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

[leibowde84]

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.

 

[gsa]

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.

 

[Quintessence]

Disagreed.

There's a substantial difference between what you or I think should be and what is. On this matter, I do not see much use in fussing about what I think should be when the what is shall not be changing within generations of human lifetimes. If someone insults something another person cares about, well... they're going to tend to take it personally. It's the nature of the emotional, human animal. I think that is an entirely unreasonable and unrealistic expectation to suggest that people should quit taking things personally. I think we need to accept that people are going to take criticisms of things they value personally and develop our personal codes of conduct from there. I would recommend learning the art of active listening as well as conflict management skills. Ridiculing someone is not an example of good conflict management or active listening, but of conflict escalation and lack of listening.

 

[leibowde84]

Disagreed.

There's a substantial difference between what you or I think should be and what is. On this matter, I do not see much use in fussing about what I think should be when the what is shall not be changing within generations of human lifetimes. If someone insults something another person cares about, well... they're going to tend to take it personally. It's the nature of the emotional, human animal. I think that is an entirely unreasonable and unrealistic expectation to suggest that people should quit taking things personally. I think we need to accept that people are going to take criticisms of things they value personally and develop our personal codes of conduct from there. I would recommend learning the art of active listening as well as conflict management skills. Ridiculing someone is not an example of good conflict management or active listening, but of conflict escalation and lack of listening.

I only said that the violent, no matter what religion they belong to, should be ridiculed. I clearly said that otherwise, I think we have a responsibility to be civl. But, your logic in regards to taking things personally will dramaically hinder our ability to communicate and speak our mind. By your logic, everything is off limits because there are always going to be peole who feel strongly about it.

How am I supposed to have a conversation about my criticisms of Islam and Muhammad with a muslim? Do you think this should never be attempted? If so, why?

 

[leibowde84]

Disagreed.

There's a substantial difference between what you or I think should be and what is. On this matter, I do not see much use in fussing about what I think should be when the what is shall not be changing within generations of human lifetimes. If someone insults something another person cares about, well... they're going to tend to take it personally. It's the nature of the emotional, human animal. I think that is an entirely unreasonable and unrealistic expectation to suggest that people should quit taking things personally. I think we need to accept that people are going to take criticisms of things they value personally and develop our personal codes of conduct from there. I would recommend learning the art of active listening as well as conflict management skills. Ridiculing someone is not an example of good conflict management or active listening, but of conflict escalation and lack of listening.

If we have to worry about people taking everything personally, how can we disprove assumptions and such? There is great value in debating religion, as it often allows us to realize how similar we actually are. But, if we have to tip-toe around every issue that someone might hold close to home, we are doomed to stagnation in belief.

 

[Quintessence]

By your logic, everything is off limits because there are always going to be peole who feel strongly about it.

Nope. Nothing is off limits. I said we need to recognize that people can and will take things personally and that denying this will happen doesn't do us much good. Learning active listening skills and conflict management skills, on the other hand, do us a lot of good. When people inevitably take things personally, those skills help us diffuse a situation.

If we have to worry about people taking everything personally, how can we disprove assumptions and such?

However you want to. It might be good to ask ourselves, though "why do I want to disprove this?" and especially "how will what I do impact others, and can I live with and accept those potential consequences?" If you can answer those reasonably well, do what you want.

 

[morphesium]

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.

One religion stands out to be the most violent -ISLAM.


There are many reasons why it is turning more and more violent - they have quite centralized teaching system, increasingly funded by terrorist organizations. Quran and Islam don’t tolerate blasphemy, blasphemers and apostates are to be executed. They are trained not to have any moral greater than that of Prophet Mohammed; it is the reason why they still keep such inhumane laws. (Despite they makes just 23% of the world population, almost all terrorist acts (95%) are done by Muslims. Thus, Islamic preaching makes a person 65 times more violent than an average non-Muslim). Islam is a global threat. Such thought system should have no place in an advanced society.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Insulting the prophet PBUH is more graver than committing treason. The punishment for treason in many countries is death penalty.

 

[leibowde84]

Insulting the prophet PBUH is more graver than committing treason. The punishment for treason in many countries is death penalty.

Where'd you get that from? That is certainly not true. Insulting "the prophet" = legal. Treason = illegal. Why would insulting a historical figure who was far less than perfect be worse than treason? That seems crazy to me unless your only source is the Quraan, written by Muhammad himself, so of course it would say that.

How are we supposed to express our criticism of Muhammad and his teachings?

 

[leibowde84]

Insulting the prophet PBUH is more graver than committing treason. The punishment for treason in many countries is death penalty.

You must understand that it is unreasonable for muslims to expect non-muslims to treat Muhammad as a prophet. It is akin to insanity, to tell you the truth. 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.

 

[ChristineES]

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.

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

 

[suncowiam]

Insulting the prophet PBUH is more graver than committing treason. The punishment for treason in many countries is death penalty.

You talk all this talk but will you cross that line and actually kill to defend what you believe?

So far, you're the most radical muslim I've met on these forums. Everything you suggest results in harm or death to those that disagree with you and your understanding of the Quran.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

You talk all this talk but will you cross that line and actually kill to defend what you believe?

So far, you're the most radical muslim I've met on these forums. Everything you suggest results in harm or death to those that disagree with you and your understanding of the Quran.

Iam not radical.
That is insult to me.

This is the islamic ruling on apostate that insults the religion or the prophet.
Or the ruling of non-muslim who insults religion/prophet pbuh within country where the shariah is applied.

When treason is punished by death in usa, how then is it a miracle and wrong when apostate who insults religion(bigger sin than treason) receives death penalty?

 

[Vinayaka]

Insulting the prophet PBUH is more graver than committing treason. The punishment for treason in many countries is death penalty.

Lots of countries have no death penalty for anything.

Use of capital punishment by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Lots of countries have no death penalty for anything.

Use of capital punishment by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personaly i find it good law, to apply capital punishment for apostates that insults prophet pbuh. However this is only for the amiir/leader to decide. He can also choose to force the apostate into exile.
Why capital punishment is much preferable than exile?
Because what they do(insulting the prophet pbuh or islam)is more severe, much worse than a spy who reveals the secrets of the muslims and who shares info with the enemy.


For if such apostate is tolerated, the illness & rebellion spreads and corruption takes over the land.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

No religious belief or religious figure should be refrained from criticism, but they should be refrained from public satire, it leads to desecration and strong bigotry against religions or religious people and then, prejudice and hate crimes against such people - it is a violation.

Even if blasphemy is only within the boundaries of religious people, I think it is on the whole level a bad path to desecration of holy sites and bigotry, Buddha and a famous Bodhi once said (and I agree with them here); "It is blameless to kill any individual who blasphemes (satires) a religion or a religious figure."

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally I find it absolutely brutal. There is no humanity in it whatsoever. The idea that you can kill someone for his thoughts is so inhumane that it's hard to believe. I find it very difficult to find that area of mind. And yet a billion people or more seem to be able to go there with no problem. Totally amazing. I feel like I'm in some jungle full of vicious beasts.

 

[suncowiam]

Iam not radical.
That is insult to me.

This is the islamic ruling on apostate that insults the religion or the prophet.
Or the ruling of non-muslim who insults religion/prophet pbuh within country where the shariah is applied.

When treason is punished by death in usa, how then is it a miracle and wrong when apostate who insults religion(bigger sin than treason) receives death penalty?

If you want to take this personally, then that's on you. I view your rhetioric as most extreme of the religious folks here.

Frankly, I see your point given that you feel anti-Islam behavior and rhetoric as treason and highly offensive. But I view it as oppression. That is not freedom.

Also, I wouldn't agree with a death penalty for treason so your example doesn't exactly involve me. I'm speaking strictly on our views.

I believe in an eye for an eye. So if someone wants to harm others, their punishment deserves the same. But speaking frankly and expressing views about something doesn't deserve death or harm.

 

[Faybull]

Iam not radical.
That is insult to me.

This is the islamic ruling on apostate that insults the religion or the prophet.
Or the ruling of non-muslim who insults religion/prophet pbuh within country where the shariah is applied.

When treason is punished by death in usa, how then is it a miracle and wrong when apostate who insults religion(bigger sin than treason) receives death penalty?

Question:
Where can the punishment for what you say be found in the Quran?

 

[Chakra]

Even though this question is mainly for Abrahamics and not Hindus since Hinduism has never said that people can be above criticism or unquestionable (Vedantins even used to call each other names during debates!), I'll just add my thoughts.

The problem for me happens when a Hindu who claims to be an Advaitin criticizes the greatest Advaitin of all time, Adi Shankara. I don't like when a person who claims to be a Vaishnava criticizes Ramanuja. So, at least people can stop pretending to be someone they are not and openly come out as anti-Vaishnavas or flat out atheists and then criticize stalwarts like Shankara or Ramanuja.