#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.

[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. 

[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

[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!

[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"

[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.

[maddy-ferguson]

there's a post going around that says "“We need to strive to be more accepting of POC” you guys can’t even handle religion." and like. that's genuinely offensive to me lmao

[in-sightpublishing]

Blasphemy related mob violence in Bangladesh

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: September 1, 2014 Publisher Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Publication: Freethought Newswire Original Link: https://exmuslims.org or newsletter@exmuslims.org Publication Date: September 10, 2024 Organization: Ex-Muslims of North America Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a…

[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: Andrew Doyle

Published: Sept 13, 2024

For a precious few decades, we in the west enjoyed a liberal consensus. The overwhelming majority of us had accepted that we should be free to speak and act as we wish so long as we adhere to the rule of law and not violate the rights of others. But since the early 2010s, culture warriors have successfully managed to destabilise this consensus. This has been achieved not through a process of persuasion, but largely through linguistic chicanery.

The term “Islamophobia” is a case in point. Few of us would tolerate the abuse of citizens for their belief in Islam, the vandalism of mosques, or physical attacks on those who are identifiably Muslim. We are right to condemn all such behaviour, and to support freedom of belief and worship. This is the essence of a secular democracy.

And yet those of us who maintain that the belief system of Islam is essentially wrong, that the veiling of women is rooted in misogyny, and that no religious icon should be ringfenced from ridicule, are often dismissed as “Islamophobic”. This is to conflate the actions of bigots and criminals with those who are simply exercising their right to criticise ideas. It is linguistic sleight-of-hand. And it works.

The UK government is currently considering how to tackle so-called “Islamophobia”, which should come as no surprise given that the Labour Party seems to be waging an open war against free speech. Having already jettisoned the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act - a bill that had been thoroughly debated in parliament and had received cross-party support - Labour has moved on to targeting online speech. Meanwhile, judges are openly imposing draconian prison terms for speech-crimes in order to “set an example”. These are dark times for liberty.

So what will the criminalisation of “Islamophobia” mean? If it is to tackle vandalism, assault, or harassment of Muslims, then its proponents should rest assured that such actions are already illegal. To understand what the Labour party is considering, we need to examine the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)’s definition of “Islamophobia”, a variation of which is likely to be adopted by the current government in future legislation. A report by the APPG in November 2018 put it this way:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

The definition is factually wrong. Islam is a belief-system, not a race. There are over two billion Muslims in the world, and they belong to multiple ethnicities. To criticise Islam is to criticise an idea, not a racial demographic. If we wish to live in a free society, that means we must retain the right to reject or embrace ideologies as we see fit. We don’t criminalise “Christianophobia” or “Marxistophobia” or “Freemarketcapitalismophobia”, so why should we do so when it comes to Islam?

The conflation of race and belief is, of course, a strategic means to silence dissent. Most of us in the west have reached the consensus that racism is an intolerable evil. And so by making criticism of Islam akin to racial hatred, we implicitly render such criticism an act of bigotry. This is why so many intersectional campaigners are silent on the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies. While western activists are claiming that the veil is empowering, courageous women in Iran are throwing off these oppressive garments and dancing in the streets. This is in spite of the risks of imprisonment and violence by the “morality police”.

The term “Islamophobia”, like many other “phobias”, is an attempt to pathologise perfectly legitimate points of view. It is similar to the claim that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is “homophobic” or that anyone who believes that women are entitled to single-sex spaces is “transphobic”. As a tactic, it’s about as sophisticated as saying: “Oh, don’t pay any attention to him. He’s a nutcase”.

The term “Islamophobia” apparently dates back as early as 1910, when it appeared in the French form islamophobie in an essay by Alain Quellien. It was popularised in the 1970s by Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. Like all ideologues, they understood that cultural revolutions are best achieved through the control of language and definitions.

Those who struggle to convince others to join their cause often take this alternative approach. They simply redefine words so that people end up supporting their side without realising it. This is precisely the method that had led so many liberal-minded people to promote “woke” causes, even though they represent the precise opposite of liberal values. It’s also why people who fully understand that human beings cannot change sex are nonetheless parroting the slogan: “trans women are women”.

The propagation of the term “Islamophobia” works in much the same way. It prevents open discussion about Islamic beliefs by stigmatising those who participate. We saw this explicitly when the European Court of Human Rights agreed with a court in Austria that criticism of the Prophet Mohammed was “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate”. As Qanta Ahmed pointed out in the Spectator, this was offensive to Muslims because it infantilised them. It implied that they should be treated like children who are prone to violent tantrums when insulted.

In criminalising criticism and ridicule of Islam, the UK government would effectively be asserting that Muslims are second-class citizens who need to be protected from the realities of life in a pluralistic society. Would this not be a violation of their own law? Could the implementation of a law against “Islamophobia” itself be an act of Islamophobia? These are dizzying possibilities that remind us that the state should never attempt to control the speech or thoughts of its citizens.

Enough of the word games. Islam is not a race. Its disciples are not entitled to a life free from offence. Anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice exists and ought to be criticised, but it is not the same as the mockery or the denunciation of a religious creed. Any legislation against “Islamophobia” would be tantamount to a new form of blasphemy law. In a supposedly free society, this cannot be tolerated.

==

"There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe." – Sam Harris

There is no such thing as "Islamophobia." No religious superstition is entitled to deference or protection.

There is no such thing as "Islamophobia." Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is trying to make you submit to their blasphemy laws.

There is no such thing as "Islamophobia."

[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

[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. 

[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…

[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.