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

[dust1n]

It also makes religion seem dangerous, and contrary to the common good. The day that religious beliefs get special treatment is the day that I start an all-out (verbal) war on religious beliefs.

I think religious beliefs get the special treatment of being allowed to exist and openly practice whatever it is they want to practice. But there certainly is no way to prevent me from criticizing something that is contradictory and dumb.

 

[dust1n]

Why are they not accusing ancient jews of pedophilia or militarism? They dont because they are afraid to be labled as antisemitism, and jews would say hey listen that was the past.

Ancient Jews aren't considered prophets of a religion, are they?

 

[leibowde84]

In light of historical context( 1)marriage of aisha r.a was to strengthen ties with his bestfriend abu bakr siddiq r.a, 2) military campaings were against the kuffar after they initiated the flames of war first. It was the polytheists who kicked out muslims, who plundered the belongings of the muslims, so they started the animosity), these statements are seen with modern glasses. And the statements are intended as insults.
Why are they not accusing ancient jews of pedophilia or militarism? They dont because they are afraid to be labled as antisemitism, and jews would say hey listen that was the past.

It is purely used as insults.

Your comment is 100% based on speculation. Those statements could surely be seen as substantiated criticism, which, you said, should be aloud. And, since these were hypothetical statements, it is absolutely absurd that you claim to know the character or biases of those who hypothetically would speak them.

1. The reasoning for the marriage is inconsequential. All that is necessary for child molestation is any sexual activity (exploitation) with a child. There is no illegality requirement of any kind. And, I would say that anyone who partook in sexual activity with children are open to this criticism, whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. It is laughable that your excuse is "why does everyone always pick on Muhammad," when that is certainly not the case. If you actually think this, you need to explore what Muslims from Islamic run countries are spewing out about Jewish people LIVING TODAY, which is much worse than attacking a historical figure.

2. Again, the initiator of the violence does not matter. It has been shown time and time again that Muhammad encouraged people to physically harm those that fought against Islam. Today, that would be called terrorism. Now, he lived in a very different world, but he certainly did some bad along with the good. Thus, he should be open for criticism.

My main point is that, if something can even be reasonably argued, it should be permitted as criticism. And, no Muslim has the right to think any historical figure is off limits. I hear antisemitic rhetoric from my friends all the time. I grew up going to Catholic grade school, Jesuit High School, and Hebrew School on the weekend. I heard both groups make fun of the other constantly. You know what I did, even as a child ... I learned that honorable people ignore unsubstantiated insults. But, criticism that can be substantiated should not only be listened to, but studied. Who knows ... maybe you are wrong about Muhammad. Maybe I am wrong about Muhammad. Maybe all those that you named are wrong about Muhammad. How will we ever figure it out unless we are permitted to talk about him?!

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

@leibowde84 its better for the kuffar to say such words within their countries. In their countries it is allowed to insult muslims and to praise jews. In muslim country where shariah is applied, the kuffar knows what can be said and not said, what can be doned and not done. If they dont agree, they can always leave.

Had West ruled by bible, i wouldnt be here now. But west is secular, i prefer secularism above christian law where non-christians are killed.

 

[leibowde84]

@leibowde84 its better for the kuffar to say such words within their countries. In their countries it is allowed to insult muslims and to praise jews. In muslim country where shariah is applied, the kuffar knows what can be said and not said, what can be doned and not done. If they dont agree, they can always leave.

Had West ruled by bible, i wouldnt be here now. But west is secular, i prefer secularism above christian law where non-christians are killed.

Hey ... stop putting words in my mouth. You can't just lie, making incorrect assumptions and expect to get away with it. I have never insulted Muslims, but I have criticized Muhammad as a historical figure. Criticisms, as long as substantiated, should not be considered insults and certainly cannot reasonably be taken personally.

Also, I have never "praised Jews" more so than anyone else. You aren't going to get away with false comments about me, buddy. Now I'm going to be on your back with every comment you post ... but, you did ask for it with this misleading statement, which actually was personal.

 

[leibowde84]

@leibowde84 its better for the kuffar to say such words within their countries. In their countries it is allowed to insult muslims and to praise jews. In muslim country where shariah is applied, the kuffar knows what can be said and not said, what can be doned and not done. If they dont agree, they can always leave.

Had West ruled by bible, i wouldnt be here now. But west is secular, i prefer secularism above christian law where non-christians are killed.

And, btw, by your logic you insult Jews and Christians every time you post something on this site. Below every comment it describes Christianty and Judaism as spreading falsities. Again, according to your logic, just because you BELIEVE this statement to be true, doesn't mean that you aren't insulting people when you say it.

 

[leibowde84]

While I find most of what this servant of the one posts, I also find the overt bigotry toward the many peaceful Musilms I know and have worked with to be just as distasteful. I suggest you shine the light of your hypocrisy on Christianity and see the many parallels contained therein.

I agree, but I find it hard to feel sorry for people who merely complain about insults instead of fighting back with counter-arguments. If you can't prove your opposition wrong with a balanced argument, you have no business complaining. How are we supposed to argue against Muhammad and his teachings without criticizing Muhammad and his teachings. I do the same thing to Christians, trust me ... and probably much more often. Faith should constantly be challenged.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Hey ... stop putting words in my mouth. You can't just lie, making incorrect assumptions and expect to get away with it. I have never insulted Muslims, but I have criticized Muhammad as a historical figure. Criticisms, as long as substantiated, should not be considered insults and certainly cannot reasonably be taken personally.

Also, I have never "praised Jews" more so than anyone else. You aren't going to get away with false comments about me, buddy. Now I'm going to be on your back with every comment you post ... but, you did ask for it with this misleading statement, which actually was personal.

Iam not talking about u.
Iam referring to those who use insults like warmonger, pedophile. They are bigots.

Criticism is saying that prophet pbuh received no revelation, that he plagiated. They can believe that if they wish so. That is what i call criticism and not insults.

 

[ChristineES]

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

Oh? In most denominations (sects) in my faith, there are believed to be no prophets anymore. One of the Mormon's (A Christian sect) prophets, Joseph Smith, is criticized all the time yet I haven't heard of anyone getting killed about it. There are also other prophets in other Christians sects, in the Bahai faith, etc. I don't know all their names.

 

[leibowde84]

Iam not talking about u.
Iam referring to those who use insults like warmonger, pedophile. They are bigots.

Criticism is saying that prophet pbuh received no revelation, that he plagiated. They can believe that if they wish so. That is what i call criticism and not insults.

But that is absurd and unfair. Muhammad was married to a child and, I can safely assume that he consumated the marriage. Thus, he commited child molestation according to the definition of the term. Why would pointing this out be an insult? You seem to think that attacking Muhammad's character is off limits, even when substantiated. Muhammad did encourage war, so, whatever the reasoning for that, it could be argued that he is a war monger. So, where is the line? Why are certain things off limits? Can you define the word "insult" for me? Here is the english definition:

"a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action."

I would strongly argue that, as long as the one speaking believes what he is saying, it is not an insult. Insults can only be classified as such if said with malicious intent, with knowledge that what you are saying is not true or exaggerated. So, how would saying that Muammad committed child molestation when he consumated his marriage with his 2nd wife be an "insult" if we know it to be true?

 

[JoStories]

I agree, but I find it hard to feel sorry for people who merely complain about insults instead of fighting back with counter-arguments. If you can't prove your opposition wrong with a balanced argument, you have no business complaining. How are we supposed to argue against Muhammad and his teachings without criticizing Muhammad and his teachings. I do the same thing to Christians, trust me ... and probably much more often. Faith should constantly be challenged.

I whole heartedly agree with you. I challenge the tenets of most religions too. What I find disconcerting is derogatory statements simply to insult another's faith. I have no problem with someone's belief in faith and in fact, encourage people to find what gives them solace in a world with little in the way of solace. However, that being said, I find denigrating the entirety of Islam to be bigotry. I have worked with many wonderful people who happen to be Muslim. So what? Not all Christians are the "fred Phelps" types. Should all Christians be held to the idiocracy of this man's views simply because they are Christians? Of course not.

 

[leibowde84]

I whole heartedly agree with you. I challenge the tenets of most religions too. What I find disconcerting is derogatory statements simply to insult another's faith. I have no problem with someone's belief in faith and in fact, encourage people to find what gives them solace in a world with little in the way of solace. However, that being said, I find denigrating the entirety of Islam to be bigotry. I have worked with many wonderful people who happen to be Muslim. So what? Not all Christians are the "fred Phelps" types. Should all Christians be held to the idiocracy of this man's views simply because they are Christians? Of course not.

Of course. I agree. I just think that Muslims have a distorted view of what the words "personal" and "insult" means. Insults are only such if they cannot be substantiated with proper argument.

 

[Augustus]

Muhammad was married to a child and, I can safely assume that he consumated the marriage. Thus, he commited child molestation according to the definition of the term. Why would pointing this out be an insult? You seem to think that attacking Muhammad's character is off limits, even when substantiated. Muhammad did encourage war, so, whatever the reasoning for that, it could be argued that he is a war monger. So, where is the line? Why are certain things off limits? Can you define the word "insult" for me? Here is the english definition:

"a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action."

I would strongly argue that, as long as the one speaking believes what he is saying, it is not an insult. Insults can only be classified as such if said with malicious intent, with knowledge that what you are saying is not true or exaggerated. So, how would saying that Muammad committed child molestation when he consumated his marriage with his 2nd wife be an "insult" if we know it to be true?

To molest means to abuse though. It implies immoral and unacceptable behaviour. Older men marrying young girls was normal in most societies in this era, marriages also had to be consummated to be valid and binding. For young girls, this would be seen as a normal state of affairs, a normal part of life. Most of Muhammed's wives were widows, if he was a genuine 'paedophile', he could have married all of the young girls he wanted to. The only young girl he married though was the daughter of his most powerful ally, perfectly normal behaviour at that time.

To call Muhammed a 'child molester' or a 'paedophile' is an insult, it is designed to be offensive and to make his behaviour seem immoral but at the time it was normal. I actually don't think either can be justified on the evidence either.

To call him a 'warmonger', a pejorative term, is also a bit disingenuous. Yes he was involved in wars, but so was almost every other leader at that time. Leaders got involved in wars at this time, if they were no good at fighting, they got wiped out and we never heard of them again, if you were good at fighting you won wars, and so fought more of them. According to the dictionary definition, it is possible to argue that it is correct, but to highlight one person as a 'warmonger' without putting it into the context of the time and situation is not really being fair.

You can't apply 21st C concepts to people 1400 years ago, and trying to do so to highlight someone as being a 'bad' person could definitely fall into an acceptable definition of 'insult'.

 

[leibowde84]

To molest means to abuse though. It implies immoral and unacceptable behaviour. Older men marrying young girls was normal in most societies in this era, marriages also had to be consummated to be valid and binding. For young girls, this would be seen as a normal state of affairs, a normal part of life. Most of Muhammed's wives were widows, if he was a genuine 'paedophile', he could have married all of the young girls he wanted to. The only young girl he married though was the daughter of his most powerful ally, perfectly normal behaviour at that time.

To call Muhammed a 'child molester' or a 'paedophile' is an insult, it is designed to be offensive and to make his behaviour seem immoral but at the time it was normal. I actually don't think either can be justified on the evidence either.

To call him a 'warmonger', a pejorative term, is also a bit disingenuous. Yes he was involved in wars, but so was almost every other leader at that time. Leaders got involved in wars at this time, if they were no good at fighting, they got wiped out and we never heard of them again, if you were good at fighting you won wars, and so fought more of them. According to the dictionary definition, it is possible to argue that it is correct, but to highlight one person as a 'warmonger' without putting it into the context of the time and situation is not really being fair.

You can't apply 21st C concepts to people 1400 years ago, and trying to do so to highlight someone as being a 'bad' person could definitely fall into an acceptable definition of 'insult'.

See ... you are incorrect. There is no requirment for immorality or unacceptable behavior. You cannot change the definition of words to back up your argument. Here is the definition of the term we are dealing with:

"Child Molestation" is when an adult or an older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.

The mere fact that something is accepted does not change what happened.

 

[leibowde84]

To molest means to abuse though. It implies immoral and unacceptable behaviour. Older men marrying young girls was normal in most societies in this era, marriages also had to be consummated to be valid and binding. For young girls, this would be seen as a normal state of affairs, a normal part of life. Most of Muhammed's wives were widows, if he was a genuine 'paedophile', he could have married all of the young girls he wanted to. The only young girl he married though was the daughter of his most powerful ally, perfectly normal behaviour at that time.

To call Muhammed a 'child molester' or a 'paedophile' is an insult, it is designed to be offensive and to make his behaviour seem immoral but at the time it was normal. I actually don't think either can be justified on the evidence either.

To call him a 'warmonger', a pejorative term, is also a bit disingenuous. Yes he was involved in wars, but so was almost every other leader at that time. Leaders got involved in wars at this time, if they were no good at fighting, they got wiped out and we never heard of them again, if you were good at fighting you won wars, and so fought more of them. According to the dictionary definition, it is possible to argue that it is correct, but to highlight one person as a 'warmonger' without putting it into the context of the time and situation is not really being fair.

You can't apply 21st C concepts to people 1400 years ago, and trying to do so to highlight someone as being a 'bad' person could definitely fall into an acceptable definition of 'insult'.

But, that is beyond the scope of the argument. As long as it can be reasonably argued (doesn't have to be correct) that Muhammad committed child molestation, it should be welcomed in discussion as criticism, not an insult.

 

[Augustus]

See ... you are incorrect. There is no requirment for immorality or unacceptable behavior. You cannot change the definition of words to back up your argument. Here is the definition of the term we are dealing with:

"Child Molestation" is when an adult or an older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.

The mere fact that something is accepted does not change what happened.

The more important term is molest: assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually.

Child molestation is a modern criminal term which relies on the principle that sexual activity with underage children is illegal and thus must equate to abuse. Its definition cannot be reasonably applied to a time and place where child marriage was normal.

 

[leibowde84]

The more important term is molest: assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually.

Child molestation is a modern criminal term which relies on the principle that sexual activity with underage children is illegal and thus must equate to abuse. Its definition cannot be reasonably applied to a time and place where child marriage was normal.

That is simply not true. There is no requirement for sexual activities with a child to be illegal for it to be considered molestation. There are countries today where adult men marry children, and, assuming that they consumate the marriage, it would still be considered child molestation, even if it is legal and accepted in their culture.

 

[Augustus]

But, that is beyond the scope of the argument. As long as it can be reasonably argued (doesn't have to be correct) that Muhammad committed child molestation, it should be welcomed in discussion as criticism, not an insult.

Discussion would start from the point that Muhammed married a child, and seek to identify moral and ethical question related to this.

To start from the term 'child molestation' starts from the premise that he was a gravely immoral man. It is not chosen to begin honest and fair minded discussion, it is chosen to denigrate his character. At best you can say it is inadvertently offensive, but 99% of people who use the term choose so to be deliberately provocative or downright offensive.

Let's say your granddad married a 14 year old girl when he was 18, a perfectly possible situation that would not have been unusual in many places 60 years ago. If someone called your granddad a child molester, he would probably get a smack in the face.

That is simply not true. There is no requirement for sexual activities with a child to be illegal for it to be considered molestation. There are countries today where adult men marry children, and, assuming that they consumate the marriage, it would still be considered child molestation, even if it is legal and accepted in their culture.

Not if the term is to have any substantive meaning it wouldn't.

Molest: assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually.

Child molestation = child sexual abuse

You can try to make a case that it is an honest attempt at discussion, but it isn't. It is an insult and it is intended as an insult.

 

[leibowde84]

Discussion would start from the point that Muhammed married a child, and seek to identify moral and ethical question related to this.

To start from the term 'child molestation' starts from the premise that he was a gravely immoral man. It is not chosen to begin honest and fair minded discussion, it is chosen to denigrate his character. At best you can say it is inadvertently offensive, but 99% of people who use the term choose so to be deliberately provocative or downright offensive.

Let's say your granddad married a 14 year old girl when he was 18, a perfectly possible situation that would not have been unusual in many places 60 years ago. If someone called your granddad a child molester, he would probably get a smack in the face.



Not if the term is to have any substantive meaning it wouldn't.

Molest: assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually.

Child molestation = child sexual abuse

You can try to make a case that it is an honest attempt at discussion, but it isn't. It is an insult and it is intended as an insult.

My argument is that it is factual. We disagree on the meaning of the term, I guess. But, it can be argued to be true. That should be enough to accept it as part of a discussion. I don't think we should have to treat Muhammad any differently than any other historical figure. I, for example, do not trust St. Paul's testament. As a Christian, I get a lot of heat for it. But, I have the right to call him a "power-grabber" and "dishonest," right? As long as I substantiate my views with valid arguments, why should this not be permitted?

 

[Augustus]

My argument is that it is factual. We disagree on the meaning of the term, I guess. But, it can be argued to be true. That should be enough to accept it as part of a discussion. I don't think we should have to treat Muhammad any differently than any other historical figure. I, for example, do not trust St. Paul's testament. As a Christian, I get a lot of heat for it. But, I have the right to call him a "power-grabber" and "dishonest," right? As long as I substantiate my views with valid arguments, why should this not be permitted?

It is your right to say what you like, I'm not arguing against that. I'm also not arguing for special treatment for anyone.

I'm arguing that using the term child molester is not a legitimate way to carry out an honest discussion. It is an insult and it is intended as an insult. People who perceive it as an insult are not being oversensitive, they are right.

You believe Paul was dishonest, if you described him as a 'f**king lying c**t', this means the same thing but shows hostility towards him. 'Child molester' shows hostility to the target. It is not a neutral term, and is of highly dubious factual accuracy. Don't pretend otherwise. Saying Muhammed married a young girl is factually accurate and neutral. If you deliberately choose a less accurate and highly emotionally loaded term when more accurate and less hostile language exists, you do it to be provocative. No other reason.

It is your right to insult whoever you choose, don't be surprised if the response to you insulting someone that a person holds dear to their heart is a smack in the face though. If you don't believe me, go and insult a stranger's girlfriend in a way you deem to be 'factually accurate' and supported with 'valid argument'.