3 ms·

The beauty about blasphemy in Islam is that it may be forbidden to narrate exactly what the blasphemous statement is before a court as that may be blasphemy in

The beauty about blasphemy in Islam is that it may be forbidden to narrate exactly what the blasphemous statement is before a court as that may be blasphemy in itself. It takes a 'credible' witness to state that a blasphemous statement was made and that is it. Chew on that. I really think Western media outlets should not give publicity to these demonstrations which can even turn violent because they are simply feeding the beast with the publicity it thrives on. If the governments of "Islamic" states want to cut off their citizens access to the wider knowledge of the world for fear that they might be exposed to blasphemous statements they are entirely free to. No one is bothered here.

inglor_cz 4y ago
We have similar tendencies in the secular world as well, see the case of a former NYT reporter who was fired for repeating the N-word when clarifying a kid's question that used the N-word itself. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/01/media/donald-mcneil-speaks-out/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/01/media/donald-mcneil-speak... While Islamic religious law is certainly backward, the hysteria that underlies blasphemy/taboos isn't limited to medieval legal systems.
- potamic 4y ago
  Reminds me of this classic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEBh1VtdT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEBh1VtdT0
- naveen99 4y ago
  There is plenty of legal music / media using it though. And it’s not illegal to consume it either.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  As much as I disagree with the actions of the Times here, there’s a massive difference between a single private entity deciding to let go of an employee based on a ridiculous justification and having a legal system based on similar ridiculous justifications.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    I wasn't claiming any equality between those two, only a similar thought pattern behind them. That said, I wouldn't like to see how a hypothetical country run by the New York Times staff, and thus by proxy by the Twitter mob, would look like. It might be pretty ghastly. For all its faults, the current political system has quite a lot of checks and balances that limit arbitrary decisions and capriciousness of important players, and those limits would likely go out of the window in the new Outrage Republic.

inglor_cz 4y ago

We have similar tendencies in the secular world as well, see the case of a former NYT reporter who was fired for repeating the N-word when clarifying a kid's question that used the N-word itself. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/01/media/donald-mcneil-speaks-out/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/01/media/donald-mcneil-speak... While Islamic religious law is certainly backward, the hysteria that underlies blasphemy/taboos isn't limited to medieval legal systems.

potamic 4y ago
Reminds me of this classic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEBh1VtdT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jEBh1VtdT0
naveen99 4y ago
There is plenty of legal music / media using it though. And it’s not illegal to consume it either.
rhaway84773 4y ago
As much as I disagree with the actions of the Times here, there’s a massive difference between a single private entity deciding to let go of an employee based on a ridiculous justification and having a legal system based on similar ridiculous justifications.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  I wasn't claiming any equality between those two, only a similar thought pattern behind them. That said, I wouldn't like to see how a hypothetical country run by the New York Times staff, and thus by proxy by the Twitter mob, would look like. It might be pretty ghastly. For all its faults, the current political system has quite a lot of checks and balances that limit arbitrary decisions and capriciousness of important players, and those limits would likely go out of the window in the new Outrage Republic.