• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Right to insult religion

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I want to just come right out and say that this idea is stupid, however, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see this happen in the UN. It seems that most Western countries are getting into this strange thought process of appeasing our enemies in hopes that it will help peace. In reality, it's setting a dangerous standard.

Here's where their argument falls short of any logic. Many Muslims KILL those who aren't Muslim and won't convert. They are literally commanded to do so in the Quran. Regardless of all of the peaceful Muslims out there, that's what their scriptures say to do. Doesn't sound like the type of Religion we even want to affiliate ourselves with.
You know the old saying give them an inch and they will take a yard. They will want something else next. Like maybe if you are in a Muslim community you have to dress Muslim out of respect for their religion. In Saudi Arabia you aren't allowed to wear a cross and its not advisable to carry a bible out in the open.

You can't appease your enemies all you can do is confront them because they are your enemies.
 

Doc_Fearless

Registered Member
Muslim scholars are trying to get the UN to outlaw defamation of religions, they want the prophets protected. Hope the UN doesn't do this but if they do screw them.

Muslim scholars urge UN to outlaw ‘contempt’ of religions
I think if you begin to pass laws specifically pertaining to religion, it's just a bad idea. Religion should remain only in the "personal experience" category with freedoms for anyone to practice any religion they wish and follow it's word within public laws.

It would be kinda like if I chose to join a sports team and then lobbied for a law that no one could "boo" my team... pretty much the same premise here.
 
Last edited:

Sim

Registered Member
. Many Muslims KILL those who aren't Muslim and won't convert. They are literally commanded to do so in the Quran. Regardless of all of the peaceful Muslims out there, that's what their scriptures say to do. Doesn't sound like the type of Religion we even want to affiliate ourselves with.
That's not entirely true.

Iit doesn't serve religious verses, from any religion, nor the quest for the truth when we rip single quotes out of the context.

when you look at the sourrounding verses of the infamous 4:91, you find it made clear that this only applies in case of war -- "when the infidels raise the weapons against you". In a following verse, it is said that the moment they lay down the weapons, this rule no longer applies.

This is why, to my best knowledge, most Muslim clerics interpret this verse -- "kill them whereever you find them" -- as a commandment ONLY in war.

However, there is much disagreement among Muslims what such a declaration of war does look like. More mainstreamish, less violent clerics have a rather narrow definition for war most of us would perhaps agree with: Like, a non-Muslim country invading a Muslim country with an army.

The radical jihadis, filled with weird conspiracy theories and all kinds of political BS, such as a "zionist world conspiracy" or "American imperialism", believe on the other side, that the West has declared war against the ummah (community of Muslim believers) long ago already. Meddling in Muslim countries is such an act for war, in their eyes already. Maybe a cartoon is.

Minority Muslim groups which are rather peaceful, but small in numbers, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, believe "jihad" foremost has to be spiritual and intellectual struggle, one that starts inside the heart of a believer and only in the end may result in action. They have an even more narrow definition of what constitutes a declaration of war.

Perhaps the rather liberal Ankara School of Muslim theology, which is interested in a historical interpretation of Quran, will perhaps say that this commandment was not meant as an eternal rule by Mohammed, but was a specific command he gave to his followers in a very specific historical context. In order to apply it to the modern world, one first has to understand the exact situation the ummah was in in that specific historical moment ...

Just to give you an idea.


This generalizing, religiously motivated hatred against "Islam" in general, and calling them ALL "enemies" is nothing but bigotry, prejudice and hatred -- it is EXACTLY THE SAME we accuse Muslims of. This kind of thinking is the exact mirror image of the way islamist terrorists think.

Especially vocal in these regards are radical American right-wing Christians. And they have long ago declared war against truth and reality -- they're the Western equivalent of the Taliban.
 
Last edited:

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
That's not entirely true.

Iit doesn't serve religious verses, from any religion, nor the quest for the truth when we rip single quotes out of the context.

when you look at the sourrounding verses of the infamous 4:91, you find it made clear that this only applies in case of war -- "when the infidels raise the weapons against you". In a following verse, it is said that the moment they lay down the weapons, this rule no longer applies.

This is why, to my best knowledge, most Muslim clerics interpret this verse -- "kill them whereever you find them" -- as a commandment ONLY in war.

However, there is much disagreement among Muslims what such a declaration of war does look like. More mainstreamish, less violent clerics have a rather narrow definition for war most of us would perhaps agree with: Like, a non-Muslim country invading a Muslim country with an army.

The radical jihadis, filled with weird conspiracy theories and all kinds of political BS, such as a "zionist world conspiracy" or "American imperialism", believe on the other side, that the West has declared war against the ummah (community of Muslim believers) long ago already. Meddling in Muslim countries is such an act for war, in their eyes already. Maybe a cartoon is.

Minority Muslim groups which are rather peaceful, but small in numbers, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, believe "jihad" foremost has to be spiritual and intellectual struggle, one that starts inside the heart of a believer and only in the end may result in action. They have an even more narrow definition of what constitutes a declaration of war.

Perhaps the rather liberal Ankara School of Muslim theology, which is interested in a historical interpretation of Quran, will perhaps say that this commandment was not meant as an eternal rule by Mohammed, but was a specific command he gave to his followers in a very specific historical context. In order to apply it to the modern world, one first has to understand the exact situation the ummah was in in that specific historical moment ...

Just to give you an idea.


This generalizing, religiously motivated hatred against "Islam" in general, and calling them ALL "enemies" is nothing but bigotry, prejudice and hatred -- it is EXACTLY THE SAME we accuse Muslims of. This kind of thinking is the exact mirror image of the way islamist terrorists think.

Especially vocal in these regards are radical American right-wing Christians. And they have long ago declared war against truth and reality -- they're the Western equivalent of the Taliban.
Careful there. Lots of American Right Wing Christians here at GF. We are not even comparable to the Taliban. ;)

I totally understand where you're coming from though. I am definitely blunt about it but also most definitely not bigoted toward Muslims. I personally know a few Muslims (even in my area of the world) and while I think they're good people, I do think their religion is violent though even if they themselves are not violent.

Obviously. Peaceful Muslims are NOT our enemies but radical (aka violent) Muslims are. If that sounds bigoted then so be it. (I realize this point may not have been 100% clear in my last post)
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
That's not entirely true.

Iit doesn't serve religious verses, from any religion, nor the quest for the truth when we rip single quotes out of the context.

when you look at the sourrounding verses of the infamous 4:91, you find it made clear that this only applies in case of war -- "when the infidels raise the weapons against you". In a following verse, it is said that the moment they lay down the weapons, this rule no longer applies.

This is why, to my best knowledge, most Muslim clerics interpret this verse -- "kill them whereever you find them" -- as a commandment ONLY in war.

However, there is much disagreement among Muslims what such a declaration of war does look like. More mainstreamish, less violent clerics have a rather narrow definition for war most of us would perhaps agree with: Like, a non-Muslim country invading a Muslim country with an army.

The radical jihadis, filled with weird conspiracy theories and all kinds of political BS, such as a "zionist world conspiracy" or "American imperialism", believe on the other side, that the West has declared war against the ummah (community of Muslim believers) long ago already. Meddling in Muslim countries is such an act for war, in their eyes already. Maybe a cartoon is.

Minority Muslim groups which are rather peaceful, but small in numbers, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat, believe "jihad" foremost has to be spiritual and intellectual struggle, one that starts inside the heart of a believer and only in the end may result in action. They have an even more narrow definition of what constitutes a declaration of war.

Perhaps the rather liberal Ankara School of Muslim theology, which is interested in a historical interpretation of Quran, will perhaps say that this commandment was not meant as an eternal rule by Mohammed, but was a specific command he gave to his followers in a very specific historical context. In order to apply it to the modern world, one first has to understand the exact situation the ummah was in in that specific historical moment ...

Just to give you an idea.


This generalizing, religiously motivated hatred against "Islam" in general, and calling them ALL "enemies" is nothing but bigotry, prejudice and hatred -- it is EXACTLY THE SAME we accuse Muslims of. This kind of thinking is the exact mirror image of the way islamist terrorists think.

Especially vocal in these regards are radical American right-wing Christians. And they have long ago declared war against truth and reality -- they're the Western equivalent of the Taliban.
I'm sorry, but this is the most absurd argument out there, it's logically fallacious and devoid of reality. The "Radical American right-wing Christians" is a fictional bogeyman you think exists because you read and listen to silly news sources and fail to critically think. When these "radical American right-wing Christians" start beheading people for disagreeing with them, let me know. Until then, I suggest you pick up a book and read, you might learn something.

Do you know what a jizya is? Jizya is a tax imposed on non-Muslims in an Islamic state. According to Islamic eschatology the Mahdi will appear as will Jesus, except Jesus will come back as a Muslim, and He will do away with the Jizya, meaning there will be no more non-Muslims. Jesus and the Mahdi, the Islamic version of the Anti-Christ, will command all convert to Islam or be killed.

According to hadith: "Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Messenger of Allah said, "By Him in whose hands my soul rests! It is definitely close in that time that Isa, Son of Maryam descends amongst you as a just ruler. He will break the cross, kill the swine and abolish jaziya. And money will abound in such excess that no one will accept it." "Breaking the cross" means killing all the Christians. "Killing the swine" refers to the Jews.

So according to THEIR own end times beliefs, Jesus, or Isa as they call him, and the Mahdi, will kill ALL who refuse to convert to Islam, and, according to their own end times beliefs, the killing of Christians and Jews is a minor sign of their coming. When you find an equivalent passage in Christian end times beliefs, when you find as many as 20% of ALL Christians killing and beheading in the name of Jesus or God, let me know. Until then, your false equivalence makes you look foolish and uneducated.

EDIT: Know what's ironic? You lament about this alleged "bigotry" and "hatred" against Muslims THEN turn around and show your own bigotry and hatred towards American Christians. I wonder if you are capable of intellectually comprehending this absurdity.
 
Last edited:

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
From what I understand, Mohammad's initial teachings in the Quran are indeed peaceful, then at a certain point, that changes and the message becomes much more violent. Many interpret the more hostile parts of the book in terms of being relevant only to the events occurring at the time this part of the Quran was written, and hold that the original message of peace is what the religion should be based upon. However, there are those who believe that what comes later in the book overrides the teachings in the beginning, replacing them. These are your Jihadists. Personally I am of the opinion, based on what portions I have read of the book itself, that it was written with the intent of recruiting the lower casts into a "Holy Army", and is still performing this designed task with remarkable efficiency. I am glad however that the vast majority of Muslims have rejected what I believe to be the original intention of the book (whether by happenstance or intention) for a less aggressive interpretation. I would like to see it stay that way.


Of course, getting back to the OP, I believe that the right to free speech is important, very important, but that it should take a back seat to basic human decency and respect. There are times I feel like I am alone in this view and have even been accused of being PC (imagine, me, PC... Pfft). Perhaps the line between genuine respect & decorum and the pretentious mask called Political Correctness has blurred over the past 20 years to where many really don't know the difference. The difference is sincerity. I may have the right to insult something or someone you love, but generally I find discussion is a better way to hash things out than is ridicule. Mind you, I do like to ridicule (Yes, I am one of those) but generally speaking, if I know something is deeply personal to someone, I leave it off the table. Why do I need to be taking personal jabs at a large group of folks I don't even know, or for that matter, those that I do? I wouldn't appreciate it if the situation were flipped. Civility isn't based on rules, it's based on empathy, and THAT is what sets it apart from Political Correctness.


I may not have any respect at all for certain beliefs you hold dear. I may detest some of the ideals that are near and dear to your heart. But I respect your right to believe whatever you want, and, provided your beliefs aren't going to cause you to do harm to anyone, I respect you as a human being. For me, arguing is horseplay, so I don't aim for the tender spots because it's not my intention to do harm either. Should everyone just toughen up to the point where they can't be offended? I think that would mean becoming dead inside, so no. We need to find a way to talk about how the Quran is interpreted to "at risk" Muslims before they get pulled all the way into some crazed imam's world of blood. We need to identify those who are expressing extremist views and talk them off the proverbial ledge. Inflammatory remarks and publications are only going to have a counterproductive effect. It's our right to make things worse. It is. But is it right? It's our right to try and get under people's skin and really see how mad we can make them. It is. But is it good policy? Should that be considered the benchmark for freedom of expression?




- Chameleon
 
Last edited:

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I respect anyone's right to believe what they want as long as it's not hurting someone else. However many Muslims, while they aren't trying to blow someone up, seem to think its alright to stone someone to death or whip them for insulting Islam, see women as inferior. In many Muslim countries you don't seem to be allowed to have any point of view except theirs.

If you notice in many Muslim controlled countries while you may be allowed to practice a different religion you had better not be public about it. You had better still dress like you are Islamic. To me that says they think their religion is the only one that counts. Which makes me wonder what if the US became mostly Muslim? Would I still have the right to wear what I wanted, worship or not to worship like I wanted or would I find myself suddenly living under Sharia law forced to obey a religion I could care less about.

Am I saying all Muslims are bad, of course not. I'm sure there are many great Muslim people. It just seems like the idiots control the stage. I feel I have a right to insult these idiots.
 

Doc_Fearless

Registered Member
I respect anyone's right to believe what they want as long as it's not hurting someone else. However many Muslims, while they aren't trying to blow someone up, seem to think its alright to stone someone to death or whip them for insulting Islam, see women as inferior. In many Muslim countries you don't seem to be allowed to have any point of view except theirs.
What I put in bold of your statement is pretty much an ironic answer to what you said previous to it. The same can be said of the USA. I can't speak for sure for other countries, but being I live here in the USA I see it everyday. If it's not the American view then it must be wrong is what I mean to say. Of course not all Americans think alike and the very same can be said for Muslims, yet we still generalize them, us, everyone.

Hilander said:
If you notice in many Muslim controlled countries while you may be allowed to practice a different religion you had better not be public about it. You had better still dress like you are Islamic. To me that says they think their religion is the only one that counts. Which makes me wonder what if the US became mostly Muslim? Would I still have the right to wear what I wanted, worship or not to worship like I wanted or would I find myself suddenly living under Sharia law forced to obey a religion I could care less about.

Am I saying all Muslims are bad, of course not. I'm sure there are many great Muslim people. It just seems like the idiots control the stage. I feel I have a right to insult these idiots.
I am sure there are Muslims who think the very same of us. As Americans we are a tad arrogant about what we think compared to the way things are. I mean we (Americans) look at Christianity, its progressive and what we expect in a religion. Muslim is less progressive, sticks more to scripture than most religions and that is the way they prefer to express their religion. If you condemn it, then you must condemn all religion is the way I see it. You can't pick and choose.
 
Last edited:

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Is Christianity a religion of peace? I mean, it's easy to point at the Salem witch hunts, the Crusades, or best of all, the Inquisition and brand all Christians as a violent, barbaric people. Have we shaken that brand over time? Yes, I'd like to think so. It's been quite some time since there were any big massacres in the name of Christianity, so far as I know. But what if, for the sake of argument, a cult gained popularity, a cult associating itself with Christianity... an Inquisition-like cult that justified murder under religious doctrine? Imagine such a cult committing the same sorts of acts today as Islamic extremists. Now imagine people starting to haul that old brand out of mothballs and apply it to everyone who even so much as wears a crucifix. Extremist Islam is a Muslim CULT. Lashing out at Muslims will have no positive effect and may even push those who may be on the fence [between moderate and extremist views] in the wrong direction. The sooner we can recognize this cult for what it is, and more importantly what it isn't, the better off we'll all be.


- Cham
 

Doc_Fearless

Registered Member
Is Christianity a religion of peace? I mean, it's easy to point at the Salem witch hunts, the Crusades, or best of all, the Inquisition and brand all Christians as a violent, barbaric people. Have we shaken that brand over time? Yes, I'd like to think so. It's been quite some time since there were any big massacres in the name of Christianity, so far as I know. But what if, for the sake of argument, a cult gained popularity, a cult associating itself with Christianity... an Inquisition-like cult that justified murder under religious doctrine? Imagine such a cult committing the same sorts of acts today as Islamic extremists. Now imagine people starting to haul that old brand out of mothballs and apply it to everyone who even so much as wears a crucifix. Extremist Islam is a Muslim CULT. Lashing out at Muslims will have no positive effect and may even push those who may be on the fence [between moderate and extremist views] in the wrong direction. The sooner we can recognize this cult for what it is, and more importantly what it isn't, the better off we'll all be.


- Cham
Good points, but I would like to point out your more right than I believe you realize. For example on Sept. 15, 2001 Frank Silva Roque, a white American Christian took the life of a gas station owner in Mesa Arizona simply because he thought the owner was Muslin, he wasn't. Then you also have white supremacist who are most often Christians like Wade Michael Page who used a semi automatic weapon to kill 6 people in a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Then there was Christian anti-abortion terrorist who killed doctors or fire bombed abortion clinics. There are 100’s of incidents over the last few decades where some form of terrorism was carried out by Christian extremists.

I am not defending or condoning any kind of terrorism, but it’s like I stated in my earlier post, you can’t condemn an entire religion without condemning them all.
 
Top