How Islam as a whole commits Blasphemy

[Samantha Rinne]

Islam is peculiar in that they think their standards ought apply to all ppl.

"But Christianity is just the same..."

Lemme stop you right there. The only people who were nuns robes are nuns, people who committed their lives to Jesus and taken vows of chastity. Yet all women wear hijab/nijab/etc in heavily Muslim countries, while only Muslims wear it in Western countries. That is the more Mudlim a country becomes (with exceptions), the more hijab is required among even non-Muslims.

While the Jesuits in particular are heavy handed about missionary work, Sharia in many cases is a legal-moral system that imposes rules for believers and nonbelievers alike. There is nothing that even compares with this.

 

[stvdv]

I think your answer is good i guess i have been judgmental toward those who ask critiqual questions, so i done wrong too

I also go through waves of these processes. I see it as part of gaining Self Confidence. When I first met Sai Baba and others were belittling Him, I felt the need to defend Him (so defending myself). Now, that I have plenty Confidence in Sai Baba, I feel no need to defend Him (my Faith). It's just their opinion. And it makes it very easy to let it slide now, knowing that most only have "Googling-experience" and don't speak from 10 years first hand personal experiences.

But other areas, I can still be easy triggered, and then I know immediately that I lack confidence. So knowledge is a good antidote for it.

And I don't call myself "judgmental" when someone violates me (thought, word or deed), and I correct them. That I call preventing them to act judgmental (because judgmental means violating the other in thought, word). Especially when it comes to Freedom of Religion. Then it's not judgmental but taking a stand for our rights. No one has the right to violate others, all have the right to prevent others violating them

I would never (on purpose) attack Islam itself, but I do prevent them from imposing their faith/rules on me (unless I agree with it)

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Islam is peculiar in that they think their standards ought apply to all ppl.

"But Christianity is just the same..."

Lemme stop you right there. The only people who were nuns robes are nuns, people who committed their lives to Jesus and taken vows of chastity. Yet all women wear hijab/nijab/etc in heavily Muslim countries, while only Muslims wear it in Western countries. That is the more Mudlim a country becomes (with exceptions), the more hijab is required among even non-Muslims.

While the Jesuits in particular are heavy handed about missionary work, Sharia in many cases is a legal-moral system that imposes rules for believers and nonbelievers alike. There is nothing that even compares with this.

 

[Iymus]

Islam has their definition of Blasphemy, and that is fine, that is their right according to Freedom of Religion

Most High is of Do's and Don'ts, Just as a person of authority and jurisdiction is of do's and don'ts.

Freedom of Religion is considered of Satan

--------------------------------------------

The moment they make their definition an international definition, they commit the act of Blasphemy

---------------------------------------------

Telling the West that they commit Blasphemy when drawing Muhammad = Blasphemy itself

Seems under Freedom of Religion they would have the right to.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Islam is peculiar in that they think their standards ought apply to all ppl.

"But Christianity is just the same..."

Lemme stop you right there. The only people who were nuns robes are nuns, people who committed their lives to Jesus and taken vows of chastity. Yet all women wear hijab/nijab/etc in heavily Muslim countries, while only Muslims wear it in Western countries. That is the more Mudlim a country becomes (with exceptions), the more hijab is required among even non-Muslims.

While the Jesuits in particular are heavy handed about missionary work, Sharia in many cases is a legal-moral system that imposes rules for believers and nonbelievers alike. There is nothing that even compares with this.

Christian and Jewish women used to cover their heads all the time, too. Conservative Christian and Jewish women still do. Various Anabapist sects have their women cover their head, traditional Catholic and Orthodox women cover their heads during the liturgy and some Orthodox Jewish women shave their heads and wear wigs (a related practice). So Christians and Jews are hypocrites if they use that to criticize Islam. Christian countries used to apply their religious morality laws to everyone who lived there regardless of their religion, too. They still do in some areas with "blue laws" and some bigoted laws made to enforce "public morality" (like the homophobic laws in Russia which the Russian Orthodox Church backs).

Basically, you're wrong again but what else is new.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Agreed. So too islamophobia, which is an international travesty, See, for example,

India: Islamophobia puts democracy under stress
From India, Islamophobia Goes Global
Islamophobia and Coronavirus in India​

Which yet again begs the question: what is the value and intent of threads such as this?

I once wrote a story about a demonic takeover of towns. These were physical demons, not demonic possession spirits. They took over not by force (though they could, the international body that governed things would act against them) but by doing a few things.

1. Claiming demons needed special restrooms (paralleling the LGBT third gender concept here) yet after giving them one, claiming that their poor quality (mostly a result of the demons trashing the place) was proof that they were being treated unequally, and that they were given a separate bathroom (which they asked for) was proof they were being singled out.
2. Create altered versions of 90s sitcoms like Everybody Loves Demon or Fiends. These shows are identical except one or more characters are demons instead of human, much like tv shows have always done for minority groups. This was to increase visibility and acceptance.
3. Tell each town that overt hypersexuality and murder is just part of demonic culture, and accuse others of daemonophobia. When demons begin to take over towns, claim they are being bullied and killing others in self-defense. The towns they are taking over because they are oppressed.
4. Give demonic money to political types to support sympathetic treatment of demons.

Islamophobia is a word Muslims use against Westerners.

And no, I didn't single out Muslims in this story, nor calling them demons. It was a mashup of several groups that have this same playbook. And some things were exclusive to actual demons.

The value, as you put it, in such threads is that sometimes the Emperor has no clothes. We can either all pretend he doesn't and let him go on hurting himself and blinding others, or we can speak up.

 

[stvdv]

I see ... it was merely therapeutic. Very nice.

Furthermore, when we note that Islam is the religion of roughly 1.8 billion adherents spanning multiple denominations and multiple countries and multiple ethnicities and then see a thread titled "How Islam as a whole ...," we should pretend this to be something other than blatantly self-evident bigotry.

I will grant you this much, it is very easy to understand.

I try to keep titles a bit short, and therefore repeat the title in the OP, and explain further if needed, as I did in this case also.

How many of the 1.8 billion Muslims believe that Islam is the best religion?
The moment they believe this, the problem will start one day

Not long ago a Pakistan Muslim threatened to "Nuke the Netherlands over a planned Muhammad drawing contest".
Many thousands of Muslims were cheering in joy. Celebrating they won, by nuke-threat, when Wilders stopped the contest

I take such a threat very serious; I do remember 9/11.
And I do remember my grandfather (about WW2) warning us to never allow fanatics to take over again; whatever it takes

And then you make a problem about a title, which is very well clarified in the OP. That makes me wonder too.

Anyway, I also added in the poll the last 2 options, hoping that all Muslims choose, that this is not was Islam teaches.

So, I stand fully behind my Title:
How Islam as a whole commits Blasphemy (if they impose their definition on non Muslims)

 

[firedragon]

How Islam as a whole commits Blasphemy (if they impose their definition on non Muslims)

Islam cannot be addressed as "they". The word "They" is to address people, then you should ask "Muslims", not "Islam".

Islam has their definition of Blasphemy, and that is fine, that is their right according to Freedom of Religion
The moment they make their definition an international definition, they commit the act of Blasphemy
Telling the West that they commit Blasphemy when drawing Muhammad = Blasphemy itself

Even your post addressing "Blasphemy" is using the same definition. So it is not a question of definition but the law of a country that allows and provides the freedom to commit blasphemy with no repercussions.

Unless you define blasphemy differently, islam defines it differently, and the French government has a different definition.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Islamophobia is a word Muslims use against Westerners.

Rubbish.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I try to keep titles a bit short ....

But long enough to include "as a whole."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I once wrote a story about a demonic takeover of towns. These were physical demons, not demonic possession spirits. They took over not by force (though they could, the international body that governed things would act against them) but by doing a few things.

1. Claiming demons needed special restrooms (paralleling the LGBT third gender concept here) yet after giving them one, claiming that their poor quality (mostly a result of the demons trashing the place) was proof that they were being treated unequally, and that they were given a separate bathroom (which they asked for) was proof they were being singled out.
2. Create altered versions of 90s sitcoms like Everybody Loves Demon or Fiends. These shows are identical except one or more characters are demons instead of human, much like tv shows have always done for minority groups. This was to increase visibility and acceptance.
3. Tell each town that overt hypersexuality and murder is just part of demonic culture, and accuse others of daemonophobia. When demons begin to take over towns, claim they are being bullied and killing others in self-defense. The towns they are taking over because they are oppressed.
4. Give demonic money to political types to support sympathetic treatment of demons.

Islamophobia is a word Muslims use against Westerners.

And no, I didn't single out Muslims in this story, nor calling them demons. It was a mashup of several groups that have this same playbook. And some things were exclusive to actual demons.

The value, as you put it, in such threads is that sometimes the Emperor has no clothes. We can either all pretend he doesn't and let him go on hurting himself and blinding others, or we can speak up.

Disgusting Nazi rhetoric dehumanizing human beings. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[stvdv]

Islam is peculiar in that they think their standards ought apply to all ppl.

I think/hope that this is not true, otherwise we might get big troubles in the world one day. But even 10%(200 million) forms a huge army; even 1% (20 million) would be disastrous, and impossible to control, when acting as terrorists. Even if 1 of them has the potential of a Hitler that would be catastrophic. Hence I deem it of paramount importance, esp. in this Google-age, to nip extremism at the bud.

 

[stvdv]

But long enough to include "as a whole."

I should have not worried about the length, and just added the whole line. I just had it in my head, that I needed to keep titles short, thinking of many people using a small screen on a smartphone, hence I always kept my titles short, but maybe that is not needed. I always use a computer, so a longer title for me is never a problem.

But in the next thread I will try out a long title, and check it on my smartphone. Then I know.

 

[stvdv]

Islam cannot be addressed as "they". The word "They" is to address people, then you should ask "Muslims", not "Islam".

I tried to keep it short, thereby messing a bit with grammar rules. I mentioned "Islam as a whole", meaning "all the Muslims following (influenced by) Islam", hence I used "they" referring to "all the Muslims following (influenced by) Islam"

Even your post addressing "Blasphemy" is using the same definition. So it is not a question of definition but the law of a country that allows and provides the freedom to commit blasphemy with no repercussions.

Unless you define blasphemy differently, islam defines it differently, and the French government has a different definition.

That indeed is the whole point of my OP, that the definition of what Blasphemy is, depends on the culture/faith you live/follow, and even the same faith might use a different definition of Blasphemy or have a different punishment when violating the rules.

IF there is Freedom of Religion in a country THEN these Religions should be free to choose there own Blasphemy rules under the "Freedom of Religion" Law. And because their rules only apply to their group there need not be a Blasphemy rule for the whole country, or as Macron put it "Freedom to Blaspheme" between different groups, but of course not "Freedom to Blaspheme" between members of the same group, otherwise they don't have their so called "Freedom of Religion" anymore.

There should be a Law that one should not harm each other in name of their Religion trumping the Freedom of Religion Law

It gets quite tricky to get all rules not conflicting each other AND to get all smooth going when mixing different cultures and different Religions

 

[curious_mind]

How Islam as a whole commits Blasphemy (if they impose their definition on non Muslims)

Why they do commit Blasphemy is easy to understand:
1) We have Freedom of Religion, that means all are Free to choose the Religion they want
2) This Freedom also means that you are Free to define God, how you feel/believe
3) Therefore Blasphemy definition applies to members of the same (non)Faith
4) Blasphemy definition can/should never be imposed on other (non)Faith

Islam has their definition of Blasphemy, and that is fine, that is their right according to Freedom of Religion
The moment they make their definition an international definition, they commit the act of Blasphemy
Telling the West that they commit Blasphemy when drawing Muhammad = Blasphemy itself

I was left scratching my head reading your title....and then I yawned reading your ultimate question (tried to disguise it didnt you? Clever boy).

First of all, no average Muslim, or even most Muslim organisations have ever called for the west or any non Muslim government to adopt Islamic definitions of blasphemy. However, like any other group on this planet, Muslims have called for their religious views, concerns and articles of faith to be protected under western laws. In fact, if you bothered to step out of your Islamophobic bubble, you might see that laws in the west actually protect numerous religions and their ways of life, or what those religions and or adherents may find offensive (the same goes for ethnic groups).

For example, in mainland Europe, denying 6 million Jews died in the holocaust is a criminal offence, punishable by everything from a fine to losing your job or jail time. If we go by your logic young man, someone could say that they themselves are not offended by holocaust "denial" and thus should be allowed to deny it. Why should a law they do not agree with be imposed upon them? Do you agree with this? (I doubt you would).

the same goes for the use of derogatory terms to describe someone, who is, say black. A white supremacist may claim he is not offended by such terms and should be allowed to use it. Would you also agree with that?

Muslims are merely asking to be treated equal under such guidelines and for religious beliefs to be protected, as they are for other groups and peoples.

 

[Polymath257]

I see no point in blasphemy laws at all.

No religion or viewpoint is free from criticism, or even ridicule.

 

[curious_mind]

I see no point in blasphemy laws at all.

No religion or viewpoint is free from criticism, or even ridicule.

You are confusing criticism with attack. Islam is only open to criticism, it invites it. In the Quran, Allah calls for the disbelievers to come and engage in dialogue with the Muslims, Prophet Muhammad PBUH did this on a daily basis, dialogue with Jews, Christians, pagans, atheists, heck even other Muslims who disagreed with him, on topics from religion to politics to finance to everything in between.

However, blasphemy laws are to be applied in the sphere of a Muslim nation with Islamic laws and even then, the regulations and varied.

Outside of the realm of an Islamic state, Muslims ask to be treated the same as Jews, Christians, people of colour etc. We are, for example, in the UK beholden to the same law, or at the very least, we should be. If that law excludes Muslims but protects the feelings and rights of Jews and Christians than it is you who is in the wrong, not the Muslim.

 

[stvdv]

But long enough to include "as a whole."

Thank you for keeping me sharp, won't happen again.

 

[firedragon]

I tried to keep it short, thereby messing a bit with grammar rules. I mentioned "Islam as a whole", meaning "all the Muslims following (influenced by) Islam", hence I used "they" referring to "all the Muslims following (influenced by) Islam"

Well, you cannot generalise anything to anyone. Thats one rule any genuine person must adopt, so I know you better mate. Dont use general terms anyway.

There are many Muslim scholars who speak against any kind of uprisings, condemnations and all kinds of this silly emotional getaways when someone draws a cartoon. Many Muslims too. Just that maybe you have never heard of them since what you see all over the News maybe your source of information. Thus, just think that you cannot generalise anything to anyone.

That indeed is the whole point of my OP, that the definition of what Blasphemy is, depends on the culture/faith you live/follow, and even the same faith might use a different definition of Blasphemy or have a different punishment when violating the rules.

IF there is Freedom of Religion in a country THEN these Religions should be free to choose there own Blasphemy rules under the "Freedom of Religion" Law. And because their rules only apply to their group there need not be a Blasphemy rule for the whole country, or as Macron put it "Freedom to Blaspheme" between different groups, but of course not "Freedom to Blaspheme" between members of the same group, otherwise they don't have their so called "Freedom of Religion" anymore.

There should be a Law that one should not harm each other in name of their Religion trumping the Freedom of Religion Law

It gets quite tricky to get all rules not conflicting each other AND to get all smooth going when mixing different cultures and different Religions

Again, its not the definition that is spoken of, it is the freedom of doing it.

Also there should laws that does not harm "any kind of person for any kind of unreasonable affairs", not only religion.

I know your intentions are good. But please think about things brother. Just a request.

 

[stvdv]

Well, you cannot generalise anything to anyone. Thats one rule any genuine person must adopt, so I know you better mate. Dont use general terms anyway.

There are many Muslim scholars who speak against any kind of uprisings, condemnations and all kinds of this silly emotional getaways when someone draws a cartoon. Many Muslims too. Just that maybe you have never heard of them since what you see all over the News maybe your source of information. Thus, just think that you cannot generalise anything to anyone.

How Islam as a whole commits Blasphemy (if they impose their definition on non Muslims)

I clearly did not generalize with my statement, if you read it well

This (Allah wants Islam for all humity; it's only for Muslims) I can not believe, and I am not even a Muslim. So, I wonder why some Muslims believe this way.

I know that most Muslims rely on Imams for their Koran knowledge, so it must have been Imams who preached this, and they learned it from their Imam teachers. Imams are said to have Koran knowledge, how come that they fail so big here? Is there maybe 1 verse that indicates in this direction, that the Koran is meant for all humanity, or that the Koran is the highest teaching? Or that there will not come new teachers with equal good teachings?