Insecure Muslims strike to keep the death penalty for blasphemy
deptfordbaker
Posts: 22,368 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Well if their religion is as amazing as they are always saying it is, it should be able to withstand any insult or criticism.
Pakistan on strike against bill to amend blasphemy law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12097687
on the other hand, perhaps they have doubts about their faith and need laws with the death penalty, to silence any one who might undermine it any more.
Saying that, it is their country and they can do what they like, it's none of our business. In the west however we have to stand up to this nonsense once and for all.
We can say whatever we damn well like about any thing as long as their is no threat of violence or discrimination.
Religious people the world over need to get used to that.
Pakistan on strike against bill to amend blasphemy law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12097687
on the other hand, perhaps they have doubts about their faith and need laws with the death penalty, to silence any one who might undermine it any more.
Saying that, it is their country and they can do what they like, it's none of our business. In the west however we have to stand up to this nonsense once and for all.
We can say whatever we damn well like about any thing as long as their is no threat of violence or discrimination.
Religious people the world over need to get used to that.
0
Comments
I wonder what it is about Pakistan in particular that means discussion leads to "it's their country and they can do what they like, it's none of our business". That's so similar to "their country, their rules" (also said about Pakistan). Yet other countries people say all sorts about.
My point really was, that in the west, or specifically Europe, we need to enforce western ways, much more strongly, than weak politicians do currently.
At the same time the rest of the world is none of our business. currently we seem to be afraid to re-westernise the west and are obsessed with meddling in other peoples countries.
Once we have brought all our people home and pledged never to meddle again, we will have much greater authority to stop all this rubbish in our part of the world.
This.
You are talking about Apostasy though right as yes the sharia has harsh punishments for Muslims who commit apostasy.
But let me make it clear that the Sharia does have a prescribed punishment for Apostasy but not Blasphemy. You have to look at what the scholars say about Blasphemy and its punishments,
Also Islam does not support these Kangeroo courts you see either. Anyone accused of Blasphemy should get a fair trial!
This has been discussed many many times on here... Islam allows you to change religion freely, you don't need to be scholar to understand that:
[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way...
[10:99] If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?
Your name can be Muhammed, but does not neccessarily make you a good muslim or even a muslim, you can't be muslim by name, but by action. If a person who does no longer believe in the Islamic religion, whether he/she publically says this or not makes no difference, because that person does not believe.
Look it up on wiki but through the link on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the man he hung to get power!!!!!!
They consider blasphemy to be a subcategory of apostasy.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/22809
As a Muslim, I'm sure you must aware that the above verse is widely considered to be abrogated by most Muslim scholars, i.e. cancelled, nullified, set aside or replaced by later verses.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/34770/compulsion
I've been reading this tread with interest and whilst I would normally read and move on, I feel such a personal connection with this thread that I have to comment.
I am a white British woman married for many years to a Muslim. At the time I married I converted to Islam and for many years all was well. However, just last year I announced to my husband that I could no longer associate myself with a religion which was so intolerant and which contained so many contradictions. One of the reasons which convinced me to take this step was the question of abrogation. It is something which has constantly confused me and I offer this question to the muslims posting here.
If the Qur'an is the word of God and God is perfect, then why would he have to make 'corrections' to whatever he had given to his prophet previously? God is perfect = never makes mistakes.
Come on, it's a simple question!
If this is true then Islam doesn’t look like its about peaceful live and let live and could be in the end be totally incompatible with western liberal freedoms and values?
Is it just drawing cartoons etc. or is it also questioning whether he is a prophet and ever actually spoke to God. Maybe that's a different thing, that also has the death penalty in Islam.
I think it's important we are clear on these issues as our politicians are always telling us their are moderate and extremist Muslims.
I'm starting to wonder whether its much more complicated than that.
Never mind a separate national and international politics thread, we should have Politics, Religion and Science, in the general section.
I think when constructive criticism becomes pure, sheer hatred, then that's where problems arise.
Nothing wrong with having a mature, civilised debate about the Faith, but when certain people deliberately start to offend billions of like-minded individuals (just for 'kicks'), then sadly, things can turn for the worst.
Are you really saying that abrogated text was the last straw for you? I find that interesting considering other much more obvious issues within Islam such as treatment of women. But maybe you never had issues in that aspect of your life.
I would just say just because some clerics say something it doesn't mean you have to listen to or accept that. It doesn't even mean they are right. In this context this is one of the interpretive aspects of the Qur'an where some sections which had relevance in history yet have little direct application to today's life in their current state.
You wouldn't believe how complicated it is. Adding to the complication of different sects of Islam, some considering extra (vitally different) scripture and some not, different clerics applying edicts upon the meaning of the Qur'an, and clerics arguing with each other on some interpretations you also have the fact that across many different Islamic countries you have a vastly different outlook on life/culture/Islam. It's fractured and broken down.
Why not just write out clearly, what you expect of your followers and why not state exactly who's a prophet and who is not!
There may be a logical explanation for God, in my own view an encounter with a more advanced race in the past, but it seems more and more likely that all religious texts are just primitive human interpretations of this encounter.
So why on earth should we base our society on what a bunch of primitives thousands of years ago thought.
The argument that God does not reveal himself, because he wants us to have faith is fair enough, but to make everything so contradictory and unclear, does not make any logical sense.
It's not just the clerics, the Quran itself does teach the doctrine of abrogation:
Surah 13:39: Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.
Surah 16:101: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
For many Muslims it makes sense that their God can change and replace the verses at will given their belief that the will of Allah supercedes everything else. For many others, however, this view conflicts with their concept of an all-knowing and wise God that doesn't need to adapt and learn from mistakes.
Sorry but the notion of blasphemy being worthy of any kind of trial is an alien concept to me let alone what kind of punishment might be warranted or that someone might have cause to question the legitimacy and fairness of such a process. It's a medieval concept as far as i'm concerned.
My knowledge of religion is somewhat limited but is it not the case that there is no formal recognised interpretation of Islam and that these "scholars" (who all seem to be self appointed as far as I can tell) are simply interpreting and preaching the faith to suit their own unique perspective of it?
You're quite right. Plenty of Muslims have a problem with the belief of Allah being perfect yet the Qur'an containing several abrogated lines.
In fact if you haven't already you might want to have a read of this that goes into it in a bit more detail: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm
I don't know all the answers and I doubt I ever will. I'm just one person amongst billions who have lived and will live trying to make sense of it all (life, that is). Abrogation doesn't define the aspects of Islam which I believe need to improve - I'm aware of it but in priority don't believe it supersedes other factors.
It seems when Mohammed copied the Bible into his own words he didn't think it through enough and discrepencies occured.Perhaps he should have stuck to the original source.:mad::p:mad:
I'm sorry for what I am about to say and please believe me when I say I am honestly not trying to be antagonistic, but surely the highlighted passage could be paralleled to the comments of a politician wishing to pave the way for amending his policies and anticipating the questions of his supporters?
To my simple understanding, it sounds as though the prophet (and I omit the capital letter purposefully for my own reasons) made the rules up as he went along and was speaking from his own convictions and needs as dictated by the society and aggressive development of the faith under brutal and war-like circumstances at the time. :rolleyes:
A politician paving the way for his policies ? Yes, or caught out in a lie perhaps.
In any case, in response to a favourable (to Mohammed) Quranic revelation, out of the mouth of babes.....
........Aisha said " O Allah's Apostle! I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you. " ( Bukhari Vol 7; 62 : 48 )
Absolutely, and I agree, he did seem to receive some of his messages at most opportune times (for serve his own purposes, that is).
Plus he had Christian slaves, which of course had nothing to do with where he got his ideas from.
Religion is very useful concept, when you want to unite people for political purposes.
Watching from the outside in pure analysis mode can and will never compare to living it.