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

[Parsimony]

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.

Alright, that's a little better.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Alright, that's a little better.

If u want to know insults, look at ayaan hersi ali and wilders.

They are good examples.

 

[Looncall]

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.

People are killed for saying that in muslim countries these days. Even enmity is no excuse for killing. Only barbarians kill over opinions.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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.

How is the same principle that drove both the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials not relevant, when compared to the stringent punishments for apostasy that this nutcase is talking about? The point was not to harp on the past mistakes of Christianity, but to point out the similarly flawed logic behind admitted past mistakes and this current Muslim Fundamentalist mind set.

This guy is talking about stringent rules and punishments based on what he (and the holy whatevers) consider apostasy, right? Yet he is ignoring obviously similar mentalities that proved to be incredibly flawed.One would think that he, and others like him, could take a clue or two from similar religious stringency.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Insults is a manifestation of enmity and deep hatred.

Insults *are*...

And no, they are not.
Insults can be as simple as saying something like "I think you are an idiot." It can have no enmity or emotional connection to it at all. That statement would readily be viewed as an insult, while also being detached from any form of sentimentality. After all, why should someone waste their time investing emotional capital into something or someone that is below his intelligence?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So, to say that insulting a historical figure like Muhammad is deserving of punishment is LITERALLY forcing your religious BELIEFS (not facts) on others. It is an incredibly unreasonable, unrealistic and flat out disrespectful outlook to have. I should be free to criticize Muhammad in any way that I see fit, as long as I can substantiate my views.

I agree. Going back a few hundred years Christianity was similarly intolerant, with the inquisition, burning "witches", the crusades and so on. I guess we can hope that Islam will gradually mature and reform, making it a religion fit for the 21st Century ( or 22nd Century? ).

 

[jonathan180iq]

I agree. Going back a few hundred years Christianity was similarly intolerant, with the inquisition, burning "witches", the crusades and so on. I guess we can hope that Islam will gradually mature and reform, making it a religion fit for the 21st Century ( or 22nd Century? ).

Had there been a more socially advanced global power at the time, the Crusades, for example, would have never been allowed to happen. The same would be true for the Inquisition, etc. Western society has been in charge since longer than most books care to write. Because of that, the whole world knows of both our triumphs and missteps. To ignore those missteps because they are inconvenient, or to deny the triumphs out of disdain, is a mistake. They are part of factual History but also lessons that any emerging culture can (and should) study.

The problem with this fundamentalists Islamic movement is that they seemingly have no interest whatsoever in critical thinking and refuse to acknowledge the similarity between their current actions and the atrocities of previous generations. In the name of Allah, everything is justified and nothing is condemned, meaning that anyone who feels compelled (although there supposedly is no compulsory in religion) can justly act in any insane way that they choose and credit their actions to the will of the almighty...completely ignoring the fact that knowledge, interpretation, culture, governments, and laws are not stagnant - but fluid. As such, one could make the argument that the will of god is likewise just as fluid.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I would argue that insults usually come from a feeling of disgust felt for a specific person.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. Going back a few hundred years Christianity was similarly intolerant, with the inquisition, burning "witches", the crusades and so on. I guess we can hope that Islam will gradually mature and reform, making it a religion fit for the 21st Century ( or 22nd Century? ).

Yeah ... the world was a much less enlightened place a thousand years ago. I feel like some Islamic countries are stuck in that time period. I have major issues with this.

 

[leibowde84]

How is the same principle that drove both the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials not relevant, when compared to the stringent punishments for apostasy that this nutcase is talking about? The point was not to harp on the past mistakes of Christianity, but to point out the similarly flawed logic behind admitted past mistakes and this current Muslim Fundamentalist mind set.

This guy is talking about stringent rules and punishments based on what he (and the holy whatevers) consider apostasy, right? Yet he is ignoring obviously similar mentalities that proved to be incredibly flawed.One would think that he, and others like him, could take a clue or two from similar religious stringency.

Good point. I misunderstood your intent. My apologies. We are in agreement ... physically punishing someone for criticizing a historical figure is just as ridiculous as burning women accused of witchcraft.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree. Going back a few hundred years Christianity was similarly intolerant, with the inquisition, burning "witches", the crusades and so on. I guess we can hope that Islam will gradually mature and reform, making it a religion fit for the 21st Century ( or 22nd Century? ).

I certainly hope that the religion can "evolve" in the way your describe before it becomes nothing but a source of animocity for the developed world.

 

[leibowde84]

Who says they are? All the prophets were martyred, so someone must have disapproved of them. (Edited to add: Well, not ALL of them)

I mean people who criticize prophets today and are punished for nothing more than speaking their mind.

 

[leibowde84]

If u want to know insults, look at ayaan hersi ali and wilders.

They are good examples.

While I understand your disagreement with their sentiment, do you think they should be permitted to speak their mind in this way, as long as no personal insults are thrown around? Obviously anyone can take anything they want personally, but that does not effect the nature of statements. By "personal insults" I mean insults directed at someone involved in the discussion directly. Should criticism of Muhammad's character be permitted on this site? If not, why not?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Should criticism of Muhammad's character be permitted on this site? If not, why not?

I thought it was fine to criticise any religious teacher on RF, provided it's done outside the DIRs. It shouldn't be our problem if people are over-sensitive.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good point. I misunderstood your intent. My apologies. We are in agreement ... physically punishing someone for criticizing a historical figure is just as ridiculous as burning women accused of witchcraft.

No harm no foul.

 

[leibowde84]

I thought it was fine to criticise any religious teacher on RF, provided it's done outside the DIRs. It shouldn't be our problem if people are over-sensitive.

Agreed in full. I am sick and tired of people trying to bend the definition of "personal insult" so that people they admire are off-limits. Hey, if someone made fun of Winston Churchill, I would certainly not be personally offended. I would, however, come back at them with a reasoned counter-argument.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Agreed in full. I am sick and tired of people trying to bend the definition of "personal insult" so that people they admire are off-limits. Hey, if someone made fun of Winston Churchill, I would certainly not be personally offended. I would, however, come back at them with a reasoned counter-argument.

Exactly. I don't see why religious belief should be immune from discussion and criticism, particularly in cases where those beliefs lead to a negative impact on the rest of us.

 

[jonathan180iq]

...I would, however, come back at them with a reasoned counter-argument.

That's precisely the problem. They have no reasoned counter-argument so they retreat into the cocoon of being a victim of "personal insult" or claim that you're bullying or badgering them somehow. It's childish.

That same immature mentality is what leads to the internal motivators towards violence. It's much easier to deal with differences of opinion by just beating someone up (or killing them) than accepting that two people will simply never agree on certain things and just moving on with their lives.

It's a shame, really.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

While I understand your disagreement with their sentiment, do you think they should be permitted to speak their mind in this way, as long as no personal insults are thrown around? Obviously anyone can take anything they want personally, but that does not effect the nature of statements. By "personal insults" I mean insults directed at someone involved in the discussion directly. Should criticism of Muhammad's character be permitted on this site? If not, why not?

Criticism is normal. I dont see it as insult if someone says prophet Muhammad pbuh was false etc becaause that is their belief. But insults are the words used by ayaan hersi , wilders. Their intention is to provoke muslims.


Criticism should be allowed on RF, why not?
I criticize Paul too, but i dont call him names. I just dont believe in his corrupted ideology and i believe he is false prophet.

 

[outhouse]

but i dont call him names.

Just 5 minutes ago you called him a liar.

How honest is that?