Can Muslims take criticism of the Prophet?

[humanfirst]

Muslims do take criticism of their faith, as a matter of fact 'criticism is institutionslized' in Islam. They have 'mujadid's' [Reinventors] who are extremely qualified scholars, who question the beliefs and give judgements on them through debates with other scholars called 'Manazirah'. This is a civilized form of self criticism which no other Religion has. There lies a fine line between acceptable constructive criticism and vile abuse generated out of bigotry.

All of the above is irrelevent for those who do justice to their own intelligence, God refused to cure insanity though.

That is just misinformation-The criticisim you are mentioning is allowed only in matters of interpretation-Not on any single ayah divulged in quran or any single action by prophet.Please answer me,can any muslim mujadid criticise any specific action of prophet muhammed no matter how vile or bigoted it may be..?Can they criticize any commands of quran..?(And stay muslim..)

 

[Jackdaws]

If you are talking about Pakistani Blasphemy laws they cover other religions too, so your claim for exclusiveness is trash

Guardian: Pakistani mullah arrested for 'framing' Christian girl accused of blasphemy.

On the contrary your country bans cow slaughter and enforces it on Non Hindus, do look in your backyard before you swipe your ignorant rhetoric on others.

@gambit

Why do you see everything in "Black & white", you keep using the line "Muslims do this,Muslims do that,Will Muslims do that, How did Muslims Do that". There are 1.6 Billion of them, 1 out 4 Humans on earth WITHOUT a central authority. Do you think that all of them behave in the same way, all of them have been "programed" to think the same way, when they have more than 48 countries, hundreds of languages and social/sub social structures. Why do you keep painting Muslims as one group of people when that not only defies logic, but also is plain stupid!

First of all, I did not say - "Pakistani blasphemy laws" - I said "blasphemy laws" - your assumption that Islam begins and ends with Pakistan is clearly ill-founded but a common enough malaise.

And just for the record, Pakistani blasphemy laws do not cover other religious beliefs - there are no restrictions to blaspheme against other religions. Your link talks only of misuse of blasphemy law. So much for ignorance.

Continuing on the subject of ignorance - India does not ban cow slaughter, some states within India do. India remains one the top domestic consumers of beef and is the world's largest exporter of beef.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf

Having said that, I am against imposition of one religious belief over another - e.g. I am against those who want to force Muslims in India to sing Vande Mataram.

But we are off-topic here.

 

[Jackdaws]

And I had answered we WILL AND CAN if it is CRITICISM not bashing under the hood of criticism...

The speech you quoted in post 1....he CRITICIZED Islam as Jesus is our prophet too and we believe he was saved BEFORE BEING CRUCIFIED...but the guy looked at it in the point of view of History....instead of theology!

As for the prophet, what would you wish to criticize...give us an example ....



blasphemy laws are MOSTLY BASED ON CULTURE....Mind you honor killing existed in MANY CULTURES from India to Arabia to Africa! (that being just 1 example)

Well, cultures can't be controlled but surely laws can. In India Sati was prevalent in the 1700s among Hindus - it was the British who stopped this through law - they did not give in to cultural sensitivities. What is right is right, irrespective of culture.

 

[Awesome]

Don't you think there is a problem in this love?
Religion should make a person rational and level headed, not mad in love.

If you think about it, the man brought you the true faith. Allah chose him. He was Allah's favorite. One can't bear to hear such language against a family member, he is after all several degrees higher. I understand the importance of tolerance, the Prophet himself taught as much. But its beyond human nature, beyond even his followers to follow his level of tolerance.

 

[LURKER]

@Internet Hindus

Before you claim high ground on 'taking criticism' over others, i would like to remind you, MF-Hussain who was forced into exile to Qatar and died there for drawing naked artwork of Mythological Hindu goddess. So much for 'free expression' no?

Before you claim high ground on 'free speech' i'd like to remind you of Aseem Trivedi the cartoonist who was jailed for drawing cartoons,deemed 'offensive'. Not to forget that internet/SMS is frequently banned in Indian held Kashmir, international journalists are allowed only with escorts and are spied on. Freedom movement leader are not given air time, nor visas to have their say on the global scale.

Before you claim, moral high ground on 'minority rights', i would like to remind you of the Sikh genocide carried out in their 'holiest temple', for demanding God given right to self determination.

I would like to remind you of, Muslim massacre of Gujrat and the crimes commited against Christians in Gujrat who's CM a guy who should be a Terrorist by all means has become a hero and may become PM, demolition of the Babri Mosque, and the 'Shuddhi movement', of 'purifying' non hindus of 'malicha beliefs'.

278 mass graves in Kashmir are also to be reminded, so are 14% Muslims having 3% seats in the parliament, and 0.2% Muslim participation in the 'secular and democratic' armed forces of 'world's largest democracy'.



"Ayeena unko dikhaya to bura maan gay"

MF Hussain was not tried for blasphemy for drawing those pictures neither was there any price on his head declared by Shankaracharya . There were some protests by fringe extremist groups and govt would have given him appropriate security cover had he stayed in India. There were no large scale protests of the scale seen in Islamic countries especially Pakistan when some drew muhammed's cartoon . There had been few more instances of nude drawings of hindu gods and goddesses in the past but there never have been over the top prostests or riots like those seen in islamic countries.

Entire country stood behind Aseem Trivedi when he was jailed by the govt and he was even acquitted by the court.

Govt banning internet/SMS is to prevent riotings and violence. Spreading propganda that may lead to violence is not considered freedom of speech. It is done to maintain peace and calm.

India handled the insurgency much better than what pakistan did to their bangladeshi brothers when they were demanding their god given right of freedom.

The person you are talking about has been acquitted by the courts and has a large backing of even muslim community in his state. So i guess a pakistani should stop loosing his sleep over him.
If there's shuddhi movement then there are also likes of zakir naik who are freely converting people to islam without any backlash and boasting about it by posting videos on youtube.

Sikhs are less than 2% of India's population and still make upto 10-15% of the armed forces, so what can kind of discrimination will you call it? Muslims are around 3% in armed forces not 0.2% and no one's stopping them from joining the armed forces.

I accept we are far from perfect but comparing it to the intolerance level of islamic countries is a big joke.

 

[BATMAN]

Let's discuss the matter with a broader picture.

In Pakistan even Christians do not show tolerance... metro of Lahore was burned and damaged in most wild fashion by a Christian minority.

At the same time... one will get banned on defence.pk if he even talk about **** and beaf.

In UK hate speech is crime.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

I guess it depends on what kind of Muslims that none-Muslims are dealing with. Persoanlly, criticizing any religious figure from any faith that preactised by its own people all over the world, must be put in a polite way rather than using a vulgar langauge, period.

 

[Kompromat]

1.Breivik is a racist,not a religious fundamentalist.
2.Nuking of Japan was an war act,it was either that or countless american lives lost fighting in the japanese islands.They chose not to.
3.Vietnam,Afganistan were fought for communis,WOT.
4.First Irak war was UN backed,second....i agree,totally uncalled for.



My point,you can't relate these wars to religion,but I ask you again :how would the world look if christian states had the religious feelings that the muslim world? Can you even imagine the horror?

Dear flamer i would reject ALL of your answers. Let me just assume for a minute, that "abandoning the Christiandom's crusade [Jihad] phenomenon" you have "moved on" - which was your original point. It was supposed to make you "better" than the "times of the crusades", all of the wars i have mentioned have happened "Post Crusade Syndrome" time period, it hasn't made you less violent than you were during the crusade period. All you have done is relinquished the name crusade and found much subtle "names & justifications" for those wars.

You have killed up to "40 million" people starting from the start of the 20th century. Statistics don't lie, my point remains still that "moving on" hasn't happened.

Source: War Casualties

Best Regards.

 

[gambit]

Dear flamer i would reject ALL of your answers. Let me just assume for a minute, that "abandoning the Christiandom's crusade [Jihad] phenomenon" you have "moved on" - which was your original point. It was supposed to make you "better" than the "times of the crusades", all of the wars i have mentioned have happened "Post Crusade Syndrome" time period, it hasn't made you less violent than you were during the crusade period. All you have done is relinquished the name crusade and found much subtle "names & justifications" for those wars.

You have killed up to "40 million" people starting from the start of the 20th century. Statistics don't lie, my point remains still that "moving on" hasn't happened.

Source: War Casualties

Best Regards.

Right...So what you are saying is that all wars since the Crusades retained their religious context. You took the Vietnam War out of its proper ideological context and might as well call it a war between Christianity and Buddhism.

 

[Kompromat]

Right...So what you are saying is that all wars since the Crusades retained their religious context. You took the Vietnam War out of its proper ideological context and might as well call it a war between Christianity and Buddhism.

Gambit, you didn't read my point with the flamer. The thing we two were talking about was NOT religious war per say but "followers" committing violence either in the name of religion or committing violence after relinquishing the religious context.

To be clear, lets assume if Muslims today declare that "Jihad bil saif" [Jihad of warfare-1 out of 6 tenants of Jihad] is invalid and the next day they go and start massacring people in some other country. Yes it won't be Jihad bil saif BUT it will be Muslims carrying out atrocities,which they claimed not to do so by abandoning Jihad bil saif - which means that their actions are no better than the ones who killed motivated by Jihad bil saif -!- You, see the Barbarians, killed humans, not for religious motivation, many others did....the common denominator is the "act of killing" , which is wrong under all circumstances.

As far as i have studied religions,As a student of multi faith,having read almost every major religious scripture [Except a few], i can tell you that no religion on earth asks for killing fellow human beings, however almost every religious scripture has verses that deal with violence but they have to be taken in their right context, for instance this quote from Hindu epic Mahabharatha.

The Sin that is Committed by Killing One, Who Does Not Deserve to Be Killed Is As Great as the Sin of Not Killing the One ,Who Deserves to Be Killed ------- Mahabharat Udyoga Parva. Chapter 72, Verse 18


One can interpret it anyway he/she may desire, however for a student or an academic it should mean creating an informed opinion by research not by cherry picked,self serving quotes without its right context both in the scripture and in the history,in its socio-economic context.

 

[Hyperion]

Today I'm feeling very Turk by nature. So all responses will be appropriately packaged!

 

[Jungibaaz]

I could probably write a million pages worth of debate on this.

Two thing I'd like to point out.
One, some muslims are crazy, psychopaths who despite living in Western nations haven't learnt a damn thing about tolerance.
Second point, the overwhelming opinion of Muslims in the world is dictated by major events in the past and the actions of the media as well as the response of Muslims. The media has been hysterical at every given opportunity and has shaped public opinion everywhere. Then came the response from Muslims alienation, then came the wars and so on.

 

[Farooq]

the Vietnamese kid- born in the pit of Hanoi, stares into the mirror everyday desperately wishing he was White has shown his deep-seeded hatred towards Muslims once again!

 

[ptldM3]

Christians TOLERATE EVERYTHING....they have allowed anything and everything to enter into the bible (by editing be it addding or deleting verses based on how they want it instead of accepting it as it is...what form of tolerance is that?) and STILL CALL IT WORD OF GOD?!

I suppose you are talking about the old testament vs the new testament, in that case are confused. Language has also changed through the centuries , so some (not all) verses have been modernized, for instance, if in biblical times a vail was called a hoot then obviously nothing is changed. It would be like people going from the term television to simply TV, or automobile to car.

And the quran is also missing verse, in fact there were many different versions of the Quran before the official one was excepted.

You can also take cheap shots but in Christianity people have a personal connection to god, he is not some being that we can never reach or that never shows himself. He cares and listens, it's like a pastor I met, his daughter had terminal cancer but the cancer disappeared, this same pastor came to pray for my niece, which was on life support and had a slim chance of survival. The doctors said if she would survive she would have brain damage, so despite having two fatal long disorders which she could not bread without a machine, despite having a damaged liver and poor kidney function she recovered 100%.

My cousin also died and came back to life...she was an atheist at the time and she is now a Christian. You believe what you want about your religion and you can make smirky insults towards Christianity but it does not matter because god performs miracles in my life, and I have seen him do impossible things not only in my life but other people's lives.

 

[SQ8]

And the quran is also missing verse, in fact there were many different versions of the Quran before the official one was excepted..

Not at all, infact.. NOWHERE were there multiple official versions. Simply because the Quran was preserved through a very different system as to the bible. People learnt the whole Quran by heart since the time of the prophet. These people then recited this Quran to other people who had memorized it to maintain uniformity. This was then taught and passed on generations to generations so that even to this date.. A person who has memorized the Quran in the US will have the exact same verses as the one who has memorized it in Indonesia. At this point out of the billion or so Muslims there are still quite likely close to 1.0 - 1.5 million people who have memorized the Quran by heart.

The versions you talk about is the Quran which was allowed to be read in slightly differing dialects and that too where the letters DID NOT CHANGE just how it was pronounced. NOR DID IT CHANGE THE MEANING TO EVEN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE. To understand that you have to be familiar with the Arabic language and its pronunciation styles. There ARE no different versions.