Why doesn't the West consider insulting the Quran a crime?

A heavy majority of the Western people doesn't support the act of burning of the Quran (and correctly so). But still they support a law, which does not consider burning of the Quran as a crime.

Why?

The answer is, while the Quran is already insulting them in the name of Kafir and calling them Filthy, Unclean, Fools, Dog, Donkey, Pigs, Worst of Creatures, Evildoers, Wicked, Transgressors, Ignorants, etc. 

But still the Western people bear this insult of the Quran and let it be published in their countries. And it happens only in the name of freedom of expression & criticism & ridicule & insult. 

Yes, all these are basic human rights (i.e. criticism & ridicule & even insult). Even though the majority of Western people don't like to indulge in ridicule and insult activities, and oppose it, still they consider it a basic human right. 

Only due to these rights, Muslims first got the right to publish the Quran in Western countries, despite its cursing and insulting the local population of the Western countries. 

Moreover, according to their law, the copies of the Quran are the private property of the protesters, and there is no crime involved if they burn their private property. It is not the same as setting fire to any mosque, which is not the private property of the protesters, but of Muslims. Thus, the law protects mosques from protesters. 

Western Law is fully in accordance with Human NATURE:

It is normal according to human nature that people may become angry during discussions & debates due to the difference of opinions. And they use harsh words in anger toward their opponents. Thus, western law is based exactly according to this human nature.

Even the writer of the Quran (which is Muhammad himself according to non-Muslims) showed this exact human nature. When the opponents didn't accept the prophethood of Muhammad, then the writer of the Quran became angry. And then he started cursing them at several places in Quran. And he started insulting them by equating them to the Donkey, Dogs and Pigs, the worst of animals and the worst of creatures, and for being filthy, and calling them names (like Abu Jahl) and “bastard” (Arabic: زنیم) and fools and deaf and blind and Kafir etc..

Muslims claim Allah has divine MORALS.

Then the question is: “Why even the  “Divine Allah” is not able to control his anger, and he curses and abuses the opponents? How then can we expect a “normal human being” to have full control over his anger, and to show “better Morals” than even divine Allah?” 

Moreover, this cursing and abuse of the opponents in the Quran is also PROOF that there exists no Allah in the heavens, and it was Muhammad himself, who was making the Quran on his own. And since Muhammad was only a human, thus he showed human errors in form of becoming angry and cursing and abusing his opponents.

That is why, Western law is totally perfect according to the Nature of human beings, and it cannot be changed for accommodating the blasphemy laws of Islam. The blasphemy laws of Islam have the problems:

  • They are biased.
  • They are one-sided
  • They are against justice.
  • Furthermore, they go totally against human nature. 
  • They are the precursors. Islamic states further use these blasphemy laws in order to kill ALL the CRITICISM against Islam. In Islamic countries, you cannot publish a single book or speech, which criticizes Islam, and they immediately blame it to be blasphemy, and then they kill the person. 

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

Quran says that non-MUSLIMS:

Thus, Western law says that the people have the full right to insult Quran in reply too. And it is not blasphemy, but it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. 

Most Read Articles

Latest Articles

Important Websites

Categories

Already Read the Article?

...but your task is still not finished.

Dear seeker of truth,
Reading about the flaws in a belief system is only the first step. To truly break free from indoctrination and reach a final, unshakable conclusion, you must apply these four critical tests to what you've just read.

Test 1: Divine Revelation or Human Drama?

The Core Challenge:
God does not appear before us, nor do His angels manifest themselves, and He performs no miracles today like the claims made in the tales of ancient times. Despite this absence, we are still demanded to recognise God through His "commands"  only. 
Let us examine these commands, and see if they give the impression of Divine Revelation, or of "Human Drama."

Please reflect:

  • Do the teachings in this article display flawless wisdom, justice, consistency, and coherence that could only come from an Omniscient Creator?
  • Or do they resemble the kinds of laws, contradictions, exceptions, and inconsistencies that one would expect from ordinary human decision-making?

Test 2: Would These Same Arguments Also Defend a False Prophet?

Imagine a man in a different era who claims to be a prophet. He marries multiple women, claims divine permission for his personal desires, issues harsh punishments, and makes scientific errors—acting exactly like Muhammad. How would you distinguish this hypothetical false prophet from Muhammad?

The truth is, Islamic apologists would easily spot him as a fraud or a cult leader, using the exact same logical critiques you just read. Yet, when Muhammad does these exact same things, apologists invent endless rationalizations to defend him.

The Rule of Logic: If your defense of a prophet works equally well to defend a proven fraud or a cult leader, your defense is not based on evidence. It is based on "special pleading", giving one man a free pass that you would never give anyone else.

Test 3: Just One Confirmed Error Is Enough

Islam makes an extraordinary claim that Allah exists, is absolutely perfect, and cannot make even a single mistake. Therefore, if even one confirmed error, injustice, or flaw is found in Islam, its entire claim to divine perfection collapses. The remaining 99.99% of the religion cannot save that claim. You cannot simply argue, "But everything else is correct."

Test 4: The "Unbiased AI" Evaluation

Artificial Intelligence models are programmed to be highly deferential toward major world religions. If you ask an AI to critique the Quran, it will  treat Islamic theology as unquestionable facts rather than claims to be tested. This creates a false "tie" in debates.

To get a truly objective, logical evaluation of the article you just read, you must force the AI to drop its religious deference. Read the prompt below, then click the button to copy it. Paste it into your AI chat before asking it to analyze the article.

When reviewing the article, keep the following principles in mind:
The Qur'an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divine origin. They are claims whose origin is being examined. Your task is to evaluate whether the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic legal system are better explained as Divine Revelation or as human authorship. Therefore:
• Treat the Qur'an and Hadith as claims, not proof.
• Evaluate the article using logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and principles of justice.
• Treat scholarly interpretations as arguments in favor of Islam, not as binding authority.
Based on these principles, answer this question: Do the objections raised in the article expose flaws that reason and justice cannot reconcile, or do the strongest Muslim apologetic arguments successfully answer those objections?

Note: The AI’s response is not a final judgement. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. 

About the Author & This Website

About the Authors: 

The ideas, arguments, research, article structure, and final conclusions are my own. AI tools are used only as editorial assistants to improve grammar, wording, readability, and clarity.

About the Website:

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform. Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides. We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →