An international Islamic organization headed by Qatar-based preacher Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi has renewed its demands for the United Nations to outlaw “contempt” of religions.
The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) has also urged western nations to protect those who engage in peaceful protests against the publication of images of the Prophet Muhammad.
Internationally, there have been several demonstrations following last week’s publication of a cartoon of the Prophet by French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked earlier this month.
Many Muslims find the caricatures offensive, and Qatar was among the countries that condemned the publication, saying “freedom of expression does not mean insulting others.”
In its statement, the IUMS asked Muslim countries “to submit a global law draft criminalizing defamation of religions and the prophets and the holy sites of all” to the UN, and for the international organization to enact such a law to ensure “peaceful coexistence between nations.”
The Union also called for Western countries “to provide full protection to the Muslims living in their country, whether they are citizens or residents or visitors.”
The call comes as a Bahraini MP is pushing for a similar move to create draft legislation to be put to the UN, according to a local newspaper there.
Previous calls
The latest demand by the IUMS reopens an issue that Arab nations have raised several times in recent years.
Qatar first floated a proposal to outlaw religious insults in 2012, following a global furor over a Youtube video denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.
At the time, the plan was to present the draft regionally and to the IUMS. The law was then to be presented to the UN’s International Telecommunication Union, but the idea was opposed by many free speech advocates.
In 2013, Qatar again presented a draft law to other Arab League countries that proposed to criminalize the defamation of all religions in their nations.
The legislation would have made it legal for countries to prosecute individuals who defame, deride or denigrate religions or their prophets.
Ebrahim Mousa Al Hitmi, Qatar’s justice ministry assistant undersecretary for legal affairs, was quoted at the time as saying that the law would have extended countries’ existing penal codes to allow states to prosecute offenders even if they were not resident in the country.
Bahrain draft law
In Bahrain, a politician is apparently making similar attempts to introduce the draft legislation to the United Nations.
According to Gulf Daily News, MP Adel Al Asoomi said he has been in contact with colleagues in the Arab Parliament to help him put together a draft law outlawing mockery of any historical religious figures.
“The UN has laws against anti-Semitism and discrimination,” he said as he appeared in parliament yesterday.
“Now is the time for an international law against degrading prophets, messengers of God or any other historic religious figure.”
He said the legislation is expected to be presented to the Bahraini parliament within a month, before being referred to other Arab nations for review, and then on to the UN.
Thoughts?
It would be absolutely criminal if countries acted on this. Throughout human history blasphemy laws have been used to oppressed the masses, enrich religious institutions and persecute or silence debate.
We only have to look at Saudi Arabia and the disgusting case of Raif Barawadi to see how such laws are used to silence any free expression. Pakistan regulary uses blasphemy laws to execute people and is used to settle scores. How can we forget the case of a mentally handicap girl accused of burning the koran and impirsoned, only to find out an imam burned the koran and put it in her bag. Her crime for this set up? She was Christian.
I’m afraid if you faith is so weak and your God so powerless against the words of humans and you need to find a better God.
Freedom of expression is not to be sacrifice on the alta of prejudice and mythology.
Great sentiment.
The Union also called for Western countries “to provide full protection to the Muslims living in their country, whether they are citizens or residents or visitors.”
Muslims do have full protection the same as all other citizens, they have the right to peaceful protest, they have recourse to the law if they feel they have been discrimaed against. What they don’t have is the right to dictate to the majority what should be said or done in those cpantries, there is room for all cultures and creeds. They need to learn to coexist and to be fair most do.
Now the gulf countries should also extend the same protection and non discrimation to non muslims. Most of them fail badly on this score.
I didn’t know that the country hosting the two ‘holiest’ sites of Islam was such an un-Islamic country in its behavior. I can only guess that they are hypocrites at best. They deserve an Oscar for that.
Shocking such state sponsored discrimation against 6 billion humans.
Let’s prosecute them under this new law.
well, be my guest and check it out if you have a chance; then you tell me! (I have)
If you don’t hold a visa for XYZ country, will still try to go through the borders? I guess not.
The sign is similar to what you find at immigration check point at any airport .For me it’s more segregation than discrimination. Speaking of Mecca and Medina, these two holy places are restricted to Muslims, unlike other mosques that are visited by non Muslims. Think of these two holy mosques as country’s which has a visa requirement of being a Muslim to visit.
You are trying to justify blatant discrimination. Shame on you. If you are in Saudi you already have a visa for entry, but then certain places you are banned from entering purely based on not being a Muslim.
Mecca originally contained jews, Christians and pagans. When will they get the right of return to see where their ancestors lived before their were ethnically cleansed.
“You are trying to justify blatant discrimination” I wouldn’t say that to argue with the immigration officer who is guiding me to the proper line. You know we are talking about holy places here, and not only immigration and borders. Muslims ( just like other believers ) have their own regulations. Why would you need to go there if you are not a Muslim? how could resticting non Muslims offend you?
Discrimination based on lifestyle choice perhaps? Then you are comfortable with keeping Muslims off of the Temple Mount?
Certainly not, because – guess what ? – there are mosques too !
Yes, but there shouldn’t be, they offend religious sensibilities and are an insult, as such they must be removed.
Can’t compare apples to oranges.Temple mount ( part of the holy land or terra santa ) contains holy places for muslims, christians, and jews all together. Who among them gave you the right to make that statement
” Yes, but there shouldn’t be ( mosques ), they offend religious sensibilities and are an insult” ?
Exactly my point, who is going to decide what an ‘insult’ is and when it should be acted upon? People like me, the lowest common denominator of hate and intolerance? Hmmm? Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go pay my respects to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I may not be religious but I do like to visit various religious places around the world as they are part of humanity’s cultural heritage. As much as I like to explore the Greek ruins that were made to Zeus, Aphrodite and the rest I would also like to visit the places key to Islamic mythology.
Me too ( just like many people ) have the same interest, but I wouldn’t feel offended or discriminated if I got banned from a Hindu temple for example.
Then why do you care what Charlie Hebdo prints? Just don’t look at it.
Why would I care? syas who?
One could easily respond to that by saying why do Muslims want to go to Europe on Holiday? They don’t need to be there.
when Palestine return to Palestinian, All others will have automatic right to return to their original places, but I am afraid Russian immigrant people ever will return to their native land, and if they do, world will change overnight and world peace will return.
I’m a bit worried about these Russians you talk about. Do they belong to a religion of peace?
Originally, I thought they belong to a religion of peace,
but looking at what is going around the world and as well as in Sri lanka, it is hard to believe what type of religion they belong.
The Palestinians return to their ‘homeland’? Well, that would be the eastern Mediterranean, possibly around Turkey, Greece. Ramses II, (1200 BC) recorded that the “Sea people” had occupied Gaza. He called them ‘Philistine’, which means ‘Invaders’.
Or Africa. We all sons and daughters of that continent
thanks God I am Christian then…..I allow you to enter into churches without feeling offended. If a mosque is a praying place and it is supposed to have a positive energy (all people praying) why not accept diversity? And if Islam is professed by people like you to be so tolerant, why you guys can’t be so?
so, all mosques around the world did not suffice your need for prayer, except the one in Mecca, which Muslims are ordered to keep its access for Muslims only? Yet, there are places in the church that even ordinary devoted Christians can not access, and you don’t call that intolerance!
What do you think about mount Athos that only certain male visitors can access with permission, while no female can access, even if christian?
I personally think the monks on Athos are idiots not to let females visit them. Because of that, I didn’t visit them when I was in Greece with my wife.
sorry I don’t deal with those few extremist Christians. I would be very loud and critical about those Christians and nobody could put me in jail or tell me to shush. That’s the difference. By the way, how many extremist Christians are there? Do they act violent? Do they have an international echo?
But every place I have been in Christians countries (Catholic, Lutherans and Protestants) I visited all the churches, even without praying, but respecting the place. They are places of good energy.
at least the sign doesn’t say heretics or infidels
There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding in some parts of the world as to what a secular state is.
This will never come to fruition, as I think anyone with any sense understands. You’ll never get enough people in one country to agree enough on finer theological points, much less a handful of countries. And no foreign country will implement someone else’s laws on their land, especially when it comes to extraditing one of their own.
But imagine how great it would be if they merely got a draft together? Finally, Muslims AND non-Muslims would have the definitive guide. One would know exactly how long sleeves and pant legs need to be (for both genders) to avoid the pamphlet brigade. There could be a guide for clothing tightness (perhaps develop a metric like one would use for belt tightness in machinery). It could include exactly what words aren’t allowed in marketing and product packaging so companies don’t waste marketing and distribution costs. One would know what exact implements are OK to use for beating a wife and which are not (there might be an untapped commercial market if standards were developed there). If we’re lucky it might even have a guide for ethical treatment of home based employees and other laborers. It would be like the single perfect interpretation of the Quran so people don’t have to fight and kill each other over it anymore! In a tongue in cheek world, this idea only has upsides!
I think this sums up what such a law would be.
The UN passes laws? Someone better give this Asoomi lesson a lesson on how the UN functions.
Good
What is good? The fact that you wouldn’t be able to criticize pastafarians anymore?
If they pass anything like this I’ll start my own religion with my own prophets. If you insult them, then I will call the police for you to be prosecuted because you hurt my feelings. I would want the longest jail sentence possible for your crime.
To the topic. Pass the law asap.
you really think this could happen?
Sorry Saeed, but the mere proposition of this legislation will have the opposite effect. And it simply highlights the pre-mediaeval level of these “scholars”‘ notion of morality & humanity in the eyes of the West.
What you don’t seem to realise is that the people of nations throughout the “free world” (quotes are mine) fought for centuries for their freedom & right to express their opinion. The countries that wish to impose arbitrary & barbaric legislation not just on their own citizens but on those of other countries clearly have not experienced the kind of momentous events that bring about this maturing of peoples & cultures. Yet.
The attitude of Islamic extremists and “scholars” such as the IUMS in the above case, is reminiscent to the West of the worst of their own history. It is the kind of attitude that motivated the Crusades (which I’m sure you are aware of) and innumerable other horrors committed on the basis of beliefs (and the arbitrary interpretation thereof) and reinforced with indoctrination and fear, and of course, laws.
Islamic Sharia scholars, and anyone else tempted to impose their dogma & the law of their own opinion over that of others, would do well to study the histories of Western nations & learn. They may be a long way from the Utopia of individual liberty, but they give themselves the option of growing & maturing further in that direction by allowing each his/her voice and criticism, without which this evolution would not be possible.
Well said.
Not gonna happen, you can hear the masses laughing already.
The masses will be happy once it is passed
Only in place like Saudi and Pakistan, and let’s be frank, no one cares what the masses there think about…well, anything really.
Let’s talk about the billions of Muslims. Don’t say they are just in Pakistan and saudi.
you do realise, you would have to let other religions freely and openly worship in Qatar. You would have to allow posters, books, music from other religions to freely and openly be displayed. Otherwise you could be at rIsk of insulting a religion.
I feel you are one of the people that when you say religions should be respected, you really mean MY religion should be respected.
I wondering how our friend Saeed will respond to the idea that Satanism and wiccanism are both recognized religions? That means that many clerics who rail against witchcraft will have to be imprisoned. It is probably for the best, but it will be a shock to many when the religious police come knocking at the door – would make a great reality TV show though.
Pakistan and Saudi’s blasphemy laws have given the world everything they need to learn about the wisdom of these laws. Shining examples of how not to organize and run a society.
I have supremely little interest in what billions of Muslims do in Muslim-majority countries,any more than I care about what Sikhs or Hindus do; it has no meaning in my life, until and unless they attempt to spread their system to my land unwanted. The only Muslim opinion that counts to me is that of my fellow countrymen. I am confident that most will laugh this silly idea right out of the door – as they should.
The latest estimate is about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That’s not “billions”. But you can say what you want, even if it’s wrong.
Which “billions” of Muslims? There are merely 1.6 billion. However, you have the right to say whatever you want, even if it’s nonsense.
The masses had better be happy, or the religious authorities will behead all of them who aren’t.
I think it’s fair to say we all speak as individuals on this forum – thus not very fair to say what the ‘masses’ would think.
And how are you expecting them to enforce it worldwide? In America we have something called the First Amendment which blocks the government from imposing this sort of censorship.
I’m with you. I’m going to start a religion called “Boozism.” Anyone can join. The tenets state that I can drink wherever I want, whenever I want, and however much I want. If a someone in Qatar dares to infringe on my right to this religion I’m going to go crying and tattle on him to my home country and have him extradited and punished to the fullest! (Please note the sarcasm, but how is this proposal referenced in the article not being laughed out of the place anyways?)
Define for me, if you will, religion and insult.
Would it be illegal to say “Religion is superstitious nonsense that humanity would be better off without” under this proposed legislation?
Of course, that is an atheistic statement and you could get prosecuted. Saudi only recently passed a law equated atheism with terrorism. Yes they really are that scared of free thinkers….
I think humanity needed religion, we are spiritual creatures
and since the man got out of the cave until nowadays it could have evolved
differently if it wasn’t such a great instrument to control masses. It gets
people closer, forms communities and has a great social impact if not directed
in the wrong way.
I’m not defending religions, but the spiritual needs of
people.
Perhaps humanity needed spirituality, not religion especially once Religion became bound up with politics and expansion.
That is fine, no one is saying don’t have faith or a religion just don’t expect special privileges and don’t force your beliefs on others.
spiritual need is much higher than religion.
And in fact, often I saw no spirituality in religious people
Religion is the way to express this spirituality, in our
limited human manner. Even the savages perform rituals and have gods. Don’t western societies fail a little bit here?
And maybe this spiritual need is just another need of ours,
unlike other animals we have to reconcile ourselves with the idea that we have
to die one day. So people perform this rituals to keep hoping that there is a purpose in all this.
Just a thought..I don’t know..
I agree with you that we need to reconcile ourselves with something spiritual higher than us….and it could be not necessarily religion. Or depending on our forma mentis we accept or not a way to express spirituality. Most people who stick so strongly to religions and their practices, often forget humanity. So busy with the big boy/girl/it up there to forget how to be humans on Mother Earth.
The more religious a society, the more patriarchal and ruthless
with heir believes. Maybe there is to find an answer. A lack of balance. Since by nature men are creatures that compete and seek power and women tend to cooperate. Look what ISIS did to yazidi women; do you imagine the
opposite happening?
But even so, I think humans are cruel creatures by nature.
This is pointless.
Besides it violates national sovereignty. Would such a law allow a Christian nation to prosecute Muslims in other nations for the insult of denying the divinity of Jesus (which is blasphemy in Christianity)? Or the Hindus in India prosecute the Saudis for not allowing Hindu Temples, surely another insult? How about Israel prosecuting all the posters on Doha News who deny Holocaust?
Best to let sovereign nations establish their own laws and prosecute the people in their own countries who violate them. If they don’t like the fact that the French can publish images they find insulting, don’t do business with France. Just as the French should not do business with Gulf countries they believe are violating French notions of human rights.
Contrarily, the UN needs to put age restrictions on the religious indoctrination of children. They also need to enact a global separation between church and state.
Please save the children. I overheard a conversation at school only last week, when one child told another the only good people are muslims are asking what religion she was. They were six. It is sickening what the parents were teaching, indoctrination of hatred.
That really must have been difficult to witness. Very sad. Someday, some global leader will have the courage to stand up and admit the only way to stop violence in the name of religion is to stop brainwashing children before they are even aware what religion is and that they have a choice.
Ha ha, are you kidding? Global leaders are spineless and cannot be counted on to do anything right, if it risks them losing money or power. I give you an example, set in NYC, the heart of the model nation of democracy and freedom. You may have read about how several babies have been infected with Herpes (some have died and some brain damaged) because of the ultraorthodox Jewish practice of rabbis orally sucking out the blood from a baby’s penis during circumcision. So why have the leaders not outright banned this practice? The current law is simply that parents should sign a consent form… but of course that is still pathetic and does not do anything to protect the children. I personally think that they can’t ban the practice because NYC is in the pockets of many rich and powerful Jewish people and organizations and nobody would want to offend their religious or cultural sensibilities.
I don’t disagree with you, but I am not kidding. I said, someday. When the violence continues to escalate, when they realize the violence cannot be quashed from within the religious community, they will have no choice. It will not be in my lifetime, but I feel it will happen.
I don’t think anybody will “realize” anything. Perhaps change will come but in a different way. As the older generations get replaced with the newer generations, new trends will come and people will simply think differently (just as science and technology changed the way people think) or there will be more urgent problems in the world to worry about (such as a dying earth). Then people might forget today’s fights, and invent new ones.
It’s quite disgusting that parents and religious leaders are allowed to poison young minds. It’s child abuse pure and simple and those kids have to live with the mental scars for the rest of their life.
Religion should have a minimum age like smoking and drinking. A health warning. When you are an adult you can choose whatever faith you like or no faith. There should be no compulsion in religion.
101% sick. Stupid parents inculcating big load of dung in children’s brains. SAD
That is very sad. Shame on those parents. Hate seems to be dominating these times and the media sure doesn’t help. Not just with religion, but race, nationality, wealth and status. It is one thing to celebrate and take pride in things, its another thing to use that as justification to hate and discriminate.
International Union of Muslim “Scholars” – Surely that’s an oxymoron? Scholars of what?
All these notions of “contempt”, “defamation”, “insult”, “denigration”, “offence”, etc. are subjective and undefinable (which is why they are easy to implement in Qatar & Saudi Arabia, where justice is arbitrary & very unequal, in favour of the incumbent powers). Assuming the rest of the world might be tempted to regress to that point, Al Qaradawi may as well throw a tantrum in his own bedroom. As it is, he is really setting himself up as a prime target for ridicule & satire, which are likely to find a greater audience than this very silly draft law proposal.
The UN should though pay attention to the ultimate intent: “…to allow states to prosecute offenders even if they were not resident in the country.” – Isn’t that exactly what ISIS & Coulibaly & the Kouachis have been doing? Not just a non-starter but a position that should incriminate those proposing the legislation.
I would like you to voice your opinions and say for example that you feel the holocaust did not go as they say it did.. Try in any european country and then, when they release you from jail 3 tears later, let’s continue this conversation.
Why would I want to say that?
Orwellian thought police. We should introduce a bill at the UN to make 1984 and Animal Farm required reading for all Muslims.
Perhaps its porcine content would make that unpalatable reading
Not eating pork it’s not only for Muslims. It’s also included in the Bible and other religions as well. Even vegetarians and people who are allergic also would not care about eating pork either.
This is an absurd proposition – we do not want any blasphemy laws or any laws to protect religion. Religion has to make its own rational case and face up to any criticism or shut up and not resort to laws or sword or AK47.
I say this to those who attack our freedom of expression, our freedom to think for ourselves. To those who think thye are doing God’s work, I say this, we will never be silenced. We will grow more vocal if you threaten with unjust laws and barbaric violence.
You will only grow vocal when it anti- islam you’re defending. In all other cases, two words will suffice to shut your entire double-standard drenched society down: anti-semite.
Not really, I don’t care if people are anti Semite and want to publish cartoons that offends the Jews. In fact I have seen plenty in the gulf, it’s a bit pathetic but I don’t get a few people together and murder the predominantly arab and muslim cartoonists.
Where people make the mistake is equating the holocaust to religious scripture. You can deny the holocaust but that does not make it not true, there is a wealth of evidence to support the event. However for religions they fail teh burden of proof test. It is not for me to probe God exists it is for the various religions to do so, but they fail. Anything that that makes claims based on no evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You must first decide if I’m allowed to have an opinion. If so, then it means that fact are irrelevant. I believe that the prophets have existed as their lives have been recorded in history. How they lived their lives is proof to me that they bring the message of truth. Wheter you believe it or not is irrelevant, there is plenty of information and documentation in history that proves them correct. You see how that goes in both directions? Secondly, what is violence? Is robbing soleone violence? Killing, attacking? I think we can agree it is. Being incarcerated because your ‘opinion’ is considered unlawfull per definition means there’s no free speech. What you think is irrelevant because it is law. Is this law violent ? I think it is… Just like we came to the conclusion that murder and robbery are considered violence; so is robbing someone of his freedom becaus of hus opinion or murdering his free speech. So until that law is annihilated, we shouldn’t even be duscussing free speech as it is a non-existant concept in its true form.
That’s all well and good and the Qatari’s, and other ME nations will all be behind it until the talk turns to Jews and they have to break the law. Has to go both ways.
Muslims, and non-believing educated people alike, are against Zionism, not jews. Do lake that distinction as a big part of the original ‘chosen’ people are against the state of israel.
I’m not talking about Israel, just Jews in general. Considering they had large populations in most ME countries and were forced from their homelands… A bit hypocritical isn’t it to deride zionism while supporting measures that forced them from their original homelands in the first place?
Then we should take a deep-dive in history as jews over the course of history have escaped to muslim lands to escape extinction. Jews and muslims are friends. Up to today they are living all over the arab world in peace, more so in countries like morocco or even Iran. But take a good look at andalucia – as soon as the muslims settled in the south , they moved there. Maimonides and the likes flourished under islamic societies. As soon as they lost control of the region they were once again persecuted by the spanjards. It’s not the history you’ll get in school, but then again, that’s exactly the point.
The very few left in Arab lands you mean? LOL
Muslim countries have the worst record of oppressing all religions. It would hurt them the most. muslim countries would have to allow equal rights to Jews Christians and the 4200 religious and belief systems. They could no longer censor books or churches or valentines day. Would have to allow open worship otherwise other religions would use this law against them.
Funny that the Jewish golden age coincided under an Islamic rule.
You will have a stretch to prove causation, but it will be interesting to see the hypothesis you come up with.
Er? When was this? I would assume having their own homeland in Israel would have been considered their golden age not when the Jewish tribes were slaughterd by Mohd and then over the next few centuries ethnically cleansed from Arabia
I have to agree with ME nations taking action to protect their religion which is part of heritage, and if they don’t, Western Christian will make inroads, converts, espionage, bombs and separate states.
Secondly, Arabs already have experience with what West did in Palestine and they do not want future expansion into rest of Arab land. Therefore, ME or Muslim nations have right to destroy any potential bacteria on which spies under name “NGOs” can grow. human rights is major component of NGO.
In the case of rights, ME nations can address human rights by themselves and others need not worry since they do not worry about human rights of children, women and men of Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
The law is not about protecting muslims and the middle east, it says all religions and therefore beliefs must not be ridiculed. This means it is illegal to stop atheists, (which is a recognised belief) jews and the church of Ratana setting up on your street here in Doha? So therefor it supports all religions coming freely to the middle east. It gives them the legal and protected right to be in the middle east and muslim country’s. That is my point, this law will make all muslim countries join the rest of the world and not discriminate other religions.
Above you called other religions “bacteria” i can take offence to that call the police and you would go to jail for insulting religions.
Sorry have to correct you, atheism is not a belief. It’s like saying not going skiing is a hobby and I love not going skiiing all the time….
However all views on belief should be respected even though many religions are diametrically opposed to each other
You are joking.
I doubt western christainity will make inroads. The west is becoming less religious not more and even if someone wanted to convert to christainity then so what. That is their choice. If you mean defend Arab and Muslim values by attacking others that disagree with you or killing of apostates then you should look closer to home for the problem.
I look forward to Arab and Muslims nations addressing human rights as so far their progress has been poor
The only democracy in the ME, so called israel, is killing innocent women and hundreds of chilren on a daily basis. If this is democracy, i can understand the ME is resisting it. Even in europe you’re seeing the cracks – greece, spain, italy, portugal, ireland, belgium.
omg mimh spam
Haha
I feel sad and offended. Can I call the police to have you prosecuted….;)
Did I offend mimism
Yes, anyone who disagrees with what I say offends MIMHism as my opinions were directly handed down to me by God.
Ah
I still have the right to call you an idiot.
Sorry no. I will be the final prophet so an insult against me is an insult against God as his preferred messager. Draw a picture of me and I will send people to have you killed.
The other major problem which such a law is it stifles academic research. Say you discover something about a religion which invalidates previously held beliefs. This could be deemed insulting and the law used against you, despite you having evidence to back your claim whereas the opposition have none.
How could any sane society let this happen.
Not a valid point. People keep making the same mistake of making criticism equal to offending.
Of course it is. Say you discover something that invalidates one of the core beliefs of a religion. Some will say this is offensive to them because you are suggesting or have even proven that the word of their God is not true. For example, the Koran is believed by muslims to be the perfect word of God and has never been altered since first written down. Now if something in the Koran is proved to be untrue then that undermines the whole doctrine of Islamic faith. Evolution proves that the story of Adam and Eve is untrue and is just a story, if this part of it is incorrect it casts doubt on the rest. To some this is offensive. To others that is just the truth.
This is bad. A speaker at the Doha Conferences recently said “Blasphemy laws do not protect religions. They persecute religions.” If Qatar ever hopes to join the modern world it has to steer clear of extremist laws.
Seeing what this modern world looks like, i hope qatar never joins it. I hope they continue the sound development plan they have now and come to a society where people avoid interest, respect each other, feel free and secure and thrive in an honest way.
Would this mean that all faiths could openly practice and celebrate unhindered and without fear, in Muslim countries? Apart from that complex issue, this would be the thin end of the wedge, before speaking out against anyone deemed powerful and influential would be made illegal. Mocking a religious figure from any of the Faiths surely does not harm that faith, in fact may strengthen said faith for some. I don’t really believe that the demand seriously includes not denigrating Judaism or Christianity or accepting that some people don’t adhere to any. Freedom of speech is not something to be put aside
Muslims in generel never denigrate any other religion. They consider every living human being as a potential future muslim, a son of Adam as. All the prophets are beloved to them as they were sent by the one Creator. So they are unable to offend against Jesus as or Moses as, as they are considered among the most important prophets whom all brought the same message: worship god alone with no associates. You can imagine that with this in mind, and which truly makes sense, there little to no gap to insert any kind of offensive speech.
Absurd demands and even absurder that they don’t think they are absurd.
Would saying “OMG!..” still be ok?
One thing I’ve never understood about religious laws. Surely you should just let God decide if you’re a good or bad person and what your fate should be?
when you can not persuade others to accept your views,use the power of law and authority to force them to accept!
This law would be a horrible idea. Rather than allowing freedom of speech, all speech would be subject to criminal charges if even mentioning something about someone else’s religion. Everyone would have to live in fear of possibly offending each other. Bunch of pansies that we have turned into. Truthfully if someone even mentioning something against your belief is enough to offend you, then you don’t have conviction in your belief an you might want to consider something more plausible.
If someone told you the world was flat, would you get mad? (yes there are people out there) I would be up for a debate, but in the end, we have the freedom to agree to disagree on be on our way. With this law you couldn’t even argue for fear of insulting the beliefs of flat-landers. <— That sounds silly but it's just silly as all religions sound when compared to your own. FREE SPEECH ! No censorship !
If you can’t distinguish between offending and free speech, you shouldn’t be engaging in it by definition.
I wonder why all those Muslims in Europe go to Europe if they don’t like it…..they could honestly just leave….they complaint and feel offended so much, that they are allowed to protest, which is what democracy implies!
Not all Muslims in Europe are immigrants. There are also European Muslims.
sure, they are called coverts because Europe has no Muslim root or history apart from Al Andalus in Spain. I am scared of converts of all reluigions. Ypu should see how extremists are those who converted from Islam to Christianity in my country….scary!!!!
Democracy allows for freedom of religion; a notion that has no meaning anymore and which targets one group of people soecifically. A person who believes that europes is being governed by democracy needs a lesson in history and must have been asleep the past 2 decades. Our laws and regulations are being governed by corporations who have the means to wield power to create self-serving tax-regulations and exemption from control and any form of scrutiny.
The answer I think is somewhere in the middle. People should be able to address all situation with no taboos, even when it comes to religious matters, including the prophet (pbuh). Allowing people to discuss topics, also means allowing themselves to be convinced of the truth… Whatever that truth might be. The problem arises when you actively and willingly set out to offend people. This is not conducive to dialogue, this does not make people understand each other. All it does is marginalise a group of people and cause blind hatred which will never produce a happy, peacefull society.
These boys nail it again
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/01/28/pass/
How can you criminalise religious insults when one religiou books insists another?