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. 

Details

Avoid this Trap

🛑 Before You Start Analysing Islam → Avoid this common trap (Recommended reading)

Latest Articles

Most Read Articles

Important Websites

Categories

How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation Using AI Models

The correct prompt for evaluating the arguments of this article with the help of AI:

If you also want to evaluate the arguments of this article with the help of AI models, then use the following prompt. This prompt forces the AI to conduct a review on an unbiased basis.

Prompt:

When reviewing the article, keep the following principle in mind:

The Qur’an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divinity. The real motive is to determine whether the Qur’an/Sunnah/Islam are truly Divine, or whether they are a human product, i.e. whether Muhammad was composing the revelations himself.

Therefore:

  1. Qur’an and Hadith are claims, not evidence. Their contents must be tested against external criteria like logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and moral standards such as justice.
  2. Scholarly interpretations are arguments in favor of Islam. They are not authoritative and must be judged by reason like any other argument.
  3. The burden of proof is on the claim that these texts are from God. The default is not to assume divinity.

On this basis, the question is: Do the critical objections in the article expose flaws that reason/justice cannot reconcile, or do Muslim apologist arguments successfully defend the system against those charges?

Why is this prompt necessary?

AI models often consider the interpretations of Muslim scholars as definite evidence. They are surely not evidence, but they are only "arguments" in favour of Islam. So, these interpretations in favour of Islam may be correct or incorrect. Unless the AI is clearly told this distinction, it continues to treat every interpretation by the scholars as final proof in defence of Islam, after which no “criticism” of the Quran and Hadith can ever be considered valid.

Note:
The AI’s response is not a final judgment. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. The value of AI lies only in helping to organize and analyze arguments, provided that it is guided with clear and fair instructions.

About the Author & This Website

About the Author:

All arguments and analyses on this website are written by the author. AI tools are used only for spelling, grammar, and clarity improvements.

A Necessary Clarification: 

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 →