4 ms·
Why yes, I do: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law ... And more specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.
by duncan_bayne 10y ago
Why yes, I do:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
... And more specifically:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy
Blasphemy is punishable in the vast majority of Islamic countries. Most Muslims worldwide support these laws, and most schools of Islamic jurisprudence support their position in Islamic law.
It's probably not true of most Muslims in Western countries however. I have a sneaking suspicion - but no way of proving it - that people who think this sort of thing is nuts are more likely to want to emigrate to countries without it.
Note that blasphemy is also punishable in many Western countries. This is driven by the same problem: religion. Usually Christianity.
- SamReidHughes 10y agoMost Americans support a ban on flag-burning too.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chroma 10y agoIt's unclear if that's still true or not. The most recent good data is a Gallup poll from 2006.[1] When asked if the constitution should be amended (the only way such a ban could exist), support was at 54%. Also, support was higher in the 90's. If trends have continued, supporters should be in the minority today. Also, it's a bit rich to compare a nonexistent flag burning ban (which would punish with fines or jail) to Pakistan's very-much-existent blasphemy laws (which execute people). 1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitutional-amendment-flag-burning.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/23524/public-support-constitution...
- Cyph0n 10y agoThe verse that entire Wikipedia page centers on is referring to a particular incident that occurred to the Prophet[1]. Furthermore, the verse is not referring to blasphemers in any way. It's important to note that a large portion of verses in the Quran were revealed to the Prophet in response to a particular event that took place during his lifetime. Tafsir (exegesis) is the subfield of Islamic science that deals with figuring out the context of a particular verse. [1] Explanation of that verse (5:33): http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&t...
- int_19h 10y agoIt's also important to note that such interpretation is subjective, and there are different schools of thought within Islam, that ascribe different contexts (and, consequently, different scopes) to the verses. Also, the mainstream consensus changes over time - there has been a fairly long period, for example, during which the Sword Verse was interpreted to imply that the Caliph does have the authority (and in some madhabs, the obligation) to wage offensive war against unbelievers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad#Permission_for_warfare_according_to_Islamic_jurists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on...
- duncan_bayne 10y agoYes. As with people arguing about the interpretation of other religious texts, though, the main issue is: what do the _majority_ of followers of the religion believe? Or, perhaps: do _enough_ followers of the religion believe the problematic interpretation? Had Al-Ghazali been less successful in his reactionary unwinding of the Islamic world's enlightenment, we'd probably be having a very different conversation now.