state that rules by the law of Allah?

And i told many times, whoever insults the prophet pbuh within islamic country. Whatever happens to him weither these are attacks from individual muslims or the state, he should only blame himself for the provocations and the hatred.

 

[Looncall]

Say that rubbish only in ur own country.

But we will cutt off the roots of Shameful disbelievers who thinks they can insult the prophet pbuh within muslim country. Even secular regimes dont tolerate such garbage from shameful disrespectful disbelievers, then how about a state that rules by the law of Allah?

And i told many times, whoever insults the prophet pbuh within islamic country. Whatever happens to him weither these are attacks from individual muslims or the state, he should only blame himself for the provocations and the hatred.

Muslim country, eh? So much for no compulsion in religion.

 

[Quintessence]

You might want to take a look at the second post you made in this thread and ask yourself if there was any point to it other than 'I meant to do that?' It was as inane as your first post and added nothing to justify the postion that ridiculous positions should not be ridiculed. Sorry for boiling it down.

There's no need to apologize. You're having an epic failure of reading comprehension (hey, it happens to all of us from time to time) so let me spell it out for you:

The OP was talking about the issue of people taking things personally, and that people should just learn to not take things personally.

I contested that this is an unrealistic expectation, and that people will take things personally, therefore it behooves us to be aware of that and develop a skill set that helps us to navigate that (i.e., conflict management and active listening).

I never said "don't ridicule some position you happen to think is ridiculous." I said quite clearly "nothing is off limits" and then "do what you want." My "position" is not what you're strawpersoning it as. Go strawperson someone else.

 

[Falvlun]

There's no need to apologize. You're having an epic failure of reading comprehension (hey, it happens to all of us from time to time) so let me spell it out for you:

The OP was talking about the issue of people taking things personally, and that people should just learn to not take things personally.

I contested that this is an unrealistic expectation, and that people will take things personally, therefore it behooves us to be aware of that and develop a skill set that helps us to navigate that (i.e., conflict management and active listening).

I thought this was an interesting point. I was nodding in agreement with the OP until I got to your post. Most people will take attacks upon their beliefs personally. That shouldn't be surprising, nor really, should it be condemned, if you think about it. Our beliefs are important aspects of who we are. We should keep that in mind when we are criticizing others' beliefs-- it's something to consider.

And of course, while an emotional response to criticism should be expected, I don't think a violent one is warranted.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Say that rubbish only in ur own country.

But we will cutt off the roots of Shameful disbelievers who thinks they can insult the prophet pbuh within muslim country. Even secular regimes dont tolerate such garbage from shameful disrespectful disbelievers, then how about a state that rules by the law of Allah?

And i told many times, whoever insults the prophet pbuh within islamic country. Whatever happens to him weither these are attacks from individual muslims or the state, he should only blame himself for the provocations and the hatred.

Pretty much prove the point of the OP there.

Here's what I tell you - those who use a stupid set of ignorant beliefs to punish people for pointing out how ignorant those beliefs are SHOULD ONLY BLAME THEMSELVES for the ridicule and hatred they provoke!

 

[Falvlun]

But fair is not necessarily egailitarian.

I think there are possibly exceptions to the rule, but in general, I think that's part of the foundation of what is considered fair.

How can you play poker egalitarian? Everyone would have to have the same cards! What is fair in low in the hole is not fair in follow the lady.

I don't think that follows. Fair in poker is more along the lines of "everyone has to follow the same rules". And that is egalitarian. Frank can't play "2s are high", while everyone else has to play "Ace is high".

Actually, I think a lot of your examples could be explained that way. "In similar circumstances, a particular set of behaviors will be considered fair". I think you may be mistaking my position to be "In any situation, X behavior will always be considered fair". That's not it at all.

I am saying that the situation in which an atheist blasphemes in a Muslim country is a similar situation as a Muslim blaspheming in (some hypothetical) Christian theocracy. The rules should be the same. In other words, they are both playing poker in both situations. To use your terminology, I am wondering if the Muslim believes that it would be "according to the rules of the situation" for him to be executed because he tells someone that Jesus wasn't God. In other words, if he makes this rule to apply in his country, would he want that rule to be followed in another country, when it could be used against him?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I think there are possibly exceptions to the rule, but in general, I think that's part of the foundation of what is considered fair.


I don't think that follows. Fair in poker is more along the lines of "everyone has to follow the same rules". And that is egalitarian. Frank can't play "2s are high", while everyone else has to play "Ace is high".

Actually, I think a lot of your examples could be explained that way. "In similar circumstances, a particular set of behaviors will be considered fair". I think you may be mistaking my position to be "In any situation, X behavior will always be considered fair". That's not it at all.

I am saying that the situation in which an atheist blasphemes in a Muslim country is a similar situation as a Muslim blaspheming in (some hypothetical) Christian theocracy. The rules should be the same. In other words, they are both playing poker in both situations. To use your terminology, I am wondering if the Muslim believes that it would be "according to the rules of the situation" for him to be executed because he tells someone that Jesus wasn't God. In other words, if he makes this rule to apply in his country, would he want that rule to be followed in another country, when it could be used against him?

One of us is confused..and that usually means me lol. But didn't our divergence begin when I said that 'unfair is breaking the rules?' In cards, we all follow the same rules. In traffic we all follow the same rules. When I travel from the US to Iran, the rules regarding blasphemy have changed.

If we are playing poker by a set of rules, and then WE AGREE to play hearts instead, it is no longer fair to play by the other rules.

Now let me step back and say that yes, I agree with you that islam is rather dense when it comes to the rules they apply. But this attitude is part of the doctrine, and it comes from quran and shia, that there is to be no compulsion, so long as others SUBMIT to islam. They unfairness that we see is in fact THE RULES. It is not merely situational, it is perspective.

I don't agree with these twits, merely trying to shed light on the OP; how can they expected to think in terms of global fairness when their rulebook takes the situation under consideration and gives clear RULES. They are playing by the rules.

Now this is where I get upset when I hear 'not all muslims' or 'the extremists.' That's BS, it is islam the root of the evil; The people who moderate the message are the ones who are not following it. The ones who want to kill blasphemers are TRUE BELIEVERS.

 

[Salvador]

Muhammad is my idol. He was a great fighter. I don't think anybody should criticize him. I greatly admire him and I've posted a cartoon picture of him.

 

[psychoslice]

I never liked him myself.

 

[leibowde84]

Imagine you are in a Christian nation that has the death penalty for blasphemy against Christianity. You are a good upstanding Muslim. You are overheard remarking that Jesus wasn't God. Do you think it is fair that you should be put to death for simply making a statement about your personal religious beliefs?

Of course not. That's my whole point. It doesn't matter what religion we are referring to, people should not be punished for speaking their mind about religious belief, dogma and/or historical figures/prophets. I would be equally disgusted with a Christian nation that did this.

 

[leibowde84]

As I wrote, I was not able to fully explain, but I did say "It is when actions affect other individuals adversely that an issue needs to be "fix"ed, and an individual's business may become the business of another or all."

However, the reality is that it is difficult to to find an individual or group that is guiltless -and many use the faults of another -real, imagined, created or fabricated -as an excuse to effect others adversely and to shift focus from their own guilt.

I would say that almost all of any belief system -religious or otherwise -are brainwashed by others or themselves to believe that those who challenge their beliefs are henchmen of Satan or, in other words, adversaries of one's own beliefs.

I would say that every group has good points and faults to varying degrees, and that every group can rightly find fault with every other.

I believe that if everyone who feels as you do attempts to eradicate each other's belief systems altogether -lumping many individuals and subgroups under one label -they will find it impossible, and then get on the horn to the military.

Catholicism will not be eradicated. Christianity will not be eradicated. Protestantism will not be eradicated. Islam will not be eradicated, Buddhism will not be eradicated, etc., etc.....

Mankind will be decimated and potentially eradicated.

Would you care to outline a plan to eradicate such a group?
Is there a number of groups you'd like to eradicate?
Is targeting an entire group feasible?
Are you lumped in a group seen to be guilty of something?
Who is attempting to eradicate you while you are focused on all of these other groups?
Do some groups try to eradicate others simply because they want power and use faults to move large groups against them?
Is it effective to minimize the faults of one or one's own group in order to minimize the number of groups that want to eradicate one or one's group, and so leave more resources to focus or more immediate threats?

The faults of one or a group will be the primary hindrance to any attempt to effect positive change elsewhere, so fixing one's self or group should be the primary goal.
All individuals and groups have faults -but in order to effect positive change, they should not be hypocritical as a rule or policy. Such will not be respected and will certainly be hated.
It is also true that the way in which one or a group attempts to effect positive change elsewhere may be a fault -regardless of true intention (hopefully, the intention is sincere) -and may effect negative change.

Geeze, buddy ... you put a massive amount of words in my mouth. I never once said that I wanted to erradicate an entire religion or religious group. I am in favor of irradicating those who are hopless ... like ISIS. They are a group of sociopaths that hide under the guise of religion. Groups like that must be stopped, but that doesn't say anything about Islam in general. I am not in favor of destroying any religion.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

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

We had a similar period in Western History dealing with witches... That's always fun to talk about.

 

[leibowde84]

Christianity used to hold rather questionable beliefs in regards to blasphemy, the value of women, and the treatment of non-Christians. There are various Christian sects that still adhere to various "literal" interpretations, that quite frankly, are easily found in the Bible. To claim that Islam somehow can't overcome the... harsher... aspects of it is to ignore your own religion's history.

It's funny to me that people compare parts of Christianity that are not considered "ancient" to aspects of Islam that are prevalent TODAY. For example, the crusades took place over 1000 years ago. To compare them with anything happening today is pretty darn ignorant. In the same way, it is easy to see that people are disgusted when the Christianity that existed 1000 years ago or even 100 years ago is being used as an example. We moved on from that mindset a long time ago. Why can't these Islamic States do the same thing?

 

[leibowde84]

Say that rubbish only in ur own country.

But we will cutt off the roots of Shameful disbelievers who thinks they can insult the prophet pbuh within muslim country. Even secular regimes dont tolerate such garbage from shameful disrespectful disbelievers, then how about a state that rules by the law of Allah?

And i told many times, whoever insults the prophet pbuh within islamic country. Whatever happens to him weither these are attacks from individual muslims or the state, he should only blame himself for the provocations and the hatred.

Sounds like you have a problem with hatred of those who criticize your "prophet." It seems pretty pathetic that a government would have to punish instead of reacting with a counter-argument. But, who am I to judge.

 

[leibowde84]

We had a similar period in Western History dealing with witches... That's always fun to talk about.

Yeah, but, seeing how that was roughly 400 years ago, it really isn't relevant. We learned how stupid that was a long time ago, and the Church has since apologized for it.

 

[gsa]

Say that rubbish only in ur own country.

But we will cutt off the roots of Shameful disbelievers who thinks they can insult the prophet pbuh within muslim country. Even secular regimes dont tolerate such garbage from shameful disrespectful disbelievers, then how about a state that rules by the law of Allah?

And i told many times, whoever insults the prophet pbuh within islamic country. Whatever happens to him weither these are attacks from individual muslims or the state, he should only blame himself for the provocations and the hatred.

Can you imagine if Western countries started applying this logic? Oh the outcry would be so fierce! Trials and executions of Muslim converts and Muslim believers who refused to stop practicing their religion?

Of course, such practices will never emerge in the West, because it violates the very principles that give us the ability to criticize your religion, and any religion or no religion. But ISIS is making it increasingly clear that radical Islam is a threat to modern civilization. We cannot tolerate people, groups or governments that kill people for their thoughts or their speech.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Can you imagine if Western countries started applying this logic? Oh the outcry would be so fierce! Trials and executions of Muslim converts and Muslim believers who refused to stop practicing their religion?

Of course, such practices will never emerge in the West, because it violates the very principles that give us the ability to criticize your religion, and any religion or no religion. But ISIS is making it increasingly clear that radical Islam is a threat to modern civilization. We cannot tolerate people, groups or governments that kill people for their thoughts or their speech.

Gsaseeker its very simple. Say that provocations only in non-muslim countries.

 

[Parsimony]

Personaly i find it good law, to apply capital punishment for apostates that insults prophet pbuh.

What counts as an insult? If one says "I don't believe Mohammed was a prophet", does that count as an insult?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

What counts as an insult? If one says "I don't believe Mohammed was a prophet", does that count as an insult?

Clearly u know whats a insult and whats not.

If that is insult, all christians and jews during the time of muslim empires would be killed just for saying " i dont believe in muhammad".

Insults is separate from disbelief. Insults is a manifestation of enmity and deep hatred.