Equality of Basic Human Rights

Islamic preachers often argue that:

• Insulting the Prophet or Islam should be punishable by death, as it deeply hurts the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.

However, this argument is fundamentally flawed because:

1. All humans are equal: The Prophet of Islam does not hold extra human rights compared to other individuals, regardless of their beliefs or numbers.
2. Numbers do not justify special privileges: The claim that the large number of Muslims justifies granting them additional rights undermines the core principle of justice, which requires equal treatment for all individuals and groups, no matter their size.

Punishment for "Oral Insults" Cannot Be Physical 

If 1.5 billion Muslims feel hurt by oral insults directed at their Prophet, secular Western laws already provide a fair remedy: they allow Muslims to respond verbally. Muslims are free to criticize or verbally retaliate against the person responsible. If verbal insults are effective, then the combined words of 1.5 billion Muslims should suffice to emotionally impact the offending individual.

However, unlike Islamic law, which prescribes severe physical punishment for blasphemy, Western laws uphold a critical distinction:

• Verbal conflict is resolved verbally: If someone insults or curses you, you may verbally respond in kind.
• Physical harm is prohibited: Western laws strictly forbid escalating verbal disputes into physical violence, ensuring that freedom of speech does not lead to bodily harm or injustice.

Justice and equality require that everyone, regardless of religion or ideology, be treated fairly under the law. Allowing physical punishment for mere verbal offenses violates the principle of proportionality and undermines the foundation of human rights. True equality is achieved when no individual or group is granted privileges based on their beliefs or numbers, and verbal disputes are resolved without resorting to violence.

Where there is a Right to PREACH, there is also a Right to CRITICIZE

Preaching and criticism are inseparable aspects of free expression. The right to preach one’s religion or ideology inherently includes the equal right for others to challenge or criticize those beliefs.

Western secular laws embody this balance, ensuring the freedom to preach under the right to Freedom of Religion while simultaneously protecting the right to criticize any religion or ideology under Freedom of Expression.

It is therefore unreasonable for any group—be it Islamists or others—to claim an exclusive right to preach their beliefs while attempting to suppress criticism of their religion. Unfortunately, in many Islamic countries, Muslims are permitted to preach to non-Muslims, yet non-Muslims are prohibited from criticizing Islam.

Free expression thrives on the coexistence of preaching and criticism, both of which are essential to fostering open dialogue and intellectual exchange.

Where there is Right to PRAISE, there is also a Right to MOCK/Insult

Muslims hold Muhammad in the highest regard, viewing him as the best of mankind. They have every right to praise him as much as they wish, and no non-Muslim has the right to stop them from doing so.

However, non-Muslims often see Muhammad differently. They may consider him a false prophet who made questionable claims about his prophethood and revelations, with some attributing significant harm and loss of life to his actions. For many non-Muslims, the praise of Muhammad can evoke strong emotional responses and feelings of hurt.

Despite this, Western secular systems uphold the right of Muslims to freely praise Muhammad under Freedom of Expression. By the same token, these systems also protect the right of non-Muslims to express their views, even if that includes mocking Muhammad or blaspheming Islam. Freedom of Expression means that Muslims must accept this reciprocal right and move on.

In a free society, the ability to both praise and insult is fundamental to open debate and discussion. These rights coexist:

• The Right to Preach = The Right to Criticize
• The Right to Praise = The Right to MOCK

It is important to note that there is no clear boundary between criticism and mocking/insulting. Blasphemy laws, which criminalize insults, create a climate of fear where even valid criticism can be labeled as insult, leading to the unjust punishment of individuals. To ensure the freedom to critique, it is essential that blasphemy laws do not exist.

Thus secularism.org.uk makes this point clear in these words (link):

Allowing people to criticise, critique and mock religion has been fundamental to human progress. If people can laugh at a religious figure, (only then) they can challenge or disbelieve them ...

In short, true freedom of expression requires the acceptance of both praise and insult as integral aspects of discourse.

Human Nature:

It is a natural part of human behavior for people to become angry during discussions and debates, especially when opinions differ strongly. In such moments, harsh words and personal attacks often emerge as expressions of frustration. This understanding of human nature underpins much of Western law, which accepts emotional outbursts as part of free expression.

Even the writer of the Quran—whom non-Muslims believe to be Muhammad himself—demonstrated this aspect of human nature. When his opponents rejected his claims to prophethood, he reacted with anger, expressing frustration through curses and insults. Several passages in the Quran equate his opponents to animals such as donkeys, dogs, and pigs, label them "the worst of creatures," and use terms like "bastard" (زنیم in Arabic), "Impure", "Worst of Creatures",  "fools," "deaf," "blind," ... and many more such abuses. 

Muslims attribute the Quran to Allah, claiming that it reflects divine morals of the highest standard.

This raises an important question: If even "Divine Allah"—believed to embody the pinnacle of morality—could not refrain from cursing and insulting his opponents in anger, how can ordinary human beings be expected to exercise better self-control? If Allah displayed such behavior, is it reasonable to demand that humans avoid harsh words or maintain higher moral standards than those attributed to Allah?

Muhammad approved the INSULT of the Goddess of Pagans, making it a part of Islamic Sharia:

Sahih al-Bukhari 2731, 2732

… Then ‘Urwa said, “O Muhammad! Won’t you feel any scruple in extirpating your relations? Have you ever heard of any one amongst the Arabs extirpating his relatives before you? On the other hand, if the reverse should happen, (nobody will aid you, for) by Allah, I do not see (with you) dignified people, but people from various tribes who would run away leaving you (i.e. Muhammad) alone.”  Hearing that, Abu Bakr abused him by saying ‘Go suck clitoris of al-Lat (i.e. the female goddes of pagans)’ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ

Prophet Muhammad didn't intervene to stop or rebuke or punish Abu Bakr for his actions, and his silence on the matter is seen as support, known as Taqriri Hadith, making it an established "Sunnah" of the Prophet and a part of Islamic Sharia law.

Full List of ABUSES that the Quran made against the non-Muslims:

Quran says that non-MUSLIMS:

 ****

Taken from:

https://atheism-vs-islam.com/

Please bookmark our website.