Is it blasphemous to lampoon a prophet?

[SeekerOnThePath]

Are Muslims such snowflakes; so insecure in their beliefs, that any contrary viewpoint upsets them?
This is why the US' founding fathers wanted a wall of separation between the religious and the secular.

The irony in the contradiction between your two sentences is pretty funny.

Also seems your answer to perceived "insensitivity" from some randoms, is to double down on it by increasing that same "insensitivity" yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

What concerns me is that free discussion, as we are having on this forum, is made impossible if comments criticising Muhammad are forbidden.

On RF, in debates, members often refute prophets and religious leaders.
I often refute the claims of one particular leader's claims, and have never been slapped for that.
So I don't think that you've got any of the above correct.

I honestly believe that Muhammad was a false prophet, and I base this on my study of the Qur'an and the Bible.

Well bully for you!

Do I deserve to be killed for having reached this conclusion?

Have you been threatened?
Your beliefs are your beliefs, but where I live that doesn't mean that you can publish deliberately upsetting pictures of any religion which you know will seriously aggravate any religions followers. Our Equality Act (2010) bans that. But I live in England not wherever you are, so I guess that you can do whatever you like in your country.

 

[oldbadger]

No, I want to feel that I can have my opinions about things and share them with others, and not be made dead because of them.

Who is stopping you 'sharing your opinions with others'?

But I'll tell you something....... if anybody should publish nasty comments and opinions about Judaism in my country they'd get in to serious trouble very quickly. AntSemitism and most AntiZionism is very heavily put down here, but 'hey ho' you think that stuffing nasty comments about another religion on the media is OK.

How unbalanced is that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I honestly believe that Muhammad was a false prophet, ..

And who is true? God, Moses or the other older prophets, Jesus, or the later ones Joseph Smith, Bahaollah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Why pick just Mohammad?

 

[Father Heathen]

For a Muslim to lampoon Muhammad, that would be blasphemy, sure.
For other people to lampoon Muhammad that would just be dumb.

In my opinion many of the French knew what would happen and still supported such junk. Now they can really scream and shout against Islam, yeah?

We are mostly very strongly against Anti-Semitism, why not against Anti-Islamism?

Because persecuting a group of people and "taking the ****" out of their goofy beliefs are obviously two very different things.

 

[Father Heathen]

And who is true? God, Moses or the other older prophets, Jesus, or the later ones Joseph Smith, Bahaollah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Why pick just Mohammad?

Because nobody is raising a stink about the depiction of the others?

 

[blü 2]

If you happen to live in a secular society, such as France, you may believe that secularism provides a framework for democracy where:
1. There is a separation of state and religion
2. There is freedom to practice one's faith (theist, agnostic or atheist), without harming others, and to change faith if one so wishes.
3. There is equal treatment of faiths and ideologies by the state, so long as a citizen acts within the law.

Does the lampooning and portrayal of Muhammad amount to blasphemy, and is this harmful to Islam/Muslims?

The cry of Blasphemy! is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Lampooning someone's prophet may be bad manners, but who hasn't been guilty of bad manners at some time or another?

 

[Father Heathen]

The irony in the contradiction between your two sentences is pretty funny.

What contradiction? I think you misunderstood what was meant by the separation of the relgious from the secular in regards to law. A government that represents all citizens who belong to a multitude of faiths cannot favor or enforce the beliefs of a specific one. For example, the cops aren't going to show up to your home because you wore mixed fabrics despite it being prohibited by a religion. Could you imagine if you weren't allowed to drink tea or coffee because it offended Mormons, your personal beliefs to the contrary be damned?

 

[Father Heathen]

Who is stopping you 'sharing your opinions with others'?

But I'll tell you something....... if anybody should publish nasty comments and opinions about Judaism in my country they'd get in to serious trouble very quickly. AntSemitism and most AntiZionism is very heavily put down here, but 'hey ho' you think that stuffing nasty comments about another religion on the media is OK.

How unbalanced is that?

Nothing should be exempt from critique or scrutiny. Nothing should be beyond reproach. Nothing is entitled to reverence. Sacred cows should be made into hamburger, seasoned with salty tears.

 

[firedragon]

If you happen to live in a secular society, such as France, you may believe that secularism provides a framework for democracy where:
1. There is a separation of state and religion
2. There is freedom to practice one's faith (theist, agnostic or atheist), without harming others, and to change faith if one so wishes.
3. There is equal treatment of faiths and ideologies by the state, so long as a citizen acts within the law.

Does the lampooning and portrayal of Muhammad amount to blasphemy, and is this harmful to Islam/Muslims?

Well, the hypocrisy is when Chomsky spoke against the Iraqi invasion and some issues in Israel there were many who made big issue with "anti semitism". Ah the drama. But see, insulting Muhammed is perfectly fine and is promoted. Very nice.

Thats hypocrisy.

Yet, Muslims must grow up really. Because it is their reaction that people are triggering. Thats the fuel to the fire. So Muslims must grow up and just shrug them off as a silly attempt.

Once there was a stage play done by a group of young men in an Arab country that is a bit derogatory towards Christianity. Now the Christians used the laws of the Arab country to arrest those guys for blasphemy. They made a big issue. But no no, Muhammed is perfect fine to be insulted. Very nicely done.

In my opinion this government level involvement in this matter is a political strategy. Nothing more, nothing less. But, that's my opinion so I could be wrong.

To answer your last question, I dont think there is any harm in insulting the prophet to Islam or Muslims. None whatsoever. Just that it hurts their feelings. If someone insulted my wife, mom or dad, I will get pissed off mate. So for most Muslims Muhammed has been closer than their father. So insulting him is worse than insulting their own dad. So it hurts their feelings. It doesnt harm them or the theology. In fact, studies have shown that these events promote Islam.

Lets take a religious study course on the theology of Islam. One single class had about 10 students but with immediate effect the venue had to be changed due to social distancing issues to accommodate triple that number of students after the French connection with the Charlie Hebdo episode. Instant phenomena.

Peace.

 

[Mock Turtle]

To answer your last question, I dont think there is any harm in insulting the prophet to Islam or Muslims. None whatsoever. Just that it hurts their feelings. If someone insulted my wife, mom or dad, I will get pissed off mate. So for most Muslims Muhammed has been closer than their father. So insulting him is worse than insulting their own dad. So it hurts their feelings. It doesnt harm them or the theology. In fact, studies have shown that these events promote Islam.

Do any terrorist actions do the opposite - and disproportionally present Islam as not being the 'religion of peace' - and if so, what should Islam be doing about this, if anything? If Muslims in general don't want to be represented by the few who react so - which is obviously unfair.

 

[firedragon]

Do any terrorist actions do the opposite - and disproportionally present Islam as not being the 'religion of peace' - and if so, what should Islam be doing about this, if anything? If Muslims in general don't want to be represented by the few who react so - which is obviously unfair.

Not really. After 911 attack the Islamic theology schools in secular universities grew from one or two non-muslim students to 100's. Ask any lecturer in Islamic theology. The more attacks you see and the more sensationalisation you see, the more promotion of Islamic theological studies you will see.

Muslims in general definitely dont want a terrorist to be the representative to their theology. Its obvious. But making it as such promotes theological education in secular societies more than in strict regimes like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Make a visit to a university lets say in England and the U.S and you will cross faith theological studies have increased phenomenally. Its a strange phenomena. Thus, though books sell and writers make money, the effect is the reverse.

 

[Redemptionsong]

IMO:
1. Separation of state and religion is simple ... ALL MUST follow the Law
2a. Freedom (non)faith ... ALL MAY pray or not, this excludes imposing ones religion on others of course; what Muslims try to do
2b. Without harming others ... NOT harm actively, meaning "do not behead non Muslims for drawing a picture of Muhammad"
3. Equal treatment of (non)faith ... ALL kids can draw whatever pictures they like

Note: It is totally absurd that a Muslims kills me, just because I picture Muhammad in my mind (idolize Muhammad)
Note: Allowing Muslims to impose their inhumane Laws on us = allowing ourselves to get brainwashed

Dispute surrounds preaching or evangelism. To my understanding, preaching and evangelism are not an imposition of faith but an attempt to persuade others of your viewpoint. It's actually impossible to impose a belief on someone's mind; brainwashing can only occur where a person is not given the freedom to compare and contrast with other viewpoints.

As I see it, Muslims are not being encouraged to debate their beliefs. Once a person turns inwards and avoids the interaction of ideas there is a far greater chance of radicalism.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Hate speech and baiting extremists intentionally is not "criticism"

I agree, as I said earlier in the thread. But is it actually a sign of weakness in your own faith that you feel it necessary to respond violently?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm generally more offended by their ban on women wearing certain things that they may actually want to wear, like seriously, how evil and oppressive can you get? If a woman wants to wear a potato bag or whatever the hell, no one should be able to tell her she can't walk out on the street with that (I'm not sure what the law really is, but they made it seem like you can't dress in certain ways or wear certain clothes that you might want to wear for religious reasons or beliefs or even that you want to cover up or whatever).

The issue of clothing appears to be tied in closely to that of terrorism. If a person's face and identity are being intentionally covered up, then this causes distrust. Of course, the same argument can be levelled against hoodie wearers as against niqab etc. The irony is that the police now feel it's necessary to wear face covering to hide their identities.

 

[JerryMyers]

Why is it when someone mock or being insensitive towards the Jews, we call it anti-Semitism, when someone mock or make fun of people of color, we call it racism, when someone mock the women, we call it sexism, and yet when someone mock or being insensitive towards the Muslims, we call it freedom of expression !!!!

 

[Redemptionsong]

And who is true? God, Moses or the other older prophets, Jesus, or the later ones Joseph Smith, Bahaollah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Why pick just Mohammad?

I use Muhammad as an example. The point I'm making is that we should be free to express an opinion and call a prophet false if we believe their message to be false. I am not in favour of incitement, or of hateful remarks, but is a criticism necessarily hateful?

Blasphemy is usually applied to God, rather than a prophet. But maybe Muslims are connecting the message and messenger with Allah, so a criticism of the prophet Muhammad becomes a criticism of Allah.

Either way, my argument is that judgment should be left up to God. If God exists, as I believe He does, judgment will come to us all in time. Muslims believe in God, so why bring personal vengeance here on earth?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why is it when someone mock or being insensitive towards the Jews, we call it anti-Semitism, when someone mock or make fun of people of color, we call it racism, when someone mock the women, we call it sexism, and yet when someone mock or being insensitive towards the Muslims, we call it freedom of expression !!!!

I believe it's called Islamaphobia.

 

[oldbadger]

Because persecuting a group of people and "taking the ****" out of their goofy beliefs are obviously two very different things.

We debated all this a few weeks back.
Look what's happened since then.

By the way, which group has been persecuted lately?
I do believe that this whole business has been a wind up, to get a reaction, to 'justify' a very strong persecution.... of innocent Muslims.

If you agree with laughing at and poking fun at people until a very few nutcases among them go wrong, then I can't help you.

 

[oldbadger]

Nothing should be exempt from critique or scrutiny. Nothing should be beyond reproach. Nothing is entitled to reverence.

Says you, who maybe has nothing to revere?
I think you need to buy a big jar of empathy, some sympathy spread and some scrutiny-free bread and make yourself a nice diplomacy sandwich. They're brilliant when toasted.

Sacred cows should be made into hamburger, seasoned with salty tears.

That's fine....... off you go to McDonalds or wherever, but salt is not good for you. Your arteries seem to be quite hard enough as it is.