To Ridicule/Insult/Blaspheme is a fundamental human RIGHT

Table of Contents:

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, they believe 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?

Moreover, the use of curses and insults in the Quran calls into question its divine origins. Such emotionally charged language and personal attacks align more closely with human imperfections than with the qualities of a perfect divine being. This suggests that the Quran may not be a divine revelation but rather the work of Muhammad, who, being human, exhibited anger and frustration when faced with opposition.

Blasphemy Laws: An Excuse to Ban All Criticism of Religion

Islamic advocates often claim that non-Muslims are allowed to criticize Islam but must not insult it. While this may sound reasonable on the surface, it raises a critical question:

Where does criticism end and blasphemy begin?

The Undefined Boundaries of Criticism and Blasphemy:

• Neither Islamic Sharia nor the laws in Islamic countries clearly define the boundaries between criticism and blasphemy.
• Without clear guidelines, what ensures that criticism of Islam will not be entirely suppressed under the guise of blasphemy?
• This ambiguity creates a significant flaw in blasphemy laws, enabling even the mildest critique of Islam to be labeled as blasphemy, often with dire consequences for the critic.

The Reality in Islamic Countries:

In places like Pakistan, criticism of Islam is virtually impossible:

• Publishing books or delivering speeches critical of Islam is strictly prohibited.
• Any critique is immediately deemed blasphemous, leading to accusations, social ostracism, imprisonment, or even fatal violence.
• Religious extremists exploit this lack of clarity, branding any dissenting opinion as mocking or insulting, effectively silencing all opposition.

The Question of Double Standards:

A glaring hypocrisy emerges when comparing the behavior attributed to Allah and Muhammad with the expectations placed on ordinary people:

• The Quran itself uses terms like "bastard" (زنیم, 68:13), "donkey," "dog," and "the worst of creatures" to describe opponents.
• The Quran curses those who oppose it and refers to them in derogatory ways while simultaneously asserting that Muhammad embodies the highest moral character (68:4).
• Historical accounts suggest Muhammad himself condoned or used harsh language against his detractors (You will see this later in this article).

If such language is permissible for Allah and Muhammad, why are ordinary people held to a higher standard of restraint? It is unreasonable to demand that "normal humans" demonstrate greater moral discipline than those who are considered divine or divinely guided figures.

The Danger of Blasphemy Laws:

Blasphemy laws, as they stand, are tools for silencing criticism entirely:

• The lack of defined boundaries allows any critique, however reasoned, to be labeled as blasphemy.
• This leads to unchecked suppression of free expression and enables violence against critics, perpetuating a culture of fear and intolerance.

If limits on expression are to exist, they must apply equally to everyone, including Allah and Muhammad. Allowing religious figures the freedom to curse and insult while condemning others for the same behavior exposes the double standards inherent in these laws.

Blasphemy laws do not protect religion—they shield it from accountability. They blur the line between criticism and insult, enabling the suppression of free thought and dissent. For a truly free society, these laws must be reformed or abolished, ensuring equal rights for all individuals to express their views without fear of persecution.

Islamic Sharia Prescribes Blasphemy Laws Only for Islamic Prophets, Not for Other Religions or Their Sacred Figures

Islamic teachings dictate severe consequences for those who mock Prophet Muhammad, yet they remain silent on punishing Muslims who insult the gods or sacred figures of other religions. For example, an incident involving Abu Bakr illustrates this disparity: he used highly offensive language toward a pagan goddess in Muhammad's presence, but Muhammad neither reprimanded nor punished him. This incident (discussed later in detail) underscores the selective application of blasphemy within Islamic teachings.

Modern Blasphemy Laws and Their Injustice:

The unequal nature of blasphemy laws in many Islamic countries today reflects this inconsistency. For instance, in Pakistan (link):

• Insulting Islamic prophets, including Muhammad, is punishable by death under the Pakistan Penal Code.
• Insulting sacred figures of other religions, however, results in a maximum of three years in prison.
• Defiling the Quran carries life imprisonment, but desecrating sacred items of other religions results in just two years in prison.

This stark disparity reveals a blatant violation of Equal Human Rights.

The Root of the Inequality in Islamic Sharia:

In the original Islamic Sharia, there was no prescribed punishment for insulting non-Islamic religions or their sacred figures. However, modern Islamic countries faced the challenge of justifying unrestricted insults toward other religions while demanding severe consequences for any offense against Islam. To address this, they introduced Bid'ah (innovations), criminalizing insults against other religions.

Even so, these laws are applied unequally. Muslims who insult other religions often escape with minimal or no consequences, while non-Muslims face disproportionately harsh punishments under blasphemy laws, especially when accused of insulting Islamic figures or beliefs.

This double standard violates the principles of equal rights and justice. If blasphemy laws are to exist, they must be applied equitably to all religions and sacred figures, or they risk perpetuating systemic injustice. The selective enforcement of these laws not only undermines the concept of equality but also fosters division and discrimination.

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.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani wrote (link):

As the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was silent on saying of Abu Bakr and didn’t rebuke him, it shows the permissibility of using these words (for gods of non-Muslims) ...

It’s worth noting that the exact words used by Abu Bakr were so offensive that all Muslim translators of Sahih Bukhari chose to distort them in their translations to make them appear milder. This deliberate alteration is dishonest and deeply regrettable, especially in matters of religion, where Muslims often claim moral superiority over others. Such actions undermine the integrity of religious discourse. Please read the details about this distortion and dishonesty in our article: Abu Bakr's Blasphemy: Go and SUCK the clitoris of pagan goddess al-Lat.

Additionally, it’s important to clarify that the ambassador of the Quraysh, ‘Urwah, did not insult or abuse Muhammad or the Muslims. He merely expressed his opinion, referencing the historical fact that Muslims had fled during the Battle of Uhud, leaving Muhammad behind. His comment reflected his belief that such an event could happen again. How does sharing an opinion amount to blasphemy?

It is a common human reaction—particularly among individuals lacking civility or restraint—to become aggressive and resort to abuse when they feel they are losing an argument. This is precisely what happened with Abu Bakr and Muhammad in this instance. Rather than responding with measured diplomacy, they resorted to aggression and insults towards ‘Urwah.

Given ‘Urwah’s position as an ambassador, a more civilized and diplomatic response from Abu Bakr and Muhammad would have been appropriate. Resorting to abusive language not only undermined the dignity of the interaction but also failed to reflect the high moral standards they are often believed to uphold. 

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

Quran says that non-MUSLIMS:

Islamic Apologists: But the Quran forbids to abuse gods of non-Muslims.:

Islamic apologists often present the Quranic verse 6:108 as evidence to question the incident where Abu Bakr allegedly abused Urwa in the presence of Muhammad. The verse states:

Quran 6:108: Do not revile those who invoke others apart from God, lest they begin to revile God out of malice and ignorance.

Response: 

Understanding the context of this verse is crucial. It was revealed during the later years of the Meccan period when Muslims were in a vulnerable position and lived under the dominance of the Meccan polytheists (Kuffar). At that time, the Muslim community feared the power of the Meccans and lacked the strength to resist.  

However, the incident involving 'Urwa and Abu Bakr took place much later, during the Medinan period, specifically during the Treaty of Hudaybiah in the 6th year of Hijra. By then, the Muslims had grown significantly stronger and no longer feared the Meccans.  

The Quran itself reflects this progression. During the early Meccan period, its teachings were largely non-violent, focusing on patience, tolerance, and moral guidance. There were no verses advocating for fighting (Qitaal) or Jihad (war) during this phase.  

However, in the later Madinan period, as Muslims gained power, the tone of the Quran shifted. It began to emphasize warfare, Jihad, and the subjugation of Kuffar, often through threats and calls to violence. This evolution illustrates how the Quran’s messaging changed in response to the shifting socio-political power dynamics of the Muslim community.

For details, please read our article:

• When Islam was Weak, then Quranic Verses taught peace. When Islam became stronger, the Quranic Verses taught violence, cruelty, coercion, and intolerance.