6 ms·

It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam. Contrary to what people might think India too has blasphemy laws and people are

by tn135 9y ago

It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam. Contrary to what people might think India too has blasphemy laws and people are regularly jailed even for academic work on religion (mostly Islam) or even private comments that insult the prophet. [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countr...] I looked up the history of India's blasphemy laws it is indeed a creation of British to outlaw criticism of Islam in India to maintain peace in their colony though now mostly used by Hindus. (Islamists simply hack people to death or put a bounty on people's head. They do not bother with courts). http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/02/banning-wendy-donigers-hindus.html http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/02/banning-wendy-donig...

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
> It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam. By some Muslims. Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.
- notliketherest 9y ago
  The biblical rules you site are from the pre-Christ laws. They were laws that needed to be followed to save man from the wrath of God. Christians believe that Jesus died and therefore took the punishment of their sins away, and all they need to do now is believe in him. So it's not the same at all. As far as I understand the laws of the Koran are very much the laws Muslims must follow.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    No, that's a post-Biblical rationalization. There's nothing in the Bible that specifically rescinds, say, the clothing laws, and some Christians still take the time to rationalize it away specifically, e.g. here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/192/Should-Christian-Wear-Clothing-Mixed-Fibers-Leviticus-1919.htm http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/... What people don't seem to get is that many, many theists do not choose to follow all the rules in their particular holy book. How many Christian churches now endorse gay marriage, for example? You may call this hypocrisy or, indeed, heresy if you like, but you need to understand that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that a person, their family, or their religious community holds identical beliefs to Osama bin Laden. If you judge people based on stereotypes rather than words and actions, you will judge them incorrectly.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    I had the impression that belief wasn't sufficient for a Christian and they still have to avoid sin. E.g., a gay Christian is supposed to abstain from sex.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      I'm an Episcopalian Christian, and my church's priest recently married his long-time boyfriend, with the full support of the American Episcopal Church. I haven't asked him about his sex life, because that would be weird, but I have no reason to think it's anything but normal. You really can't stereotype the beliefs of one group of Christians (or Muslims) based on another group's. Edit: It's odd that I get upvoted for pointing out that many Christians are not bigots, and downvoted for saying the same thing about Muslims.
      - MichaelGG 9y ago
        But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights. See the study linked elsewhere in the thread. The majority of Muslims believe things that aren't acceptable by current Western standards (like having Sharia be the law).
        PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        > But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights. Yes, my mistake. You can stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, just like you can stereotype all Christians as homophobes, or all atheists as sanctimonious jerks, or all black people as watermelon-loving gangsters. It's just, y'know, stupid and bigoted.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      There is a ton of leeway in the New Testament writings to let people decide what it means. I particularly love the line "everything is permissible, but not every is beneficial". Paul's letters are more like "oh come on, do you really have to be so degenerate?" with no real teeth. Unless you curse the Spirit. Jesus says he fulfills the law, and despite saying not a stroke of the old law should differ, that's a loophole to drive a truck through (on the Sabbath nonetheless). Islam doesn't have the benefit of a second prophet coming along and saying "eh, it's all good".
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Most Christians believe that some of the Old Testament rules still apply, such as the prohibition on homosexuality or adultery. To explain why other rules (like the various dietary restrictions, or need to circumcise) do not apply, a rather arbitrary line is drawn between "moral" and "ritual" commandments. This is the position of all Orthodox and Catholic churches (Catholics complicate it further by claiming that the "moral" Old Testament commandments are valid because they constitute "natural law", discoverable through reason alone). Some Christians believe that none of the Old Testament applies, and only restrictions that can be derived entirely from the New Testament are still valid. This is fairly popular among the more liberal Protestant churches. Some Christians believe that all laws apply, and would like to see a theocratic state that is actively enforcing all the Old Testament laws and punishments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism
    - vixen99 9y ago
      And these Christians in your last example are a significant problem (or any problem) where and to whom?
      - selimthegrim 9y ago
        I'd like to introduce you to a two-bit politician called Ted Cruz.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 9y ago
  But even in the US, religious tribunals exist among different religious groups and sometimes cross the line between arbritraion and the law. They are mostly ignored because well organized religious sects are politically powerful.
- ng12 9y ago
  But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia (Pakistan has Sharia courts) nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general. Saying "not all Muslims" or outlining oddities from other religions does not do justice to Islam's role as a geopolitical force.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    You should absolutely acknowledge and resist the efforts of fundamentalists and bigots of every stripe. Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and toxic and kills people. What bugs me is how many people refuse to admit any difference between Islamic fundamentalists and all Muslims. This is not a petty nitpick in an America where violent attacks against Muslims are skyrocketing. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crim...
    - ng12 9y ago
      Pakistan implements Islamic law which includes a death penalty for blasphemy. Nobody's talking about Muslims in America.
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        The post that I was replying to in the first place said "blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam," full stop. All I'm trying to do is make it clear that no major religion is a unified monolith. We both know that the crimes of terrorists and fundamentalists are used to condemn peaceful Muslims in the US and Europe.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia Christianity absolutely has, in each of it's iterations, bodies of behavioral norms which believers seek to have instituted by the State, or institute by themselves (sometimes through violence) independent of the State. > (Pakistan has Sharia courts) The UK, for example, doesn't need the Christian equivalent (ecclesiastical courts, which, also, the established Church has) for blasphemy, because blasphemy against Chritianity has, for over 400 years, been cognizable as an offense against the common law, so the regular courts deal with that. [0] > nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general. Christianity has quite a lot to say about statecraft. Thanks to the success of European colonialism, much of what powerful branches of Christianity has said about it have been influential in shaping international law, both customary and treaty. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_...
- tn135 9y ago
  You are more than welcome to come to India and live in mostly Muslim regions such as Kashmir or West Bengal! :) Living in muslim majority or heck even places where there are 20% muslims is absolutely hell. You will have to hear ajaan on a large loudspeaker all day, you will have to see kids hacking lambs in the residential areas during Eid and heck if you have to wear or celebrate Pagan festivals around the place of worship. Liberalism is cool to preach while sitting in a Starbucks in Silicon Valley but incredibly hard to find it in nooks of certain parts of the world.

by tn135 9y ago

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

> It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam. By some Muslims. Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.

notliketherest 9y ago
The biblical rules you site are from the pre-Christ laws. They were laws that needed to be followed to save man from the wrath of God. Christians believe that Jesus died and therefore took the punishment of their sins away, and all they need to do now is believe in him. So it's not the same at all. As far as I understand the laws of the Koran are very much the laws Muslims must follow.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  No, that's a post-Biblical rationalization. There's nothing in the Bible that specifically rescinds, say, the clothing laws, and some Christians still take the time to rationalize it away specifically, e.g. here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/192/Should-Christian-Wear-Clothing-Mixed-Fibers-Leviticus-1919.htm http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/... What people don't seem to get is that many, many theists do not choose to follow all the rules in their particular holy book. How many Christian churches now endorse gay marriage, for example? You may call this hypocrisy or, indeed, heresy if you like, but you need to understand that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that a person, their family, or their religious community holds identical beliefs to Osama bin Laden. If you judge people based on stereotypes rather than words and actions, you will judge them incorrectly.
- incompatible 9y ago
  I had the impression that belief wasn't sufficient for a Christian and they still have to avoid sin. E.g., a gay Christian is supposed to abstain from sex.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I'm an Episcopalian Christian, and my church's priest recently married his long-time boyfriend, with the full support of the American Episcopal Church. I haven't asked him about his sex life, because that would be weird, but I have no reason to think it's anything but normal. You really can't stereotype the beliefs of one group of Christians (or Muslims) based on another group's. Edit: It's odd that I get upvoted for pointing out that many Christians are not bigots, and downvoted for saying the same thing about Muslims.
    - MichaelGG 9y ago
      But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights. See the study linked elsewhere in the thread. The majority of Muslims believe things that aren't acceptable by current Western standards (like having Sharia be the law).
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        > But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights. Yes, my mistake. You can stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, just like you can stereotype all Christians as homophobes, or all atheists as sanctimonious jerks, or all black people as watermelon-loving gangsters. It's just, y'know, stupid and bigoted.
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    There is a ton of leeway in the New Testament writings to let people decide what it means. I particularly love the line "everything is permissible, but not every is beneficial". Paul's letters are more like "oh come on, do you really have to be so degenerate?" with no real teeth. Unless you curse the Spirit. Jesus says he fulfills the law, and despite saying not a stroke of the old law should differ, that's a loophole to drive a truck through (on the Sabbath nonetheless). Islam doesn't have the benefit of a second prophet coming along and saying "eh, it's all good".
- int_19h 9y ago
  Most Christians believe that some of the Old Testament rules still apply, such as the prohibition on homosexuality or adultery. To explain why other rules (like the various dietary restrictions, or need to circumcise) do not apply, a rather arbitrary line is drawn between "moral" and "ritual" commandments. This is the position of all Orthodox and Catholic churches (Catholics complicate it further by claiming that the "moral" Old Testament commandments are valid because they constitute "natural law", discoverable through reason alone). Some Christians believe that none of the Old Testament applies, and only restrictions that can be derived entirely from the New Testament are still valid. This is fairly popular among the more liberal Protestant churches. Some Christians believe that all laws apply, and would like to see a theocratic state that is actively enforcing all the Old Testament laws and punishments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism
  - vixen99 9y ago
    And these Christians in your last example are a significant problem (or any problem) where and to whom?
    - selimthegrim 9y ago
      I'd like to introduce you to a two-bit politician called Ted Cruz.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 9y ago
But even in the US, religious tribunals exist among different religious groups and sometimes cross the line between arbritraion and the law. They are mostly ignored because well organized religious sects are politically powerful.
ng12 9y ago
But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia (Pakistan has Sharia courts) nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general. Saying "not all Muslims" or outlining oddities from other religions does not do justice to Islam's role as a geopolitical force.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  You should absolutely acknowledge and resist the efforts of fundamentalists and bigots of every stripe. Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and toxic and kills people. What bugs me is how many people refuse to admit any difference between Islamic fundamentalists and all Muslims. This is not a petty nitpick in an America where violent attacks against Muslims are skyrocketing. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crim...
  - ng12 9y ago
    Pakistan implements Islamic law which includes a death penalty for blasphemy. Nobody's talking about Muslims in America.
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      The post that I was replying to in the first place said "blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam," full stop. All I'm trying to do is make it clear that no major religion is a unified monolith. We both know that the crimes of terrorists and fundamentalists are used to condemn peaceful Muslims in the US and Europe.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia Christianity absolutely has, in each of it's iterations, bodies of behavioral norms which believers seek to have instituted by the State, or institute by themselves (sometimes through violence) independent of the State. > (Pakistan has Sharia courts) The UK, for example, doesn't need the Christian equivalent (ecclesiastical courts, which, also, the established Church has) for blasphemy, because blasphemy against Chritianity has, for over 400 years, been cognizable as an offense against the common law, so the regular courts deal with that. [0] > nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general. Christianity has quite a lot to say about statecraft. Thanks to the success of European colonialism, much of what powerful branches of Christianity has said about it have been influential in shaping international law, both customary and treaty. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_...
tn135 9y ago
You are more than welcome to come to India and live in mostly Muslim regions such as Kashmir or West Bengal! :) Living in muslim majority or heck even places where there are 20% muslims is absolutely hell. You will have to hear ajaan on a large loudspeaker all day, you will have to see kids hacking lambs in the residential areas during Eid and heck if you have to wear or celebrate Pagan festivals around the place of worship. Liberalism is cool to preach while sitting in a Starbucks in Silicon Valley but incredibly hard to find it in nooks of certain parts of the world.