The Quran and mocking Mohammed
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Muslima
Member
Offline
Member
![[Avatar]](/jforum/images/avatar/851612d3c194dc64724360831ff04bf8.png)
Offline
The one verse in the Qu'ran talking about what to do when Islam is mocked states: "And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them". Qu'ran 4:140 Allah tells to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) over and over again in the Quran- when they insult, you don’t get angry: ‘Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee’ [sura al- Imran: 184] The Qur’an records that he was called crazy, a victim of deception, a liar, and a fraud. Through this all, the Prophet Muhammad never retaliated or called for these people to be attacked, seized, or executed. This is because the Qur’an says to “overlook their annoying talk” and to “bear patiently what they say.” " They lied against you, other messengers were lied against too; its ok, you are not the first one. And have patience with what ever they say, and leave them with noble (dignity)."[sura muzammil: 10] The Prophet Muhammad (saw) was constantly mocked during his life, people stoned him, one woman used to throw trash at him, the Makkans insulted him . Allah took the most insulting things that were said about the prophet (saw )and gave the most intellectual responses in the Quran. This is our religion. Two thirds of the Qur'an is a conversation with the people who didn’t even believe in it. What was prophet (saw) doing? Reciting it to people who don’t even believe. And they were insulting it back, criticizing it back; and there was a discussion happening, without anybody trying to kill anybody else. |
Anonymous
|
We probably need to distinguish between blasphemy and broader attitudes towards non-believers/kafirs. Both things are at play here.
Here's one passage. "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”" Obviously you can debate whether it's open-ended or limited by historical context. You can also debate whether it's a call for self-defense or a call for aggression. These debates go on within Islam and many Muslims would read this differently from how ISIS or the Paris assassins would read it. |
Anonymous
|
Quran 4:89
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper |
Anonymous
|
If OP's question is basically asking why the Paris attackers conducted the massacre at CH, there are several different issues.
1. Graven images (pictures of Mohammed). The Quran doesn't say a single word about this. It does speak to not worshiping idols/statues. But it doesn't say "you can't draw a portrait, sympathetic or unsympathetic, of Mohammed." 2. Blasphemy. You can look at this as Muslims who speak ill of their own god or prophet, which gets into debates about apostasy and appropriate punishments for it, that are irrelevant for OP's question. Another common interpretation of blasphemy is when non-believers mock your faith, in which case you need to look at ... 3. Non-believers who "oppress" Muslims or simply don't share the faith. This oppression could take the form of outright violence against Muslims, or ISIS or the Paris assassins might interpret it as disrespect. These are the quotes above. Muslima gives blasphemy perspective (although it's worth pointing out that Mohammed was hardly a social outcast: in his own community he was a very wealthy man and a leader). If you want to understand the motives of the Paris attackers, they are taking the broader perspectives at (3) towards non-believers who oppress Muslims. |
Anonymous
|
Whether Quran says anything about it or not, why mock something that holds such significance for people? What's the point? Just cause you can?
Same goes for any other religion. Religious convictions are a very emotional subject. Why stir the pot? Just let others be. |
Anonymous
| Let's just all acknowledge that the terrorists are not religious people, they are political people who use religion as a justification for acts of political terrorism. There is nothing in any religion, Islam or otherwise, that directs or justifies their actions. Islam is nothing more than a political tool for these murderers. |
Anonymous
With all due respect, religious people of all stripes routinely discriminate against the non-religious and work the political system to their favor against the interests of the non-religious. This is the opposite of "letting others be.". Live and let live includes tolerating the speech of those who disagree with you. Tolerating does not mean embracing, it means accepting the existence of opposing views and the rights of those who hold them to express them. I say this as a practicing Christian who frankly could not care less what others believe. |
Anonymous
Well, let the law take care of those pesky people. Insults are not speech. I say this as a not religious non-practicing person who doesn't care about others' beliefs either. Doesn't mean I think it's acceptible to intentionally provoke violence. |
Anonymous
|
The informal ban on imagery of Muhammad was meant to prohibit idolatry of Muhammad (what Muslims believe became of Jesus).
But sadly, a lot of Muslims have done precisely what the "ban" was supposed to do, and have elevated Muhammad to an untouchable level. And even though they won't say it, even though it's forbidden, many Muslims do worship Muhammad instead of God/Allah. A human being needs no avenging. A human being does not need his actions elevated to an equal level as the Quran (God's word) A human being is flawed, and can be critiqued (yes, even Muhammad) I grew up Muslim, and a lot of Muslims (definitely not all) have almost crossed their wires. It's like they almost long for a comparable Jesus figure, and Muhammad filled that niche to the point of adoration as though he were divine. This is one of the most UN-Islamic things you can do. It's so completely ironic. |
Anonymous
Insulting speech is not illegal, and never should be. What is insulting is not something that can be objectively defined. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
Good summary of conventional wisdom. |
Anonymous
These are two different questions. 1. Is it OK to publish offensive cartoons, or should the law equate these with hate speech and ban them? This is not what OP is asking and there are other threads about this specific issue. 2. Does Islam promote a certain type of response to offensive cartoons? Given that the offensive cartoons are out there. This is OP's question. OP is basically asking, is there something in Islam that promotes, or could be read by a fanatic to promote, a certain type if response? Why didn't the terrorists instead, I dunno, make their point by holding a public bonfire of the offending issues, why did they go straight for blood? Also, why didn't they pursue their grievances through the courts or by lobbying for stronger anti-hate speech laws, but instead they took matters into their own hands? Muslima's interpretation is that there is nothing in blasphemy laws that calls for bloodshed. But if you are an Islamist who takes every word of the Quran literally, you might read the passages above differently, and conclude that you were acting in line with Islam. Muslima's racing (which I like) is by no means the only possible reading. |
Anonymous
OP here. I agree. I assume the terrorists destroy the Quran for their own ends. That's why my question was about the Quran, not about the terrorists. There are passages in the Quran, the Old and the New Teatament that council violence but those don't tell you what the overall message is or what the peaceful follower of the religion believes. |