Malaysian jailed for 10 years for "insulting Islam"

[Erythrean Thebes]

I don't believe we have to tolerate insults - criticism is legitimate as part of dialogue and to police society, but again, in making social critique the distinction between proposing an argument and expounding a personal disgust is often considered in law to be the distinction between performing a social function and merely attacking other people. Why would either society or an individual have to tolerate blatantly opinionated attacks?

This sort of rosy-tinted Western perspective doesn't really make sense when you consider that people who create and enforce the laws believe that Islam is an infallible religion and therefore criticizing it is tantamount to insulting it because the criticisms are false by default.

You can fantasize your own ideal libel laws in philosopher-king land, that doesn't apply for Malaysia or any other Muslim country.

I know that the standards which they used to judge the comment may easily be unfair, but it doesn't have anything to do with the content of the comment itself and whether or not it was in its content either principled and substantive on one hand or vitriolic and opinionated on the other

[Astoriya]

I expected that question - that is not mainstream Islam, it is actually extreme Islam, so, with all due respect, please get your facts straight.

EDIT: inb4 someone says "OK, so show me a nation that's primarily Islamic, and isn't some Xth century hellhole"
cf. Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, the Maldives, Brunei, Malaysia in general, etck, etck

... Mainstream Islam is defined by by the population of its adherents. The majority of a religion's adherents are extremist? That extreme becomes the mainstream. If literally every Muslim country from Mauritania to Pakistan supports brutal execution of someone for insulting Muhammad, that is the mainstream view on blasphemy in Islam. That is literally how it works lmao.

I already explained this in an earlier post - only a small, vocal minority actually support what you purport to be most of us

[Internationalist Bastard]

This sort of rosy-tinted Western perspective doesn't really make sense when you consider that people who create and enforce the laws believe that Islam is an infallible religion and therefore criticizing it is tantamount to insulting it because the criticisms are false by default.

You can fantasize your own ideal libel laws in philosopher-king land, that doesn't apply for Malaysia or any other Muslim country.

I know that the standards which they used to judge the comment may easily be unfair, but it doesn't have anything to do with the content of the comment itself and whether or not it was in its content either principled and substantive on one hand or vitriolic and opinionated on the other

Let’s just not arrest people for opinions until they actually start yelling to start violence

[Neutraligon]

And why would it matter either way?

I don't believe we have to tolerate insults - criticism is legitimate as part of dialogue and to police society, but again, in making social critique the distinction between proposing an argument and expounding a personal disgust is often considered in law to be the distinction between performing a social function and merely attacking other people. Why would either society or an individual have to tolerate blatantly opinionated attacks?

You think people should be jailed simply for insults? Why shouldn't society tolerate opinionated attacks so long as they are simply verbal?

[Darussalam]

... Mainstream Islam is defined by by the population of its adherents. The majority of a religion's adherents are extremist? That extreme becomes the mainstream. If literally every Muslim country from Mauritania to Pakistan supports brutal execution of someone for insulting Muhammad, that is the mainstream view on blasphemy in Islam. That is literally how it works lmao.

I already explained this in an earlier post - only a small, vocal minority actually support what you purport to be most of us

So is this your belief that only a small minority supports death penalty for apostates and punishment for blasphemers?

[North German Realm]

... Mainstream Islam is defined by by the population of its adherents. The majority of a religion's adherents are extremist? That extreme becomes the mainstream. If literally every Muslim country from Mauritania to Pakistan supports brutal execution of someone for insulting Muhammad, that is the mainstream view on blasphemy in Islam. That is literally how it works lmao.

I already explained this in an earlier post - only a small, vocal minority actually support what you purport to be most of us

All evidence proves that you are wrong. It's not a "small vocal minority". It's a very large vocal majority. You're the small silent minority that, since you're silent, can assume everyone else thinks like you. (Saying as a person who's lived in approximately 7 of these countries)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

... Mainstream Islam is defined by by the population of its adherents. The majority of a religion's adherents are extremist? That extreme becomes the mainstream. If literally every Muslim country from Mauritania to Pakistan supports brutal execution of someone for insulting Muhammad, that is the mainstream view on blasphemy in Islam. That is literally how it works lmao.

I already explained this in an earlier post - only a small, vocal minority actually support what you purport to be most of us

Assalaamu 'Alaikum

[Astoriya]

I already explained this in an earlier post - only a small, vocal minority actually support what you purport to be most of us

So is this your belief that only a small minority supports death penalty for apostates and punishment for blasphemers?

It's the truth, like it or not
And you might say "then explain the photos of people shouting "death to those that XYZ" - again, still a vocal minority

[Gormwood]

Virtue signalling.

Or maybe someone actually living in a Muslim country who knows what they're talking about, as opposed to people who pontificate about Western guilt and whitewashing Islam in a topic that if addresses Christianity instead would have gathered anti-religious vitriol.

Whataboutism.

[Darussalam]

So is this your belief that only a small minority supports death penalty for apostates and punishment for blasphemers?

It's the truth, like it or not
And you might say "then explain the photos of people shouting "death to those that XYZ" - again, still a vocal minority

[North German Realm]

It's the truth, like it or not
And you might say "then explain the photos of people shouting "death to those that XYZ" - again, still a vocal minority

(TBH, the follow up to this should be "how many people support upholding Sharia as state law in these countries?")

[Darussalam]

Or maybe someone actually living in a Muslim country who knows what they're talking about, as opposed to people who pontificate about Western guilt and whitewashing Islam in a topic that if addresses Christianity instead would have gathered anti-religious vitriol.

Whataboutism.

Talking about Islam in context of a law derived from Islamic faith adhered by the majority of the population in the country where the law exists is apparently whataboutism, while "What about the New Zealand shooting?!" isn't.

[Handecanistan]

I don't believe we have to tolerate insults - criticism is legitimate as part of dialogue and to police society, but again, in making social critique the distinction between proposing an argument and expounding a personal disgust is often considered in law to be the distinction between performing a social function and merely attacking other people. Why would either society or an individual have to tolerate blatantly opinionated attacks?

This sort of rosy-tinted Western perspective doesn't really make sense when you consider that people who create and enforce the laws believe that Islam is an infallible religion and therefore criticizing it is tantamount to insulting it because the criticisms are false by default.

You can fantasize your own ideal libel laws in philosopher-king land, that doesn't apply for Malaysia or any other Muslim country.

I wouldn't call it rosy tinted western logic to demand that people shouldn't have to listen to random insults, everyone deals with insults all of the time, you can simply ignore it without tracking the insulted and putting them in prison.

In fact I would say the West are pretty good at handling insults and criticism, though that's somewhat changing in the UK, especially Scotland (Nazi pug). We've mainly removed most blasphemy laws and are very defensive about freedom of speech, especially compared to other, more authoritarian parts of the world. Atm the West has a problem with overly sensitive "progressive liberals" that are more interested in regressive methods than ones that actually help. Not that conservatives are innocent either, imagine censoring fiction stories because you believe they are satanic and in support of witchcraft...

[Darussalam]

(TBH, the follow up to this should be "how many people support upholding Sharia as state law in these countries?")

Forgot about that one.

[Erythrean Thebes]

I don't believe we have to tolerate insults - criticism is legitimate as part of dialogue and to police society, but again, in making social critique the distinction between proposing an argument and expounding a personal disgust is often considered in law to be the distinction between performing a social function and merely attacking other people. Why would either society or an individual have to tolerate blatantly opinionated attacks?

You think people should be jailed simply for insults? Why shouldn't society tolerate opinionated attacks so long as they are simply verbal?

It's not that I think they should be jailed, in those instances. Prison may be necessary for demonstrably violent criminals, however I think regarding something like this (denigrating another person or thing) the community should confront the person and tell them: what do we do to you such that you won't give us your respect? Furthermore, the community should ask: what are we supposed to do about the fact that you have no respect for us? This approach highlights the actual dilemma for the society and hopefully compels a solution.

In general I think, notwithstanding the amount or the standards of incarcerating some people, justice and crime management - at least in America - lack for this type of conflict resolution that could put the confrontation between 'criminals' and society in a place where the real issue for practical purposes has to be acknowledged and addressed.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://islamic-study.org/is-blasphemy- ... -in-islam/
https://www.islamicity.org/4274/is-blas ... -in-islam/
http://www.al-mawrid.org/index.php/arti ... rophet-sws
^This is what I could find on blasphemy in Al-Islam.

[Darussalam]

This sort of rosy-tinted Western perspective doesn't really make sense when you consider that people who create and enforce the laws believe that Islam is an infallible religion and therefore criticizing it is tantamount to insulting it because the criticisms are false by default.

You can fantasize your own ideal libel laws in philosopher-king land, that doesn't apply for Malaysia or any other Muslim country.

I wouldn't call it rosy tinted western logic to demand that people shouldn't have to listen to random insults, everyone deals with insults all of the time, you can simply ignore it without tracking the insulted and putting them in prison.

In fact I would say the West are pretty good at handling insults and criticism, though that's somewhat changing in the UK, especially Scotland (Nazi pug). We've mainly removed most blasphemy laws and are very defensive about freedom of speech, especially compared to other, more authoritarian parts of the world. Atm the West has a problem with overly sensitive "progressive liberals" that are more interested in regressive methods than ones that actually help. Not that conservatives are innocent either, imagine censoring fiction stories because you believe they are satanic and in support of witchcraft...

The delusion is putting that logic in the context of the law that is certainly made at the behest of the majority and would be enforced accordingly to their spirit.

No Malay cares about preachers damning the Jews, the Christians, or the Chinese from the pulpits. No Malay gives a damn about insulting religions not theirs. This isn't about respecting communities. The point of the blasphemy law is signaling who's boss.

[Internationalist Bastard]

You think people should be jailed simply for insults? Why shouldn't society tolerate opinionated attacks so long as they are simply verbal?

It's not that I think they should be jailed, in those instances. Prison may be necessary for demonstrably violent criminals, however I think regarding something like this (denigrating another person or thing) the community should confront the person and tell them: what do we do to you such that you won't give us your respect? Furthermore, the community should ask: what are we supposed to do about the fact that you have no respect for us? This approach highlights the actual dilemma for the society and hopefully compels a solution.

In general I think, notwithstanding the amount or the standards of incarcerating some people, justice and crime management - at least in America - lack for this type of conflict resolution that could put the confrontation between 'criminals' and society in a place where the real issue for practical purposes has to be acknowledged and addressed.

Or
Hear me out
Just let people insult you

[El-Amin Caliphate]

(TBH, the follow up to this should be "how many people support upholding Sharia as state law in these countries?")

Forgot about that one.

AlHamdulillah

[Gormwood]

Whataboutism.

Talking about Islam in context of a law derived from Islamic faith adhered by the majority of the population in the country where the law exists is apparently whataboutism, while "What about the New Zealand shooting?!" isn't.

No. The reference to New Zealand is about how some posters are taking a thread on the legitimate topic of blasphemy laws and making it their soapbox to screed about how Islam and Muslims are backwards and oppressive if not evil. And a post or few expressing a desire to stamp out Islam by any means.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Everyone is yelling about Islam and I’m just against blasphemy laws

[Darussalam]

Talking about Islam in context of a law derived from Islamic faith adhered by the majority of the population in the country where the law exists is apparently whataboutism, while "What about the New Zealand shooting?!" isn't.

No. The reference to New Zealand is about how some posters are taking a thread on the legitimate topic of blasphemy laws and making it their soapbox to screed about how Islam and Muslims are backwards and oppressive if not evil. And a post or few expressing a desire to stamp out Islam by any means.

Muh centrism is obviously fake. If someone in the West got jailed for mocking Jesus as a swine and someone made a NSG thread about it there would be a massive influx of Boomer memes about Christianity, how Abrahamics ruin everything, and man if only the world has no religion. Nobody will go around "But how about muh Christians killed in Nigeria?"

I don't think Islam or Muslims are evil. I am not a progressive, however, and any good progressive should easily recognize that Islam is evil in their value system. I do think it's very bothersome, though.

[Darussalam]

Everyone is yelling about Islam and I’m just against blasphemy laws

It's disingeneous to talk like they're not really related.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Everyone is yelling about Islam and I’m just against blasphemy laws

It's disingeneous to talk like they're not really related.

According to what I've found they might not be.

[Erythrean Thebes]

It's not that I think they should be jailed, in those instances. Prison may be necessary for demonstrably violent criminals, however I think regarding something like this (denigrating another person or thing) the community should confront the person and tell them: what do we do to you such that you won't give us your respect? Furthermore, the community should ask: what are we supposed to do about the fact that you have no respect for us? This approach highlights the actual dilemma for the society and hopefully compels a solution.

In general I think, notwithstanding the amount or the standards of incarcerating some people, justice and crime management - at least in America - lack for this type of conflict resolution that could put the confrontation between 'criminals' and society in a place where the real issue for practical purposes has to be acknowledged and addressed.

Or
Hear me out
Just let people insult you

And you know what, a lot of the time that's probably the right move - albeit, Bastard, that, if you're a healthy individual, you won't really like it or anything, but yes I suppose in the example of the guy shouting to you out the window or snorting at you in the bar, it's the better move in every way to just ignore it.

But really, outside of your friends or on the internet or something, insults are an expression of the person's respect for you as a human being - I think we know that when someone actually insults you (purposely), there's malice involved. Plenty of people who will shoot an insult at you in life do not mean it as a one-off.