Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[The Feylands]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

What happens if the prophet is insulted? Does he get mad or hurt or something, where he is now?

Frankieman is not even a Catholic imho.. -.- not that I should have a say about that anymore ofc...

(with that said - insults for the sake of insult are arguably never very constructive and spreads negative energies.. not a fan of the "butbutbut muh freedom of speech" thing me either...)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

What happens if the prophet is insulted? Does he get mad or hurt or something, where he is now?

Are you asking an honest question?

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

It would not be wrong, however, to state that Muhammad is a heretic in the Christian worldview for altering the lives of the prophets and of Christ.

A heretic has to be a Chtistian, which Muhammed was not, he was never baptized.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

What happens if the prophet is insulted? Does he get mad or hurt or something, where he is now?

Frankieman is not even a Catholic imho.. -.- not that I should have a say about that anymore ofc...

(with that said - insults for the sake of insult are arguably never very constructive and spreads negative energies.. not a fan of the "butbutbut muh freedom of speech" thing me either...)

Why do you authoritarians hate freedom of speech? Your oppressive bullshit gets annoying. “Freedom of speech, lol. Who cares?”

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

What happens if the prophet is insulted? Does he get mad or hurt or something, where he is now?

Frankieman is not even a Catholic imho.. -.- not that I should have a say about that anymore ofc...

(with that said - insults for the sake of insult are arguably never very constructive and spreads negative energies.. not a fan of the "butbutbut muh freedom of speech" thing me either...)

Insulting the Prophet should not be legal, not only does the Pope say this, but many western countries already agree. You can disagree with Islam without being insulting.

[Baltenstein]

Well, better no more complaints on your part in regards to right-wing policies at the expense of Muslim citizens and/or Muslim immigrants from you, m'kay?
One gets to protest about being treated unfairly by the system if he/she actually intends to go by the system's rules. Pretty sure that's a principle in Islam too.

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

I wasn't talking about criticizing Islam or "insulting the Prophet" (which by the way, is perfectly legal in Western countries. The Pope is no legal authority). I was talking about stuff like full citizen rights (including the right to practice your religion), legal protection from being mistreated by others/the state, granting asylum, benefit support and the like.
Those are things a liberal democracy will provide to people who are actually intending to stick to its rules (said rules include not implementing theocratic BS on said democracy's soil). Those people who willingly and deliberately violate its rules, it has every right and every duty to protect itself against.
If you are fine with this, fair enough.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What happens if the prophet is insulted? Does he get mad or hurt or something, where he is now?

Frankieman is not even a Catholic imho.. -.- not that I should have a say about that anymore ofc...

(with that said - insults for the sake of insult are arguably never very constructive and spreads negative energies.. not a fan of the "butbutbut muh freedom of speech" thing me either...)

Insulting the Prophet should not be legal, not only does the Pope say this, but many western countries already agree. You can disagree with Islam without being insulting.

Idk about that. Don't get me wrong, I get slightly irritated by insults to Habeebullah SAWS as well, but what you're agreeing with isn't a good idea. What should be happening is getting people to show respect for one another, and I don't think that'll happen with laws.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

I wasn't talking about criticizing Islam or "insulting the Prophet" (which by the way, is perfectly legal in Western countries. The Pope is no legal authority). I was talking about stuff like full citizen rights (including the right to practice your religion), legal protection from being mistreated by others/the state, granting asylum, benefit support and the like.
Those are things a liberal democracy will provide to people who are actually intending to stick to its rules (said rules include not implementing theocratic BS on said democracy's soil). Those people who willingly and deliberately violate its rules, it has every right and every duty to protect itself against.
If you are fine with this, fair enough.

I still don't know what you meant by that post.

[Baltenstein]

I wasn't talking about criticizing Islam or "insulting the Prophet" (which by the way, is perfectly legal in Western countries. The Pope is no legal authority). I was talking about stuff like full citizen rights (including the right to practice your religion), legal protection from being mistreated by others/the state, granting asylum, benefit support and the like.
Those are things a liberal democracy will provide to people who are actually intending to stick to its rules (said rules include not implementing theocratic BS on said democracy's soil). Those people who willingly and deliberately violate its rules, it has every right and every duty to protect itself against.
If you are fine with this, fair enough.

I still don't know what you meant by that post.

Which part exactly do you not understand?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Speaking of the Pope, at least he has good ideas and intentions unlike our president.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

They are to criticize Islam provided they do not insult the Prophet. Even the Pope says that is wrong.

I wasn't talking about criticizing Islam or "insulting the Prophet" (which by the way, is perfectly legal in Western countries. The Pope is no legal authority). I was talking about stuff like full citizen rights (including the right to practice your religion), legal protection from being mistreated by others/the state, granting asylum, benefit support and the like.
Those are things a liberal democracy will provide to people who are actually intending to stick to its rules (said rules include not implementing theocratic BS on said democracy's soil). Those people who willingly and deliberately violate its rules, it has every right and every duty to protect itself against.
If you are fine with this, fair enough.

If you started persecuting Muslims, that would be grounds for jihad. Muslims do not want to interfere with your faith

[Northern Davincia]

It would not be wrong, however, to state that Muhammad is a heretic in the Christian worldview for altering the lives of the prophets and of Christ.

Actually it would be. He barely knew anything about Christianty to begin with. Heresy usually have some basis in the religion they come from.

He clearly knew enough to deny the crucifixion and give both Mary and Jesus (who is still the Messiah) strong prominence in Islam, while also acknowledging the disciples. Dante and many medieval scholars considered him as a schismatic.
Heresy, while not the correct word, comes close to describing the deviation of Muhammad's beliefs from the other two Abrahamic faiths.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Insulting the Prophet should not be legal, not only does the Pope say this, but many western countries already agree. You can disagree with Islam without being insulting.

Idk about that. Don't get me wrong, I get slightly irritated by insults to Habeebullah SAWS as well, but what you're agreeing with isn't a good idea. What should be happening is getting people to show respect for one another, and I don't think that'll happen with laws.

Muhammed, peace be upon him, tolerated disagreement but he did not believe in any right to insult him, neither did any other man at that time.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I still don't know what you meant by that post.

Which part exactly do you not understand?

Well, better no more complaints on your part in regards to right-wing policies at the expense of Muslim citizens and/or Muslim immigrants from you, m'kay?

This. I don't understand how being an Islamist mean I can't speak out against injustice, especially against injustice against my brothers and sisters.

One gets to protest about being treated unfairly by the system if he/she actually intends to go by the system's rules

Idk what this means.

[Baltenstein]

I wasn't talking about criticizing Islam or "insulting the Prophet" (which by the way, is perfectly legal in Western countries. The Pope is no legal authority). I was talking about stuff like full citizen rights (including the right to practice your religion), legal protection from being mistreated by others/the state, granting asylum, benefit support and the like.
Those are things a liberal democracy will provide to people who are actually intending to stick to its rules (said rules include not implementing theocratic BS on said democracy's soil). Those people who willingly and deliberately violate its rules, it has every right and every duty to protect itself against.
If you are fine with this, fair enough.

If you started persecuting Muslims, that would be grounds for jihad. Muslims do not want to interfere with your faith

That does not adress what I said, at all. Unless by "persecuting Muslims" you mean the state taking punitive/protective measures against those who willingly and intentionally break its laws, in which case, you have a rather lousy definition of "persecution".

[Northern Davincia]

Speaking of the Pope, at least he has good ideas and intentions unlike our president.

Trump has an inkling of a good idea once in a blue moon, he just never acts on it fully.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Actually it would be. He barely knew anything about Christianty to begin with. Heresy usually have some basis in the religion they come from.

He clearly knew enough to deny the crucifixion and give both Mary and Jesus (who is still the Messiah) strong prominence in Islam, while also acknowledging the disciples. Dante and many medieval scholars considered him as a schismatic.
Heresy, while not the correct word, comes close to describing the deviation of Muhammad's beliefs from the other two Abrahamic faiths.

I doubt Dante was familiar with the details of Islam, he probably only knew Muslims as exotic Christians who would not accept the Pope

[Northern Davincia]

He clearly knew enough to deny the crucifixion and give both Mary and Jesus (who is still the Messiah) strong prominence in Islam, while also acknowledging the disciples. Dante and many medieval scholars considered him as a schismatic.
Heresy, while not the correct word, comes close to describing the deviation of Muhammad's beliefs from the other two Abrahamic faiths.

I doubt Dante was familiar with the details of Islam, he probably only knew Muslims as exotic Christians who would not accept the Pope

Considering how Islamic armies invaded eastern Christian lands, this is not entirely absurd.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

If you started persecuting Muslims, that would be grounds for jihad. Muslims do not want to interfere with your faith

That does not adress what I said, at all. Unless by "persecuting Muslims" you mean the state taking punitive/protective measures against those who willingly and intentionally break its laws, in which case, you have a rather lousy definition of "persecution".

No one here has advocated anything criminal.

[Baltenstein]

This. I don't understand how being an Islamist mean I can't speak out against injustice, especially against injustice against my brothers and sisters.

It's not "injustice", in any sense of the word, to protect yourself and your society against those who are openly stating their intent to break its rules and replace them with thei own.

That's like some construction company announcing that it wants to turn Mecca into a holiday resort, and then complainting about "injustice" when Muslims are not letting them have their way.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Speaking of the Pope, at least he has good ideas and intentions unlike our president.

Trump has an inkling of a good idea once in a blue moon, he just never acts on it fully.

He’s talked about a few good things, but rarely does anything for good or bad. I think his administration passed some law on preventing plastic pollution so I can’t say all of the very few things he’s ever done are bad.

[Baltenstein]

That does not adress what I said, at all. Unless by "persecuting Muslims" you mean the state taking punitive/protective measures against those who willingly and intentionally break its laws, in which case, you have a rather lousy definition of "persecution".

No one here has advocated anything criminal.

If you put into practice, what you and El-Amin are advocating here - openly rejecting the state's laws in favor of your own theocratic ones - you would make yourself a criminal.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

This. I don't understand how being an Islamist mean I can't speak out against injustice, especially against injustice against my brothers and sisters.

It's not "injustice", in any sense of the word, to protect yourself and your society against those who are openly stating their intent to break its rules and replace them with thei own.

That's like some construction company announcing that it wants to turn Mecca into a holiday resort, and then complainting about "injustice" when Muslims are not letting them have their way.

No one said anything abput breaking rules, just changing them. And shari'ah is for Muslims, not imposed on unbelievers.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

No one here has advocated anything criminal.

If you put into practice, what you and El-Amin are advocating here - openly rejecting the state's laws in favor of your own theocratic ones - you would make yourself a criminal.

That’s not how US law works.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This. I don't understand how being an Islamist mean I can't speak out against injustice, especially against injustice against my brothers and sisters.

It's not "injustice", in any sense of the word, to protect yourself and your society against those who are openly stating their intent to break its rules and replace them with thei own.

That's like some construction company announcing that it wants to turn Mecca into a holiday resort, and then complainting about "injustice" when Muslims are not letting them have their way.

I was talking about stuff like what China's doing or worse. Also I'd consider France banning niqaabs and Austria banning distribution of the Holy Qur'an to be (light) persecution. Either Denmark or the Netherlands (can't remember which) were thinking about take young children from Muslim families and doing what would pretty much be indoctrination into them so they wouldn't be Muslim. If this isn't persecution I don't know what is.