Islam preaches tolerance of critics, no matter what the Charlie Hebdo attackers believed

The most commonly used phrase by Muslims today is “isā’ah,” which has a range of meanings, including “insult, harm and offense.” But this term is not associated with a certain jurisprudential punishment in a way that makes all Muslims feel obliged to attack the actors.

Therefore, many writers throughout different parts of Islamic history have criticized Islamic belief, including the prophet Muhammad and the Quran, without facing persecution. A quick look at the books about sects and creeds in Islam shows a great variety of discussions and debates between Muslims and non-Muslims about the essential parts of Islam. Many include sarcastic language. For instance, when defending his nonbelief in religions, renowned Arab philosopher Abul al-Ala al-Ma’arri said:

   If you ask my religion I would say I am not dumb.

Ibn al-Rawandi also dedicated sections of his books to countering the Quran in Baghdad. Furthermore, in the contemporary era, Iraqi writer and poet Maarouf al-Rasafi disputed the religious aspect of the prophet Muhammad’s life in his book “The Muhamadiyan Personality.”

The reality is that the persecution of blasphemers as it is done currently is a very recent phenomenon. Generally, one could say that the Rushdie fatwa was the beginning of this trend.

The founders of Political Islam are known as the innovators of this trend. That is why we can see many secular scholars, writers and poets at the start of the 20th century writing against Islam in many different dimensions, such as Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, who is known for advocating positivist philosophy in the Arab world, and Najib Mahfouz, who won the 1988 Nobel Prize for Literature.

Hellsangel wrote:You think it is just the Charlie Hebdo attackers from that religion who believe that?

And you think WaPo posting about this exception makes it the rule?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You think it is just the Charlie Hebdo attackers from that religion who believe that?

And you think WaPo posting about this exception makes it the rule?

huh! What part of my comment said it is the rule?

confuzzled dude wrote:

The most commonly used phrase by Muslims today is “isā’ah,” which has a range of meanings, including “insult, harm and offense.” But this term is not associated with a certain jurisprudential punishment in a way that makes all Muslims feel obliged to attack the actors.

Therefore, many writers throughout different parts of Islamic history have criticized Islamic belief, including the prophet Muhammad and the Quran, without facing persecution. A quick look at the books about sects and creeds in Islam shows a great variety of discussions and debates between Muslims and non-Muslims about the essential parts of Islam. Many include sarcastic language. For instance, when defending his nonbelief in religions, renowned Arab philosopher Abul al-Ala al-Ma’arri said:

   If you ask my religion I would say I am not dumb.

Ibn al-Rawandi also dedicated sections of his books to countering the Quran in Baghdad. Furthermore, in the contemporary era, Iraqi writer and poet Maarouf al-Rasafi disputed the religious aspect of the prophet Muhammad’s life in his book “The Muhamadiyan Personality.”

The reality is that the persecution of blasphemers as it is done currently is a very recent phenomenon. Generally, one could say that the Rushdie fatwa was the beginning of this trend.

The founders of Political Islam are known as the innovators of this trend. That is why we can see many secular scholars, writers and poets at the start of the 20th century writing against Islam in many different dimensions, such as Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, who is known for advocating positivist philosophy in the Arab world, and Najib Mahfouz, who won the 1988 Nobel Prize for Literature.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/08/islam-preaches-tolerance-of-critics-no-matter-what-the-charlie-hebdo-attackers-believe/

-> This sort of debate and discussion from within is a good start.

One holy book is deeply concerned with blasphemy: the Bible. In the Old Testament, blasphemy and blasphemers are condemned and prescribed harsh punishment. The best-known passage on this is Leviticus 24:16 : “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.”

By contrast, the word blasphemy appears nowhere in the Koran. (Nor, incidentally, does the Koran anywhere forbid creating images of Muhammad, though there are commentaries and traditions — “hadith” — that do, to guard against idol worship.)Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has pointed out that “there are more than 200 verses in the Koran, which reveal that the contemporaries of the prophets repeatedly perpetrated the same act, which is now called ‘blasphemy or abuse of the Prophet’ . . . but nowhere does the Koran prescribe the punishment of lashes, or death, or any other physical punishment.” On several occasions, Muhammad treated people who ridiculed him and his teachings with understanding and kindness. “In Islam,” Khan says, “blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than a subject of physical punishment.”

confuzzled dude wrote:

One holy book is deeply concerned with blasphemy: the Bible. In the Old Testament, blasphemy and blasphemers are condemned and prescribed harsh punishment. The best-known passage on this is Leviticus 24:16 : “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.”

By contrast, the word blasphemy appears nowhere in the Koran. (Nor, incidentally, does the Koran anywhere forbid creating images of Muhammad, though there are commentaries and traditions — “hadith” — that do, to guard against idol worship.)Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has pointed out that “there are more than 200 verses in the Koran, which reveal that the contemporaries of the prophets repeatedly perpetrated the same act, which is now called ‘blasphemy or abuse of the Prophet’ . . . but nowhere does the Koran prescribe the punishment of lashes, or death, or any other physical punishment.” On several occasions, Muhammad treated people who ridiculed him and his teachings with understanding and kindness. “In Islam,” Khan says, “blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than a subject of physical punishment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-blasphemy-and-the-law-of-fanatics/2015/01/08/b0c14e38-9770-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html?hpid=z5

Hellsangel wrote:You're very defensive of Islam, aren't you, Comrade? The difference is Judaism and Christianity went through reformation periods. The only Jewish state doesn't even follow most of the Mosaic laws.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You're very defensive of Islam, aren't you, Comrade? The difference is Judaism and Christianity went through reformation periods. The only Jewish state doesn't even follow most of the Mosaic laws.

Defensive, why do I care? I was merely pointing out to our NRI patriots, who opine that muslim intellectuals don't do enough.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You're very defensive of Islam, aren't you, Comrade? The difference is Judaism and Christianity went through reformation periods. The only Jewish state doesn't even follow most of the Mosaic laws.

Defensive, why do I care? I was merely pointing out to our NRI patriots, who opine that muslim intellectuals don't do enough.

confuzzled dude wrote:

One holy book is deeply concerned with blasphemy: the Bible. In the Old Testament, blasphemy and blasphemers are condemned and prescribed harsh punishment. The best-known passage on this is Leviticus 24:16 : “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.”

By contrast, the word blasphemy appears nowhere in the Koran. (Nor, incidentally, does the Koran anywhere forbid creating images of Muhammad, though there are commentaries and traditions — “hadith” — that do, to guard against idol worship.)Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has pointed out that “there are more than 200 verses in the Koran, which reveal that the contemporaries of the prophets repeatedly perpetrated the same act, which is now called ‘blasphemy or abuse of the Prophet’ . . . but nowhere does the Koran prescribe the punishment of lashes, or death, or any other physical punishment.” On several occasions, Muhammad treated people who ridiculed him and his teachings with understanding and kindness. “In Islam,” Khan says, “blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than a subject of physical punishment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-blasphemy-and-the-law-of-fanatics/2015/01/08/b0c14e38-9770-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html?hpid=z5

Hellsangel wrote:You think it is just the Charlie Hebdo attackers from that religion who believe that?

And you think WaPo posting about this exception makes it the rule?

confuzzled dude wrote:

-> This sort of debate and discussion from within is a good start.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:You think it is just the Charlie Hebdo attackers from that religion who believe that?

And you think WaPo posting about this exception makes it the rule?

Why so much scorn? Our local kings of inanity forever criticize Muslim intellectuals for not speaking up. And when they do, you brush it off as an exception.

I think it is constructive to support any and every initiative that tones down overt religiosity and helps usher religions - particularly Islam - into the 21st century.

Those initiatives, by their very nature, will never tame the mouth-breathing hordes and the terrorists, just as a Upps Aunty or Avivek will never overcome their visceral fear of Muslims no matter how much one reasons with them. But hopefully, it will diminish the perceived legitimacy of extreme opinions and draw the silent majority away from the fringe. That itself could be the best gift we could give to the coming generations.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

It may be a great TEXTBOOK. But, apparently the "students" are failing miserably. No failing student can get admission based on the fact that he followed a great text book.

These failed students are simply not fit for the class.  They deserve some real harsh punishment to make them "learn" their great textbook or throw them in the society's gutter to clean the latrines.

Time for iSlamic Intellectuals to "speak up" and take charge of their Ummah is long gone. Others need to step in and "clean" their dirty home.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
P.S. BTW, your much admired Ummah friends are holding 5 hostages in Paris.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
P.S. BTW, your much admired Ummah friends are holding 5 hostages in Paris.

Confusion much? These are the kind of you admire a lot, chaddis, in this case muslim-chaddis.