Talk:Blasphemy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reverted 1 edit by Bookku (talk): Talk page spamming (TW)
Line 361: Line 361:
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Religious vilification]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 24#Religious vilification|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 10:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Religious vilification]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 24#Religious vilification|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 10:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

== Something or someone? ==

The article starts with ''Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable''. Should it not be "toward something or ''someone''"? [[User:Oddeivind|Oddeivind]] ([[User talk:Oddeivind|talk]]) 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:28, 30 November 2020

Template:Vital article

Swapped Order

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.205.243 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped the order of the basic and the broader senses of Blasphemy, as it seemed to make the initial flow of the article progress better.

Idiots

I have removed the Gibson-esque 'damn Jews' which someone had added to the middle of the article.

Artist Convicted of 'Blasphemy'

Mon Jul 21, 7:24 AM ET


WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish artist who exhibited an image of a man's penis attached to a cross broke the Roman Catholic country's law on blasphemy, a court has ruled, according to Poland's top-selling daily on Saturday.

Gazeta Wyborcza said the conviction of artist Danuta Nieznalska in the Baltic port of Gdansk was the first known instance in Poland of anyone being convicted of offending religious sensibilities.

"The cross is a symbol of suffering, because on it Christ died. There is no doubt that this cross has been desecrated," the paper quoted as Judge Tomasz Zielinski as saying.

In addition to a 2,000 zloty ($500) fine, the judge imposed on Nieznalska a six-month foreign travel ban, saying her legal notoriety would likely increase her demand in international art circles.

"I am shocked by such a severe sentence," the paper quoted the artist as saying after the verdict. "The court was totally biased. The judge admitted he was no art expert."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&ncid=583&e=5&u=/nm/20030721/od_nm/poland_blasphemy_dc


Hey, that link didn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not touching the above quote with a ten-foot pole, I was under the impression that Finland had repealed its blasphemy law circa 1990. -- Kizor 10:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On research it appears that it hasn't, but I couldn't see anyone save the freethinkers caring about this. There have been three convinctions of it in the recent years, all fines, and at least two were quite unambiguously asking for it. FYI. -- Kizor 29 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)


Blasphemy and the Church of England - A divisional court did state that English law protected the beliefs of the C of E, rahter than Islam, but this is not a strong precedent, and in isolation would misrepresent the scope of the blasphemy laws. I altered that sentence to indicate that the law referred to God, Jesus & the bible, which is better supported by other precedents and the actual legislation - Paul 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I subdivided the blasphemy laws section of this article to make it a bit more organized and hopefully a little bit easier to read and understand.
JesseG 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I tried to edit the main paragraph but the article always gets truncated in the edit box.--84.188.185.146 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad cartoons controversy relevent?

I'm not sure whether it's really relevent to include a link to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in the section on blasphemy in Islam. Wasn't the controversy mainly about iconism rather than blasphemy? In any case, a link at the bottom seems out of place, if it is really relevent it would surely be better to include a sentence of two description of the controversy, focusing on the issue of blasphemy, rather than just pointing towards it without fitting it into the wider context of blasphemy and Islam. Daduzi 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion with User:Tom harrison the link has now been moved into the main paragraph and put into some context. Daduzi 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy law in Britain

The article says that blasphemy laws are still on the book in Britain, but there's no handy set of brackets afterwards to tell me which law(s) that's referring to. If someone could put that info in I'd be interested to read it. --Hughcharlesparker 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy laws in France?

Some court decisions in France suggest that there are blasphemy laws on the books; for example, the ban on an advertisement that used the Last Supper in a way that the court ruled constituted "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". None of the news articles make clear precisely what law is being used in these prosecutions, though; does anyone have another source that might clarify that? --Delirium 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single case about blasphemy can be notated, and blasphemy laws in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all other members of the European Union may be represented in unison by the section European initiatives in the article. But, for Finland, also a EU Member, the law was stated in its own section. I would consider adding this to the article yourself. IlStudioso 08:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like wrong, for instance, if you read Le Monde (1) «L'association catholique Croyances et libertés, qui représente l'épiscopat français, porte plainte. Les créateurs perdent en première instance puis en appel» (...) «Le 14 novembre 2006, l'arrêt de la cour d'appel est cassé».
This mean that the Christians catholics won in «première instance» and in «appel» but this was broken on 14 November 2006.
Nowadays (january 2015), I think that you can find a declaration form the prime minister Valls, who stands that no anti blasphemy law exist in France. The only anti blasphemy law which exist is the 2003 Sarkozy law which ban offense against the french flag and against the national hymn.
My advice is that this article contains some content which might enlight this wikipedia article.
(1) www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2011/11/21/quinze-images-qui-ont-choque-dieu_1605929_3224.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I break protocol, new user. In the UK, Parliment did a nice report about religious offences, their history and current status. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9505.htm is to Chapter 3 of the report. I thnk that is what you are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.scone (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy in Islam

Blasphemy in Islam Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of Muhammad, of any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an, or of any Biblical prophets. Speaking ill of Allah is also blasphemy. Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven. British author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses was seen by many Muslims to contain blasphemies against Islam, and Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death. More recently, the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons were criticised in part on the basis that they were blasphemous against Muhamed.

This paragraph says "Blasphemy is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven". Which country is this effective? Can the author make this clear?

Odd sentence in Blasphemy in Christianity

What is "The more metaphysical aspects of early Christianity being now occluded by the dogma of secular religious authority." supposed to mean or refer to? And what is "secular religious authority"? Mairi 06:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vilied?

In the United Kingdom section I find the word "vilied". Is this a typo or a real word? I cannot find this word in any dictionary. Please add a definition at Wiktionary or replace it with a word I know. I would fix it myself, but I am not familiar with the incident and can't figure the intent.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great word! Yeah, it should be vilified, I think. Have corrected. Bluewave 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy in Christianity

That seems to contradict the Bible a little bit, especially because an outsider like me has no clue what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is or means.

Blasphemy in Christianity also means using the "Word of God" to promote or help your own cause (example: to ask for donations for the purpose of making themselves rich, stating to promote the "Word" cost money). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.21.220.206 (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton?

In this article, it is written in the section "Blasphemy in Islam" that "Paris Hilton's existence is a blasphemy for most people" or something like that. This is surely innappropriate. User:DYBoulet July 29 2007 10:19 AM (AST)

Dubious

I find it highly dubious to say Ireland has a blasphemy law. No source is provided - the one given is an extremely vague link to the article on the constitution, but a constitution isn't the law. It's the constitution (there's a huge difference). Also, the only mention in the constitution of anything remotely like that is (as far as I can tell) one which holds the state (not the population) to respecting religion. Can someone please clarify or provide a more specific source - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 01:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As far as I know "subject to public order and morality" (Article 40.6.1) has been accepted by the courts to accept any blasphemous libel. See, for example, The Corway Case. As obscure as it is, blasphemy laws do exist in Ireland because of this mention of public order and morality.

And the Constitution is the law. It is the most fundamental legal doctrine in our countries. Any other laws which contrdict it are not, in fact, law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.84.35 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this has become law now see http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0723/crime.html (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.214.51 (talk) [reply]

Jerry Springer the Opera

It is incorrect to say the Jesus appears "dressed as a baby". The first half of the play is an episode of Springer's chat show; the second half is a dream sequence where he imagines himself doing a show in the Afterlife. The actor who played the "baby fetishist" in Act 1 plays Jesus in Act 2. The audience is certainly encouraged to draw a connection between Jesus' loincloth and the nappy that the fetishist wore, but it's wrong to say that Jesus appears in a nappy. There is enough in the play that is genuinely offensive to Christian sensibilities (e.g the implication that the Virgin Mary was "raped by an angel") that it's a pity to pick on something that isn't really there.

Andrew Rilstone (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I summarised the example from the main article on Blasphemy law in the UK...I haven't actually seen the show! I think the important thing is the court ruling. Feel free to edit! Bluewave (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Blasphemy disrespectful?

"Blasphemy is the disrespectful use of the name of one or more gods." Is it possible to be blasphemous without disrespecting God(s)? I can be blasphemous towards the Christian God without disrespecting him: "Jesus Christ! You really did that!?". It's a part of my language and is not meant to be disrespectful! People take offense by it. Just as if I take offense by people that wears blue sweaters, it's not disrespectful for them to do so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thymo (talk • contribs) 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask the same! And, what I always wonder about is when we precede a word, especially slang words, with the word holy, as in holy f*ck!, holy cow!, etc. Is this blasphemy, or otherwise what other sin would it go under, or if it already covered in an article, may I please be told the name of that article? IlStudioso 08:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To say "Jesus Christ! You really did that?" is not blasphemy but a possibly even pious invocation of the Name of God Who created the neighbor of yours in question that just comes from doing such an astonishing deed. That's a prayer and who said we could only pray with following prayer formulas, with all respect to prayer formulas? or that we need an occasion for prayer that a capital-lettered Society judges a fitting occasion for prayer? To utter an Hallelujah upon finding a lost thing is worship and praise. However, if it's part of your everyday language, you might think about avoiding to use God's Name in vain, that is, to speak without careful thinking about Him Who would deserve a careful, deliberate (but not scrupulous) use of His Name. But even uttering God's Name in vain is, though forbidden, not yet blasphemy. St. Thomas says blasphemy is a sin of unbelief, through not believing in His infinite goodness, and as opposed to the confession of faith.
In my view it is definitely more problematic to confirm facts, even true facts, by an "I swear" in everyday language (even without explicitly using the Name of God) which amounts to taking an oath (what are no problem is solemn oaths in the situation where oaths are used). An example for blasphemy from Grimmelshausens "Simplius Simplicissimus" is: "Let's in the name of God drink this barrel of wine", with the intention of getting drunk on purpose. When the same Simplicius Simplicissimus utters, on account of an astonishing fact, the names "Jesus Mary!", he is not accused of blasphemy, and why should he, but of Papism for the reason of talking about the Mother of God. (What an accusation...) It was the clerics that introduced the practice of greeting with "Grüß Gott" in Bavaria and Austria.
However, it is another story that we shouldn't do what we know that other people will take offence if it can unproblematically be avoided.
"Holy cow" and "holy fuck" are blasphemous, as giving the Name of God (which Holy is in this place) to a creature - we're not talking about saints who partake of the Love of God, nor practically about Creation as created by God wherefore in an abstract sense, a cow could be called holy, but which is not the thought behind such expressions. Besides, it is an intolerant disrespect against Hinduism, and the holy act of marital love. (And it does seem strange to me not to want to write the word "fuck", but not to have a problem to write "holy" which produces the blasphemy.) I would in all earnest suggest to replace these expressions by a good old "Good Lord in Heaven!".
I've read that even what is blasphemy can be a venial sin if it has so much become the habit of speaking that the speaker has practically lost the ability to avoid it, provided that he makes sincere efforts to lose that habit and, of course, frequents Holy Confession. -- However, all this are just some private and, as you might have seen, quite German thoughts on the matter which can of course be wrong, and to get information it would be better to ask your confessor that on the Wikipedia talk page.--93.133.213.147 (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, calling myself back a bit ... "Jesus Christ! You really did that?" is not blasphemy, true so far, but it is in general taking the Name of the Lord in vain ("profanity"), and this is a mortal sin generically according to Prof. Elger, Lehrbuch der kath. Moraltheologie citing St. Alphonse, but "since many people do not think about what they are talking, there is only venial sin in them" according to St. Alphonse. Blasphemy and profanity are different matters. Even generically, the latter is while mortal, yet so-to-speak not the dangerous monster which blasphemy is. The words could possibly be uttered as a prayer but we wouldn't count on it the way people talk (and understand), that's where I was too rash. However let's keep our Chesterton in mind that while reverence towards God's Name is all fine and even an obligation, profanity is a witness of religiousness; and while it's a sin to profane the Name of God, it's worse to hold it as non-existent. --93.133.216.20 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy needs be distinguished from heresy, an intellectual assault on the philosophical or historical basis of one's religious heritage that may prove schismatic.

One enters the realm of blasphemy when one curses God or His Prophets. Misusing a word like "holy" seems a triviality. Creating an unflattering image of a key religious figure is blasphemy. If one depicts Mohammed a a lecher or as a bomb-throwing terrorist one does blasphemy -- and quite possibly hurts one's own religion. The Danish cartoonist who made vile images of Mohammed blasphemed even if he is not a Muslim.

Slander of religious figures in an attempt to defame their religion is far nastier than the use of the word "holy" in an unthinking stock phrase. Such is itself false witness, a horrible offense. Is a Chick tract that gives a disparaging view of the Catholic Church blasphemy?

While we are at it, denunciation of a religion by the categorical defamation of the people who believe in it, as in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or the derogatory depiction of Jews in Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer, could in such instances be blasphemy against Judaism.

These three illustrations indicate some characteristics of blasphemy: that it is offensive to believers, that it creates religious strife, that it is without intellectual defensibility, and it creates no debate. It is the theological equivalent of flaming on a chat board.

The worst blasphemy possible could be the attempt to seek Divine powers of a benign God or His Agents (such as angels) for evil purposes. A prayer to win the lottery so that one has the funds with which to hire a contract killing would be blasphemous in itself.

Blasphemy and the United Nations

This section needs extensive chopping and re-writing for WP:NPOV. Examples of POV and WP:SYNTHESIS:

  • "...contains articles which militate against the idea that..."
  • "By adopting these articles, most nations, it seems, in 1948, accepted the idea that..."
  • "...those states had not, it seems, accepted that blasphemy should be abolished because..."
  • etc. Per Ardua (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tags relating to this and other sections were removed yesterday, but I don't see any evidence that the issues were resolved. I added one myself just on glancing over the section - I agree with Per Ardua that it reads as if written as a piece of synthesis to further a particular point of view. I don't particularly like Sharia, but this isn't the place to convince people of that, nor is this going to. In fact, a lot of this section seems barely relevant, and too detailed to be useful in an article about the generic term "Blasphemy". If you want to show what people think about this, line up some secondary sources that do analysis themselves and go write Blasphemy and the United Nations with it. GreenReaper (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will turn the section into an article very soon. The re-write is going more slowly than I had anticipated. PYRRHON  talk   23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Blasphemy laws

I have added some references to the section, which is merely a summary of the main article:Blasphemy law. The main article is another summary of the articles within Wikipedia about blasphemy laws. Those articles have hundreds of references which could be put here. The United States State Department, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and other reliable sources have information on their websites about repression in countries with state religions. Because of that repression, information about some countries is not available or is unreliable. Editors are invited to add more references. PYRRHON  talk   19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert by TechBear

I made alterations to the article to improve its organisation and its accuracy. I amended the lede because it was dreadful as it was. The lede was dreadful because:

  • it is not necessary to be familiar with semiotics to understand what blasphemy is;
  • blasphemy is whatever the ruling religion says it is -- blasphemy need not involve a god or gods;
  • "using sacred names as stress expletives" seems to be some pop-psychology lingo for "cursing";
  • the core of blasphemy is "irreverence", which was not stated in the lede.

I removed the definition from Webster's because it is parochial and antiquated and incorrect.

I moved all the content that has to do with colloquial usage to one place because I find no good reason for having such content scattered, and such content does not belong in the lede. The lede is merely a summary of what is in the article.

I provided references to the terms that are related to blasphemy such as "defamation of religion" because I thought the references would be helpful. PYRRHON  talk   19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Examples would be super good!

Examples

Examples would be super good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.73.78 (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy laws

This section currently reads "Countries use blasphemy laws to victimize non-members of, and dissident members of, the ruling sect or cult. Countries with a state religion are the most punitive users of blasphemy laws." Hardly neutral?? Balance should be added, or the text that's there should be removed. Bunburya (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation (or at least controversial interpretation) of Exodus in Blasphemy in Christianity

The article quotes the following: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7) as a prohibition against blasphemy. This verse is understood, at least in Jewish commentary, as being specifically a prohibition against swearing an oath that is either pointless or false. The Talmud Bavli (Shevuot 29a) mentions, as examples of vain oaths, an oath that a wooden object that is made of wood (which is tautological and therefore pointless); and an oath that an obviously wooden object is made of gold (which is obviously false and therefore pointless). The prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain also extends to casual utterance of The True Name of God (which is why the Name is rendered as "Ad-nai" in prayer and "HaShem" in everyday utterances by orthodox Jews, to the extent that the pronunciation of the Four-Letter Name is no longer known) and, obviously, fraudulent or trivial oath-making.

Other commandments also implicate blasphemy, including the creation of idols. Yaletiger (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed not only the interpretation of the Jews, but of St. Thomas Aquinas as well, who explicitly deals with the reasons why there should be a Commandment against perjury if there is already a Commandment against Wrong Witness (its extending to every lying is correct but secondary). However, St. Thomas says that blasphemy is "as well and even more" taking the Lord's Name in vain. But indeed, blasphemy is not the name for transgressions of the Second Commandment. But you might understand that Christians who have got used to deal with truth under the Eighth Commandment may think of other things when talking of the Second Commandment. But still, we find in the Catechisms the prohibition of oaths wrong, rash or taken without religious reverence listed under the Second Commandment.--93.133.213.147 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad links in footnote 27

The links to the text of resolutions in footnote 27 don't work. 27^ U.N. Resolutions:

A/RES/60/150 Vote on 16 December 2005 (A/60/PV.64) A/RES/61/164 Vote on 19 December 2006 A/RES/62/154 Vote on 18 December 2007 A/RES/63/171 Vote on 18 December 2008

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/60/150&Lang=E http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/61/164&Lang=E http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/62/154&Lang=E http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/63/171&Lang=E Chuck Baggett (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all blasphemy is religious

blasphemy: Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed http://www.yourdictionary.com/blasphemy noun pl. blasphemies 2 any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy 2 irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

Quick definitions from Macmillan (inviolable) adjective too important or respected to be attacked, criticized, or ignored

Like taboo, defilement, desecration, and sacrilege, also with religious origins, it now has other usages.

...so added these defs, plus refs, and added the concept of "religious blasphemy," regarding the theocratic laws.--69.110.90.203 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad

Shouldn't he be there in the Islamic category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.249 (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this person, and why is he sufficiently notable to be included? Do you have any reliable, third-party sources to support his inclusion? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources in Islam section

Why are christian writers being used as sources in Islam section? I am deleting these sources as of now. As the Issue is with Islam and it is not a historical debate then Islamic sources should be used. To be frank , if you go into the church and a muslim is telling you how to pray you will not follow him. Same is the case here, these are matters of jurisprudence so the source should be muslim.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us discuss per WP:BRD. The sources you find objectionable were published by Oxford University Press and others. They included peer reviewed reliable secondary sources, as well as tertiary such as "The encyclopedia of religion". The reasons you give are unpersuasive, and inconsistent with wiki's policies and guidelines. Which policy requires that the author's religion be considered as a screen for content in wikipedia? (FWIW, you deleted some content by Muslim authors, but that is irrelevant.) RLoutfy (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. The point I mentioned is that sources published so long after the religion came into being cannot be considered "reliable". To be considered reliable in a wikipedia sources should be secondary. These sources are tertiary. They take interpretations given by someone then "reinterpret" it again. Secondary sources are those which interpret the primary directly. "BLasphemy in Islam" should give information as to which Islamic scholars said that blasphemy should be punished and how blasphemy became a crime. Sources which have had ZERO impact on the formation of "Blasphemy in Islam" laws or perception have no place here.
Also most of these sources are just anti-Islamic as is clear from other books written by the same authors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time of publication has nothing to do with "reliability" - once again, like "religion of author", you should stop lecturing and making your own rules here, and identify which policy page states "sources published so long after the religion came into being cannot be considered reliable." Reviews and scholarly journal articles are secondary sources; reliable scholar edited encyclopedias are acceptable tertiary sources - see WP:PSTS and WP:RS. Quit this "anti-Islamic" or "pro-Islamic" soapboxing - see WP:COMPREHENSIVE.
Yes, there are numerous articles on blasphemy in Islam, by Islamic jurists in Arabic and other non-English languages, but English language sources are more preferred in English wikipedia, see WP:RSUE. I will try to add a few Arabic sources, to improve the section, as I find time. RLoutfy (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have not been able to get myself across. Let me try again. I am not against the article being written. The fact of the matter is that "blasphemy" in Islam should be treated the same way any other crime is treated. If you take a look at any other infraction and its punishment in Islam you will see yourself the difference. Reliable sources are ones on which the jurisprudence is formed. What I meant to say is that sources from 19th,20th and 21st century are not the interpretations on which Islamic jurisprudence is formed. We should include sources on whose interpretations the law of blasphemy was created. Also the Quranic verse that has been given has been interpreted in many ways, we should say that in the article. I hope I have cleared up my point of view.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to respect community-agreed content policies and "reliable source" definitions, or do you wish to ignore them and create absurd ones? You lecture and demand pre-19th century sources, but persist on pushing your WP:POV and WP:SOAP using unsupported or weak 21st century sources (here which I have reverted). Why don't you practice what you are preaching - suggest pre-19th century sources that can improve this article?

As promised, I am adding the position of various Fiqhs on blasphemy, with both pre-19th and recent reliable sources. RLoutfy (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Quranic verse, this article can only source from scholarly translations. The three translations archived by University of Southern California suffice, and all three say the same. RLoutfy (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm you have done exactly 100% what I requested. Why are you then disputing with me on the talk page? I wanted sources which were were related to Islam and you added those. Thanks for that. Why are you now disputing on the talk page?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd and inaccurate sentence about concerned countries

Odd and wrong sentence: «Some countries have laws to punish religious blasphemy,[5] while others have laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers.»

This sentence assumes that blasphemy is forbidden in every country. This is false as there is no law to ban blasphemy in France, for instance.

The right thing to write is that «

Some religions forbid blasphemy to their members. A formal ban also exist in some countries, where other countries have no law to ban blasphemy. Where blasphemy is banned, it can be ether some laws which directly punish religious blasphemy,[5] or some laws that allow those who are offended by blasphemy to punish blasphemers.

» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.142 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This verse

The quranic verse in this article is taken out of context, the verse is only valid during times of war. This verse should be removed this is just islamophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.228.2 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Blasphemy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blasphemy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blasphemy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy Trial in 1887

121.208.233.149 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Wondering of the trial of C.B.Reynolds should be considered for a mention here. The arguments are cogent and comprehensive. [1] [2][reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_blasphemy_trial_of_c_b_reynolds_part_i
  2. ^ https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38103/38103-h/38103-h.htm

"Religious vilification" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religious vilification. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something or someone?

The article starts with Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. Should it not be "toward something or someone"? Oddeivind (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blasphemy&oldid=991592342"