Intelligence Squared - The Forum for Live Debate

A project of St James Ethics Centre

eNews Signup Support Us
  • Australia
    • Australia
    • UK
    • Germany
    • China
    • Ukraine
    • USA
7 Nov2013

God And His Prophets Should Be Protected from Insult


Debate Details
The Panel
Results
Video / Audio

Have Your Say   (Terms of Use)

68 Comments

  • Posted by Yasir, Thursday, 15 January 2015 (16 days ago)

    This is a power which is transform into the behavior of thees so called "right for expression" against week Muslims are weak that is why the so called free expression shall be justified against them.

  • Posted by Muhammad Omar, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 (18 days ago)

    Simply,

    Julian Burnside said that so clear that whom you love if get insulted then you should feel hatred for the one doing.

    Being a Muslim, our Belief is:-
    Quran: Chapter No. 2, Verse No.285

    "The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) believe in that which has been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believe in Allah and His Angels and His Scriptures (All Holy Books like Quran, Bible, Torah) and His Messengers (All Prophets) - We make no distinction between any of His Messengers (All Prophets) - and they say: We hear, and we obey".

  • Posted by Tasneem KAusar, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 (18 days ago)

    I believe that no one should be allowed to insult any God or religion on a large scale under the name of "freedom of speech" which is so biased in certain topics. The world (west) is unfair in its dealings when it comes to Muslims. When a Muslim kills the whole religion is blamed, when a black kill the whole race is blamed and when a white kills then he is mentally disturbed and needs help??!! I think what happened was something that shouldn't have happened but then they should not have been any provoking either.. the heads should take care to keep in check such rights so that it doesn't hurt sentiments of minorities...

  • Posted by Muhammad Haseeb, Tuesday, 13 January 2015 (19 days ago)

    I listened the whole debate the point which
    Julian Burnside arose is so clear that whom you love if get insulted then you should feel hatred for the one doing it. But I don't understand the point of Yasmin what makes her think of this like she is not even believing in Allah or his Prophets. If she reads the quran she gets the point why it is necessary that God and his Prophets Should be Protected from Insult the verse { You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah - indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination.} 3:186. I think i cleared my point.

  • Posted by M. Faisal Kamal, Monday, 12 January 2015 (19 days ago)

    This topic is more of the belief than debate.... so would be the acceptance of the issue. For those who have less understanding of the values of their religion than those of worldly affairs, would go against the motion and vice versa. No doubt logical agruments can be made but again its the belief that would matter.

  • THE BIBLES , Wednesday, 16 April 2014 (10 months ago)

    The Holy Bible is a book of countless stories and records of history. It talks about both the “before” and “after” years of Christ’s existence in this imperfect world. It’s like a documentary of the origin of the earth and how it’s going to end but only it is printed on paper.

  • greg hoey , Monday, 10 February 2014 (12 months ago)

    Julian Burnside the silver-tailed, silver haired, over-paid, under-worked, arrogant, rather spiteful, blacklisting, australian lawyer who speaks with a plum to his voice like he's never done a hard days work in his sweet, innocent, north shore, richy rich life was on the side of "NO FREE_SPEECH for any who criticise religious theology" in a recent debate against those who value free-speech even if it happens to cause offence to some religions was quite happy to insult a certain unknown individual? [by referring to said unknown individuals nose], when it suits him.

    Yet this same man has the tenacity to openly defend not allowing criticism or insults to be made against religion or certain kinds of individual by shutting down the right to free speech in australia because this may offend some religion or other!

    Julian Burnside is just Another of these BIG TIME NEPOTIST UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS HYPOCRITs and blacklisters of 'others' [low income outsiders not entrenched or associated with spruiking the requested] so common in modern day left-leaning liberal australian discourse.

  • Posted by StHilarious, Friday, 7 February 2014 (12 months ago)

    Vain imaginations of self-proclaimed prophets

    What should be addressed is the validity of a religion, as vain imaginations of self-proclaimed prophets cannot be taken seriously without qualification. The bible tells us to seek God and the possibility of a relationship with God in whose image we are created. It has validity, because that relationship is possible, its account by eyewitnesses and many fulfilled prophecies. The Red Sea scrolls give further evidence that the Old Testament writings haven’t changed. The Qur’an hasn’t been subjected to the scrutiny the bible has been, nor are there any fulfilled prophecies in it. Therefore no one can guarantee what the Qur’an present is authentic coming from God. No one takes the Santa Claus story seriously, but Islam is ultimately more dangerous as it deceives adults. People who believe in fables are more prone to feeling insulted, as they haven’t used discernment before allowing those beliefs to be established in their minds. Western-society, apart from Roman Catholicism, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles, questions everything. Islam doesn’t teach to question and set people free like Jesus does.

  • Posted by Ivan, Friday, 7 February 2014 (12 months ago)

    We should absolutely defend God or his servants if they are blashphemed. Just as we would defend a friend or family member who is being attacked for whatever reason.

  • Posted by Ralph Seccombe, Monday, 3 February 2014 (12 months ago)

    Comment on the debate is at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15825 in an article “Blasphemy laws unreasonably infringe freedom of speech”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Intelligence Squared Debates are brought to you by:
St James Ethics Centre,
Legion House Level 2,
161 Castlereagh Street,
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia

Website crafted by Kindleman