#islam blasphemy

[fucker494978]

Koe hai mazhabi bhen bhai Jo apna Iman taza kre chat py

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

A religion that shows no respect deserves and gets no respect.

[kafkasgirlhood]

gang update i accidentally just took a bite of marshmallow with gelatin in it for the very first time

compared to marshmallows without gelatin … it's honestly nothing different in texture or taste . i guess the one with gelatin is slightly fluffier and easier to bite through though

[atheistcartoons]

Yes it is. 

I have the right under every understanding of democratic principles and international jurisprudence to say whatever I like about your god or your prophet or anyone else you feel should be above insult and mockery.

If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. 

The good news is that you should feel free to absolutely trash people and ideas I feel “should” not be trashed, such as Werner Herzog, human freedom, and my father.

At no point is any kind of violence an appropriate response to blasphemy or mockery of any kind. 

[daaft-prick-69]

I have heard this from many of my Muslim friends - "I know what he did is wrong but that guy (who got killed) should not have insulted our prophet"

[dougielombax]

Okay.

How about this.

What if.

Maybe.

It’s just possible…

That Jesus…was just some guy?!

You know?

It’s not outside the realm of plausibility!

[wolffyluna]

I think I may have made some prosleytizers happy today.

I just wanted to grab some pamphlets from the "Hello! Please join Islam" group (I Like Religious Pamphlets), but I was willing to talk and my approximate knowledge of many things extended enough to Islam that I think I kind of ?impressed? them. And I think I may have also convinced them that they had got me on the hook. I was a single failed conversational reflex save from saying the shahada.

The thing is, while my mouth was being friendly and interested, internally I was going "...that's not a revelation from God, that's something you could have known by mundane means," "that's not a revelation from God, and it's not even how mountains work," "While I can't say definitevely that that's not a revelation from God, I will point out that in any book containing a lot of imagery, the probability that that imagery can apply if you squint to something centuries later rapidly approaches 1."

And now, an hour or so later, I find myself coming up with ways to make their arguments for the truth of Islam better.

You see, the person I was talking to's argument against Christianity was that there were "too many versions of the Bible" and could you really trust your immortal soul with that? Now, he could have meant "the whole situation with the apocrypha is /weird/ when it comes to a revelation from God, what are y'all even doing." But no, from context, he meant the fact that they were multiple English translations.

Which, uh, bold words from the guy who's own sacred text has multiple English translation?

Now, points to Islam, they have way more of a tradition of reading the Quran in Arabic compared to Christians' and reading the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine Greek. But Christians do... do that. (I think he was also judging them for not reading Jesus' words in the "original Arabic" but. um. There are some technical difficulties with doing that.)

The thing is, if I wanted to argue that Christians had a) recieved a revelation from God, but b) had willfully misinterpreted it and stewarded it badly, I would not go for English translations. No, there's a better slam dunk* lined up here: The Nicene Creed.

It won't work against all Christians, but he's going for an Australian audience here, and Australian Christians mostly fall under the Nicene umbrella.

And the Nicene Creed is a statement of orthodox Christian belief that isn't in the Bible. Chunks of it are made up of implications from the Bible, that come with wild disagreement about. And it was (arguably) created for political purposes by a Roman Emperor! Come on! It's an easy shot, stop running down the wrong side of court going "but the NIV vs the KJV!"

*Read: more convincing to weird religious nerds like moi.

[sporadicarbiterearthquake-blog]

Pakistani Christians Protest Pakistan's Heinous Blasphemy Law

To: pressattache@embassyofpakistanusa.org

To Whom It May Concern;

I join the call of the Catholic Bishops of Pakistan in decrying the persecution of Pakistani Christian Ahsan Raja Masih under Pakistan's onerous Blasphemy law, which is a defacto heinous violation of basic human rights.  

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/07/islamic-republic-of-pakistan-church-pleads-for-christian-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy

I will be sharing this post widely and encourage others to do likewise.

Richard Roy Blake

Thornton Colorado USA

[cults-arent-just-religious]

Pedophiles stop adding onto the Bible challenge (impossible)

[nogodinvolvedsblog]

The concept of jihaad

“The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law.”By: Ofer binshtok.09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah  bless him and give him peace) said…

[fucker494978]

A jao sab Muslim bheno ager pori ratt ibadat krni mazhabi unlimited k lye message kru Iman taza kre

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Spiked

Published: Sept 16, 2024

The new UK Labour government has declared war on free speech. Within weeks of gaining power, it scrapped a law upholding free speech in universities. In early August, following rioting across England, it announced plans to tighten the regulations on online speech. Perhaps most troubling of all, Keir Starmer is also considering writing a broad definition of ‘Islamophobia’ into law, which would make it almost impossible to criticise Islam and even Islamic extremism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – writer, activist and author of Prey: Immigration, Islam and the Erosion of Women’s Rights – returned to The Brendan O’Neill Show last week to discuss the importance of free speech in the battle against Islamist extremism. What follows is an edited extract from the conversation. You can listen to the full thing here.

Brendan O’Neill: Why do you think politicians – even those who would define themselves as ‘liberal’ – are so willing to adopt a phrase like Islamophobia?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I think it has to do with guilt about the past. When it comes to the Jews, many European countries did not protect them from Nazi persecution, so there’s definitely a sense that we don’t want to do the same to our Muslim minorities. When I was living in the Netherlands, this was a very potent argument. The Dutch felt extremely guilty about the fact that, in proportion to the Dutch population, more Jews were removed from their homes and sent to concentration camps, than in any other country in Europe. So there’s definitely a sense of ‘let’s not repeat history’. But this is also what makes me so angry, because the Islamists – and to a certain extent, the leftists – will exploit this. They will exploit what is essentially the goodness of human beings, a desire to ‘do right this time round’, in order to do wrong.

While the Islamists want to use democracy as a tool to win power and then abolish democracy, I think the woke left also wants to do something similar. I think this is part of why the far left does rely on the Islamists to vote for them. This is then compounded by the fact that the white working class, which was traditionally the group of people the Labour Party relied on, has faded. So instead, these parties rely increasingly on migrants. This is their new demography. They think they can harness their vote to come to power. People talk about the ‘great replacement’, but it’s actually a ‘great realignment’. The parties which used to represent the working classes now no longer do so. Instead, they now just represent capital.

O’Neill: So what do you make of this idea of the ‘Muslim vote’ in the UK, particularly in relation to the new Labour government?

Ali: I see Keir Starmer as a front for the radical left. He needs the Muslim vote, and the Muslim vote can be relatively easily gained because Islamists can skillfully organise their communities to vote. But the question that Keir Starmer, and other leftist parties across Europe, should ask themselves is this: ‘What are they demanding in return?’ Because the Islamists do have many demands in return. First and foremost, they want censorship. They want ‘Islamophobia’ to be made illegal. And the way they define Islamophobia is any form of criticism of the political agenda of Islam.

If you talk about the radical views being preached in the mosques or the schools, that’s Islamophobia. If you question the fact that some imams are telling their congregations not to assimilate and to distance themselves from ‘the infidels’, that’s Islamophobia. If you talk about the recent examples of sexual abuse against women and girls, some perpetrated by Muslim immigrants, that’s Islamophobia. If you highlight that there is a kind of soft Sharia law in Britain – which is well established in many Muslim communities when it comes to marriages, divorces and inheritances – that’s Islamophobia. The same goes if you want to talk about the fact that there are Muslim women in Muslim households being beaten, curfewed, removed from school, forced to marry and then raped. If you want to expose any of this, you’re committing Islamophobia. And so, all of a sudden, you can’t fight sexual violence against women perpetrated by men.

That is what banning Islamophobia is going to ban, if you allow it. It will ban discussing these issues in the name of human rights and equality. If you question this and ask, ‘Do we really want this parallel society?’, you’ll be called Islamophobic.

These days, the Islamists are less and less secretive about their agenda. This can be seen recently in the blatant anti-Semitism in some Muslim communities. But if you bring this stuff up, and try to get politicians to discuss it, you’re again accused of Islamophobia. This is the question that we have to ask governments, particularly the leftist governments that are trying to outlaw Islamophobia. It is criticism of Islam that’s going to be banned. Journalists and newspapers will no longer be able to exercise their free-press rights to investigate crimes that are being committed.

O’Neill: The unwillingness of the woke left, even the moderate left, to ever criticise radical Islam is extraordinary. We really are in a difficult situation, aren’t we?

Ali: Absolutely. We’re emboldening them. The woke left is the enemy of civilisation, and they say so themselves. They’re deconstructing everything. On the other hand, the Islamists are also clearly an enemy of civilisation – our Western civilisation in particular. We’ve got to stand up to these two forces now. The silent majority has to stand up and stop this before they stop us. And the only way to do that is through freedom of speech, which is exactly what they want to take away from us.

As voters, we still have the capacity to organise, vote, find new leaders and reject what is being imposed on us. In the decay of the universities, alongside the censorship in schools, there’s definitely a concerted effort to silence us. Most worryingly of all, I think, is what we’ve seen after the riots and how the government has responded. Whereas previously you might be cancelled or piled-on online, now the elites are using the law. British prisons, which are effectively full, are clearing out convicted criminals, some of whom have done all sorts of horrible things, to put people in prison for putting words and images online. They’re using the awesome powers of the state to censor and to silence us. Soon we could be banned from saying things that are, in this very sinister phrase, ‘legal but harmful’. This should be met with the greatest opposition of all time. All of us need to go out into the streets and say, ‘stop right there’.

--

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was talking to Brendan O’Neill on The Brendan O’Neill Show. Listen to the full conversation here:

==

A modern Islamic insurgence is no longer conducted with swords on horseback, but with the aggressors using the language of victimhood.

[quranwithsehar]

Thoughts on misunderstood blasphemy

Addressing the Icchra Bazaar Incident

Is it the correct approach to hate someone because they don’t fit within my understanding of religion?

Labelling someone a kaafir or assuming they're disrespecting religion just because "you think so" while you have zero proof about the actions of that person. What does it say about you? Or, what does it say about our religion? I am not going to comment on what it says about the person, but I am 100 percent sure that my religion isn't what those people believe and portray. Let's just forget about the incident and see how Allah tells us to be with actual people who do not believe in our religion.

We do not believe in what the Jews and Christians believe, and we should be upfront about it. However, we should not hate them for their beliefs. We, as Muslims, don't draw that line between disagreeing with them and hating them for their beliefs.

Unfortunately we’re like, “if they commit shirk, we hate them.”

If you hate them, how are you going to invite them to Allah’s message? You can't invite someone towards Allah if you hate them. How are you going to invite them?

"Hey, I hate you for what you are doing, so believe in my religion?" NOOO!

Is this how Allah’s messenger shared the message of Islam? No! We need to look at ourselves and see what we’re doing wrong. You can’t invite someone and hate them at the same time. We don't hate non-Muslims; we can't. We should not. Because if we do, then we can't do dawah. The Prophet (SAW) didn't hate the people he was inviting. If he had hated them, he couldn't have done dawah to them.

Our understanding is skewed. We think we have to hate non-believers; we have to look down upon people.

How do you invite someone without showing them respect and courtesy? What kind of invitation would that be?

This attitude of being respectful and courteous has come directly from the Quran; it's not something I am coming up with. The Quran wants us to honor people we give dawah to.

If this is our religion's approach towards someone who actually does not believe in Islam, then how are we supposed to be with people who share our faith? It's a question that should make us take some time out from our "very religious" lives and think about.

[possil]

A BLOCKHEAD INTERVENES

The wokes of the UK should be down on their bended knees thanking whatever it is they worship for Lee Anderson MP. With one clumsy statement he got them off the hook. By saying that Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, is ‘controlled’ by Islamists, he managed to refocus the debate. What had been under discussion was the effect of Islamists in our midst threatening Parliament and browbeating…

[atheistcartoons]

Here is an article for OnlySky I wrote about the firing of Erika López Prater by Hamline University. 

There is also a brief tour of the Islamic aversion of images of Muhammad and religious censorship in general. 

[daaft-prick-69]