Blasphemy

Let us first look at the evils of Blasphemy Laws in Islamic states.

Islamic Blasphemy laws are against human Nature. It is normal that people will get angered during discussions/debates and insult each other while making criticism (i.e. criticism automatically follows with insults and blasphemy).
Thus, the writer of the Quran (Allah/Muhammad) himself got angered in the Quran, and he cursed non-Muslims in the Quran, resembled them to dogs and donkeys, and called them filth, and the worst of animals and worst of creatures. Also, the Quran called its opponents Bastards and many more things. When Allah/Muhammad is unable to control himself against insulting others, how then do we accept normal human beings to show better morals than Allah/Muhammad? Please read our detailed article: Islamic Blasphemy laws are against Human Nature, thus even Allah/Muhammad cannot pass this Blasphemy Test.
And they don't stop only insulting Allah/Muhammad, but every CRITICISM of Islam is labelled as Blasphemy, and thus, punished with death.
You cannot publish even a single book in Islamic countries which criticizes Allah/Muhammad and Islam. You cannot deliver a single speech criticizing Islam and Muhammad.
You are not allowed to preach to people to leave Islam by showing the negative sides of Islam. If you dare to criticize Islam in any way, you will be put to death in an Islamic State.
And you cannot leave Islam in an Islamic state, i.e. leaving Islam is also labelled as an insult and blasphemy against Islam, and you will be killed for that.

But still, Muslim preachers brainwash Muslims into believing these unjust blasphemy laws.

Their TACTICS are as under:

Every state puts some restrictions upon people, and Islam is no different.
Even Western countries put restrictions upon people and usurped their 'Right of Expression' through HOLOCAUST laws.
These same Western countries also made it a crime if people don't address LGBT people by their desired pronouns.
Facebook and Twitter also have their own “Community Guidelines”. Then why Muslims in an Islamic State cannot have “community guidelines” of their own?
Therefore, if Muslims in their Islamic countries don't want Allah/Muhammad and Islam to be insulted, then the western people have no right to protest against it.

You can see these same tactics in this debate between a Muslim debater and an Atheist debater.

Let us debunk these tactics of Muslim preachers one by one.

Firstly:

Muslim Argument: Every state puts some restrictions upon people, and Islam is no different.

Not all restrictions are the same. It depends from restriction to restriction.
Restriction upon 'hate speech' is not the same as a restriction upon 'criticism'.
If all restrictions are the same, then all DICTATORSHIPS will use this as an excuse for putting a ban on criticism of them and putting to death everyone who dares to do so. How are you then going to stop such a dictatorship from doing so?

And Islam indeed belongs to the category of the worst kind of dictatorship, while it bans all kinds of criticism of Islam/Allah/Muhammad in the name of blasphemy, and it puts everyone to death who dares do it. And it does not let any Muslim leave Islam, without killing him.

Secondly:

Holocaust law is only LIMITED to providing protection to a SMALL PERSECUTED Minority.
Centuries of open "Hate Speech" against the Jewish community (i.e. people), enable extremists to misuse it to bring more violence and hate against them, which leads to their further killings and other hardships.

But Muslims in their Islamic countries are neither persecuted nor are a small minority, nor they are being killed. Muslims are only using blasphemy laws in order to kill anyone who dares to criticize their religion.

Therefore, holocaust laws can absolutely not be compared with blasphemy laws. One is for the protection of a prosecuted minority, while the other is from a Majority in order to IMPOSE its OPPRESSION upon the minorities.

The same is true with LGBT laws too in western countries:

LGBT community is also facing violence due to centuries of open "Hate Speech" by religious fanatics, which still continue to this day.
Since they are a minority, they are unable to protect themselves against this centuries-old hatred.

Thus, these LGBT laws are limited only to providing PROTECTION to this persecuted minority. How can it be then compared to the blasphemy law, which is by a Majority in order to usurp the basic human right of criticism of minorities?

The same is true with the use of the word NEGRO.

Due to centuries-old brainwashing, a bigger majority of people went to such extent in their hatred, that they used this word in order to humiliate them and to bring more hardships to them. Thus, only in order to provide protection to this minority, this word is no more used (but there is any law which declared it to be a crime to use this word).

PS:

There is no LGBT law which demands any use of desired pronouns by LGBT people (link). It is only false propaganda by opponents. The Muslim Preacher cited the incident of Prof. Jordan Peterson as proof. But he is wrong, as there exists no such law, and Prof. Jordan Petersen got absolutely no punishment for not using the desired pronoun for LGBT people (link).

PS:

Although Holocaust laws are there only in order to provide protection to a persecuted minority of people, still half of the Western world itself doesn't agree with them and considers it to be against the freedom of expression. Even all Islamic countries themselves consider Holocaust Laws against the freedom of expression, and none of them made a law that denying the genocide of Jews is a crime. But these same Islamic countries still want to use this same Holocaust law in order to defend their unjust blasphemy laws.

Thirdly:

There is a huge difference between “people” and “ideology/religion”.

Holocaust, LGBT and laws regarding the use of the word NEGRO, are providing protection to people, from being persecuted.
While the Blasphemy Laws are providing protection to an ideology/religion from being criticized.

Holocaust laws provide protection only to PEOPLE, but they don't provide any protection for the religion of Judaism. You are free to criticize Judaism as much as you wish.

The same is true with LGBT laws. There is no law which prohibits criticizing the ideology of LGBT and proves it wrong. If you believe that LGBT is unnatural, then you are free to criticize it as much as you want and no one is obstructing your right of expression.

But the case of the Blasphemy Law is totally different. It is there only in order to provide protection to a religion.

Fourthly: Double Standards of Islam & Muslims

Muslim Preachers

Double Standards/Lies/Deceptions

Their argument is that every state puts some restrictions upon people, and Islam is no different.

But Islam and Muslims themselves don't ACCEPT these same restrictions when non-Muslim states put these same restrictions upon Muslim minorities in their countries. All their arguments (like all states put restrictions) are nothing else than their Lies & Deceptions & Double Standards.

Preaching:

When Islamic states don't let minorities to PREACH the local Muslim population their ideology/religion, then they have full right to do it.

Muslim Double Standards

But if non-Muslim states don't let Muslims PREACH Islam to the local non-Muslim people, then they have no right to do it, and then Islamic States HAVE to wage JIHAD against that non-Muslim state. This means Islam Preachers themselves don't believe in the principle that states have a right to deny preaching to the local majority population, but they show Double Standards and keep this right limited only to Islamic states and Muslims.

Criticism:

When Islamic states don't let non-Muslim minorities to criticize Allah/Muhammad/Islam, and don't let them publish books/videos etc which criticize Islam, then they have full right to put such a restriction.

Muslim Double Standards

But if a non-Muslim state doesn't let Muslims CRITICIZE their religion/gods, then they have no right to it, and Muslim States HAVE to wage JIHAD against that non-Muslim state.
Please remember, Muhammad was himself criticising the gods of Meccans all the time. Nevertheless, when non-Muslims do the same, then it becomes blasphemy and a crime whose punishment is only death.

Leaving Islam:

And when Islamic states don't let Muslims leave Islam and kill them for doing it, then they have full rights to it.

Muslim Double Standards

But if a Muslim leaves Islam in an Islamic State, then he should be killed in the name of apostasy.
Please remember, Muhammad was glad when any Meccan left the pagan religion and became a Muslim, but late in Medina, he became upset if any Muslim left Islam, and he ordered the killing of all such Muslims who leave Islam.
Muslim Preachers further deceive by telling them that people may leave Islam, but they will be killed if they criticize Islam. But how can it not be double standards, while Muhammad himself not only left the religion of pagans but kept on criticising the pagan religion even after leaving it.

Conclusion:

An Islamic state and Muslims do worse to non-Muslims/ex-Muslims than what Meccans ever did to Muhammad and Muslims.
But still Muslim Preachers cry that Meccans oppressed Muhammad/Muslims, but they never look upon their own Double Standards, where Islam/Muslims are committing the same (or even worse) CRIMES against others.

Fifthly:

Muslim Argument: If Facebook/Twitter are allowed to make their own Community Guidelines, why then Islamic States cannot make their own Cummunity Laws?

There is a huge difference between “private property” and “public/state property”.

Facebook and Twitter are “private organizations”.

And the owners of private properties/organizations are allowed to make laws for their private properties/organizations, which are different from public laws. Facebook and Twitter have to do business in Muslim countries, which is why they make their own public guidelines according to their own business interests.

If a Muslim (even if he lives in the US) owns any such private organization like Facebook/Twitter, then he is fully allowed to ban any type of blasphemy/criticism of Islam. No one can compel him to do otherwise.

But the difference is, we have a CHOICE in case of private property/organization either to join it on not. But this CHOICE is not present in the case of public/state affairs.

Muslims/Islam don't own any state, but a state is owned by all its citizens on the basis of equity and justice. Thus, the laws of the state guarantee the basic human rights of each and every citizen. While blasphemy laws are usurping exactly these basic human rights of minorities.

Conclusion:

Muslims cannot hide the unjust blasphemy laws behind excuses like the holocaust and LGBT laws. They cannot deceive the whole world by making such lame excuses.

And if Muslims don't reform themselves, then it will only lead towards hatred against Islam and Muslims automatically for their double standards, where they want the right to preach and criticize and convert people towards Islam, but do not offer the same rights to non-Muslims in their Islamic states.

And this hatred against Islam & Muslims is not going to go away in non-Muslim countries, despite crying for Islamophobia. It is due to the reason that the ORIGIN of this issue lies in the Double Standards of Muslims and their one-sided practices, such as blasphemy laws and Kafirophobia. Thus, the rising Islamophobia is only a symptom, while the real disease lies in blasphemy laws and Kafirophobia.

It is also a request to the Western Left that they should realize that they will utterly fail to end hatred against Muslims in their western countries, without protesting and ending the unjust laws like blasphemy in the Islamic countries. The Western Left has not done justice with the issue of Blasphemy laws in Islamic countries and has not done enough to erase this problem. Blasphemy laws in Islamic countries should end, just like slavery ended in Islamic countries under the PRESSURE of the modern civilized world.

Therefore, it is a request to the Western Left to please make it their top priority to end the blasphemy laws in Muslim countries, so that people can freely criticize Islam, without fearing being killed in the name of blasphemy and apostasy.

Why Blasphemy is a basic human right?

Please remember these rules:

Where there is “Preaching”, there is also “Criticism”
Where there is “Praise”, there is also “Insult”

Muslims consider Muhammad to be the best of mankind. Thus, they can highly “praise” Muhammad.

While non-Muslims believe Muhammad to be a false prophet, who killed thousands of people for his personal interests. Thus, non-Muslims are hurt and feel emotionally harmed when such a person is highly “praised” by Muslims.

Nevertheless, the western secular system fully allows Muslims to praise Muhammad as much as they want, while non-Muslims cannot stop them from praising Muhammad, and they have to bear this praise in the name of Freedom of Expression and move on.

Similarly, even if Muslims claim they are hurt when someone insults Muhammad, still they cannot stop non-Muslims from orally insulting Muhammad. They have to bear this insult and move on.

Thus, praising Muhammad is a Right of Muslims, while insulting/blasphemy is the Right of non-Muslims.

Moreover, without the right of insult/blasphemy, nobody knows what makes Muslims accuse a non-Muslim of blasphemy and then kill him.

For example, when the Quran curses non-Muslims, resembling them with dogs and donkeys, call them filth and worst of animals and worst of creatures, or call them bastard, then it is neither insult nor blasphemy for Muslims. But just imagine if a non-Muslim curses Muhammad or resembles him with an animal in an Islamic country, then what would Muslims do with him?

Therefore, insulting/ridiculing are fundamental parts of discussions and debates, just like praising someone is a fundamental right.