An anti-Islam activist who burned the Koran at several protests, sparking outrage in Muslim countries, has been shot dead in Sweden, a day before a court was to rule on his case.
In Islamic law, believers must not damage the Quran and must perform a ritual washing before touching it.[1] Conversely, intentionally damaging copies is considered blasphemous in Islam. It is a point of controversy whether non-Muslims should be made to follow Islamic law,[2] and a sensitive topic in international relations how it should be handled when Muslims demand adherence to Islamic Quranic practices by nonbelievers.[3][4][5]
It is a point of controversy whether non-Muslims should be made to follow Islamic law
No controversy about it at all. The more that religious fascists insist on controlling others, the more it’s essential that people are free to express ridicule towards them.
I suppose the equivalent might be performing a play in which Christ is a child abuser or some musical parody of Auschwitz?
Those expressions should be avoidable though. So that if someone didn’t want to see it they are free to find something else to do. Harassing people (burning a Qur’an outside their home) would be wrong.
But saying I can’t do something just because that’s a rule for you? Fuck that. Get the matches.
I think that the article is saying that it’s a point of theological controversy. I.e. not all Muslims have an interpretation that non-Muslims are obliged to follow this rule.
I‘m Muslim and I have a huge mostly Muslim family and a large friend circle and I consume mostly Arabic media. We honestly don’t know who you are, we don’t care about you and we have better things to do than trying to enforce any laws on you.
Fun fact I have some atheists in my family and we did not behead or stone them. This might surprise you, but we have better things to do.
I don’t think that Christians or Jews have an injunction against burning their scriptures; they won’t care. This is a quirk of Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_desecration
No controversy about it at all. The more that religious fascists insist on controlling others, the more it’s essential that people are free to express ridicule towards them.
I suppose the equivalent might be performing a play in which Christ is a child abuser or some musical parody of Auschwitz?
Those expressions should be avoidable though. So that if someone didn’t want to see it they are free to find something else to do. Harassing people (burning a Qur’an outside their home) would be wrong.
But saying I can’t do something just because that’s a rule for you? Fuck that. Get the matches.
I think that the article is saying that it’s a point of theological controversy. I.e. not all Muslims have an interpretation that non-Muslims are obliged to follow this rule.
So only some Muslims want to enforce their law on us. Great. By what means?
I‘m Muslim and I have a huge mostly Muslim family and a large friend circle and I consume mostly Arabic media. We honestly don’t know who you are, we don’t care about you and we have better things to do than trying to enforce any laws on you.
Fun fact I have some atheists in my family and we did not behead or stone them. This might surprise you, but we have better things to do.