Saudi Arabia: World Islamic body pushes global blasphemy law

[p(-)0ENiX]

I have read all verses of Suraah 9 and others as well and even the link is same. I hate to read description and context provided as it is as that contains one's belief and perspective. Whole Suraah 9 is full of discrimination against non-believer for e.g. if you take 5 it talks about slaying of polyathiests/pagans, if you take 28 then it discriminates non-believers and stop them to visit holy places, if you take 29 then it talkes about taxes (jaziya) on non-believer while 30 mocks the believes about Jews/Chrisitians. Hence the biggest Blasphemy starts from here.

You need to understand the context & the events that chapter of the Quran is referring too. I advise you buy or refer to some sort of exegesis of the Quran so that you are able to better comprehend the verses of the scripture. According to the Islamic point of view, all men & women are free to follow their religion without any sort of harassment whatsoever. Muslims aren't supposed to fight those that desire peace.

Check out these verses from the book of Deuteronomy below. Do you have a problem with them too? Why can't you accept that all religions have varying beliefs, & that Muslims do not care about claims made in pagan scriptures?

The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free. He will say: "Now where are their gods, the rock they took refuge in, the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offerings? Let them rise up to help you! Let them give you shelter! "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders." Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people. (Deuteronomy; Chapter 32 Verses 36-43)

You are talking about Suraah 9 verse 30 here. You dont believe Jesus/Ezra the son of god hence you are violating primary rule of their belief and if they say that they dont believe that either Quran is Holy or Prophet Mohammad did the rightful and they are making mockery of your religion then why so offensive?

I don't think I posted anything offensive on this thread. Christians & Jews & everyone else are free to follow their own beliefs, & that is their right to do so. Muslims do not care if you consider the Quran or its teachings false. We can even accept criticism if it's constructive & respectful. However, most Muslims just do not like it if someone ridicules or slanders the Prophet. Insult & slander is different from criticism.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

You dont care about what is happening riots in India but then you are violating Ummah concept. You want to skip again those points which were in favor of Muslims be it their rightful nation. This is shear hypocrisy nothing else.

Judging by your posts, you don't know too much about Islam. You are clearly in no position to teach anyone of us our own religion. The concept of the Muslim Ummah refers to spiritual brotherhood between Muslims on the basis of religion. It isn't exactly the same as the modern concept of Pan-Islamism. Are you able to comprehend English, what exactly is hypocritical about my post?

I agree to that part and that is why I want to read literal meaning and if you think that I have to read Arabic for the same I can give my shot for that as well but "those" minor variations may be there but still Crux is same in many of the translation be it done by Muslims or other beliefs.

Refer to your post below.

I have read those Surah/ayat in holy Qurans "literally" which talks about Killing for non-believers though I have seen multiple explanation with modifying it. Muslims are not ready to modify this as these are the words from God so the Blasphemy starts . Hypocrisy indeed.

You were referring to variations in the translation of the Quran right? I already explained to you why different translators may end up with slight variations in translation.

Only the Abrahamic religions do but that is exactly my point. Why ask for protection from blasphemy for your religion when your religion considers others as false? Double standards, don't you think?

I am not the one asking for this protection from blasphemy, as I stated earlier; I disagree with idea of having a global blasphemy law. I think the ancient Egyptian religion & a number of other pagan religions consider other religions to be false. Doesn't Christianity consider Islam to be false? Have you ever heard of Muslims complaining about other religions claiming their beliefs are false? The only thing Muslims want is that people shouldn't lie about, ridicule, or slander the last Prophet.

 

[gambit]

Calling Jesus the son of God is considered wrong & it disagrees with our scripture & beliefs, but we don't kill Christians for claiming that. Every religion disagrees with other religions, as I said earlier; Muslims simply do not want Prophet Muhammad to be mocked or slandered.

But when a muslim debate and denies the divinity of Jesus and His claim to be the Son of God, that is 'mocking' and 'slander' to the Christians. Where is your embassy?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

But when a muslim debate and denies the divinity of Jesus and His claim to be the Son of God, that is 'mocking' and 'slander' to the Christians. Where is your embassy?

I could easily reverse your statement & claim that when Christians call Jesus the son of God, they are essentially slandering one of our Prophets. However, it would be illogical for Muslims to get annoyed by that simply because both Christianity & Islam have a distinct yet in some ways similar view of Jesus. Many religions contradict each other, that isn't the problem here. However, Muslims do get annoyed when individuals ridicule or make false accusations against our Prophet for the purpose of arousing hatred.

 

[Sinnerman108]

How Global blasphemy law proposes to counter the blasphemy where one religion says that its only the true path to the God others are false or others gods are false say for example following Sholaka from Geeta can be consider as blashphmey foby other religion....

sarvadharmaanparityajya maamekam sharanam vraja |
aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishhyaami maa shuchah ||

meaning:Abandoning all paths, come to Me as the only refuge. Grieve not, for I will liberate you from all sins.

Or in case of Kalima " La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah"(Translation: ‘There is absolutely no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohamed (saws) is the Messenger of Allah.’) from Quran can be consider as blasphemous by other religion.

etc etc.

So how Global blasphemy law propose to walk this thin line.

Sir,

Only this is what you found disturbing ?

Would you like to apply the definition "state shall have nothing to do with clergy" notion ?

 

[jatt+gutts]

best religion is sikhism. no my god is only true and yours false in our religion. it teaches brotherhood of whole humankind.

 

[gambit]

I could easily reverse your statement & claim that when Christians call Jesus the son of God, they are essentially slandering one of our Prophets. However, it would be illogical for Muslims to get annoyed by that simply because both Christianity & Islam have a distinct yet in some ways similar view of Jesus. Many religions contradict each other, that isn't the problem here. However, Muslims do get annoyed when individuals ridicule or make false accusations against our Prophet for the purpose of arousing hatred.

Then the problem is obvious: That there is no accepted criteria for a global authority on religions.

Look at it this way: In a closed community, such as a country that has controlled borders and process of citizenship, there is a single authority figure to enforce established laws -- the government or 'The State'. Companion is a single moral authority figure to figuratively enforce established customs and mores prior to any legal intervention by The State -- the community.

Members of the community can have diverse and even conflicting opinions on how to mow the lawn, for example, but as long as all sides agrees not to interfere with each other at the physical level, then there is no need for State intervention. The State exists to ensure the physical well being of every member regardless of how each maintain his lawn.

I likened religions to lawns because the analogy is eminently appropriate. Each lawn must be maintained as in trimming excesses, cultivate what is desired, and finally achieving uniformity, with exceptions such as flower beds, etc., who are the 'superstars' of the lawn or high priests of the religion.

If you want to give a global authority the power to enforce blasphemy in every religious community, then you must be willing to cede some measure of theological authority to this entity as well in order to establish a reasonably logical process on:

- Who is a 'legitimate' prophet and who is not, living or dead.

- What constitutes a miracle and what is a fraud.

- What text is worthy of the hyperbole 'Holy' and what is not.

See the problems...???

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Then the problem is obvious: That there is no accepted criteria for a global authority on religions.

Look at it this way: In a closed community, such as a country that has controlled borders and process of citizenship, there is a single authority figure to enforce established laws -- the government or 'The State'. Companion is a single moral authority figure to figuratively enforce established customs and mores prior to any legal intervention by The State -- the community.

Members of the community can have diverse and even conflicting opinions on how to mow the lawn, for example, but as long as all sides agrees not to interfere with each other at the physical level, then there is no need for State intervention. The State exists to ensure the physical well being of every member regardless of how each maintain his lawn.

I likened religions to lawns because the analogy is eminently appropriate. Each lawn must be maintained as in trimming excesses, cultivate what is desired, and finally achieving uniformity, with exceptions such as flower beds, etc., who are the 'superstars' of the lawn or high priests of the religion.

If you want to give a global authority the power to enforce blasphemy in every religious community, then you must be willing to cede some measure of theological authority to this entity as well in order to establish a reasonably logical process on:

- Who is a 'legitimate' prophet and who is not, living or dead.

- What constitutes a miracle and what is a fraud.

- What text is worthy of the hyperbole 'Holy' and what is not.

See the problems...???

If you had read my previous posts on this thread, you would have realized that I don't support the idea of having a global blasphemy law. In modern times, many states consist of different ethnicities; each with their own language, religious beliefs, & customs. All people residing within a state are free to hold or practice their own beliefs. These beliefs could be political, religious, societal, etc. There is absolutely no problem with that. However, most reasonable people wouldn't tolerate getting ridiculed or slandered by others. If people are unable to accept getting mocked, why would they be happy about others mocking & slandering their religious figures out of contempt? Let's not forget that many Asian societies continue to cherish & hold on to their religious values. There is no problem with people criticizing, disagreeing with or even questioning the religious beliefs of others, but that criticism should be constructive & respectful. I am not a Christian, so I disagree with some Biblical beliefs, but that does not mean that I am disrespectful towards Christians or their beliefs. Freedom of speech, thought, & expression must be valued, but freedom of speech shouldn't be equated with the freedom to lie, slander, & insult. As I stated earlier, I don't agree with the death penalty for blasphemy or to some extent even the concept of blasphemy itself. However, people tend to have different points of view on this topic, & I think Islamic scholars need to reach some sort of a consensus regarding this topic.

 

[Pakistanisage]

The King is quite fond of his Interfaith Dialogue Initiative, which appears to advocate mass murder if Islam is criticized : link

You are a hypocrite because I dont see you criticizing European countries that violate freedomn of Speech principle by putting people who deny holocaust in Jail for upto 10 years.

 

[Bhairava]

best religion is sikhism. no my god is only true and yours false in our religion. it teaches brotherhood of whole humankind.

All Indian religions are good. Buddhism sometimes even denies the presence of an external God...

 

[Bhairava]

Wrong, that isn't an insult. The "shahadah" is the foundation of the Islamic belief, & a declaration of faith.

Why does your faith require you to declare all other faiths as false. That is pretty racist IMO.

Only a retard would feel insulted by that.

Then what would you call a person who feels slighted by a friggin 13 minute video ? Retard-o-retard ?

but if we were to consider every minor variation an insult, there would be no peace on Earth until humanity settles for one religion alone.

Calling my religion and Gods as false is hardly a minor variation. That's blasphemy of the highest order towards me and my faith.

Muslims simply do not want the last Prophet (may peace be upon him) to be mocked or slandered by anyone. Generally, people accept criticism of religion only when it's constructive & respectful.

I dont want you to call my Gods as unworthy of worship. So stop saying la ilaha illallah from now on.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Why does your faith require you to declare all other faiths as false. That is pretty racist IMO.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word racism. Read the passage I posted from the book of Deuteronomy on post #76. Do you have a problem with that too, or is your problem only with Islam?

Then what would you call a person who feels slighted by a friggin 13 minute video ? Retard-o-retard ?

Retard-o-retard? Is that a double retard? I agree that the response of many Muslims to that video was stupid, it was better to have ignored it or at least responded to it in a more civilized manner.

Calling my religion and Gods as false is hardly a minor variation. That's blasphemy of the highest order towards me and my faith.

I dont want you to call my Gods as unworthy of worship. So stop saying la ilaha illallah from now on.

By your logic, I can easily state that worshiping idols is an abomination according to my faith; so you better stop worshiping idols.

You clearly do not understand the points I discussed earlier. Pretty much every religion disagrees with the other, & people are free to believe whatever the hell they want. No body has a problem with people following & practicing their own religions. The point being made is that Muslims do not like it if their Prophet is ridiculed or slandered. We haven't asked non-Muslims to accept Muhammad's Prophethood, neither have we asked them to believe or follow his teachings. Debates regarding beliefs are naturally acceptable as long as people are careful to not upset the religious sentiments of others.

Before I leave, I just have to say this:

lā ʾilāha ʾillà l-Lāh, Muḥammadur rasūlu l-Lāh
(There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.)​

I don't care if that statement offends you, seeing as it's the Islamic declaration of belief.

 

[gambit]

If you had read my previous posts on this thread, you would have realized that I don't support the idea of having a global blasphemy law. In modern times, many states consist of different ethnicities; each with their own language, religious beliefs, & customs. All people residing within a state are free to hold or practice their own beliefs. These beliefs could be political, religious, societal, etc. There is absolutely no problem with that. However, most reasonable people wouldn't tolerate getting ridiculed or slandered by others. If people are unable to accept getting mocked, why would they be happy about others mocking & slandering their religious figures out of contempt? Let's not forget that many Asian societies continue to cherish & hold on to their religious values. There is no problem with people criticizing, disagreeing with or even questioning the religious beliefs of others, but that criticism should be constructive & respectful. I am not a Christian, so I disagree with some Biblical beliefs, but that does not mean that I am disrespectful towards Christians or their beliefs. Freedom of speech, thought, & expression must be valued, but freedom of speech shouldn't be equated with the freedom to lie, slander, & insult. As I stated earlier, I don't agree with the death penalty for blasphemy or to some extent even the concept of blasphemy itself. However, people tend to have different points of view on this topic, & I think Islamic scholars need to reach some sort of a consensus regarding this topic.

Unfortunately for you, it does. Live in peace with it, or prepare to go to war. You will find out the hard way how much we cherish the freedom that you despise.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Unfortunately for you, it does. Live in peace with it, or prepare to go to war.

I don't recall freedom of speech going hand in hand with defamation.

You will find out the hard way how much we cherish the freedom that you despise.

Where did you get the idea that I despise your freedom? Are you delusional or just hallucinating? Stop making up false accusations, I do value the freedom of speech. I never supported stupid acts like destroying a country's embassy because of some dumb video; neither do I support the capital punishment for blasphemy or the idea of a global blasphemy law. That is exactly why Islamic scholars need to reach a consensus on this issue.

 

[gambit]

I don't recall freedom of speech going hand in hand with defamation.

Like it or not, the freedom of speech INCLUDES it.