From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam: Difference b/w blasphemy and Criticizm
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:17:37 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug26.220339.1764@sol.cs.wmich.edu> sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani) writes:
>In article <l9nki5INN434@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
>
>I guess the discussion is about blasphemy. There is a BIG
>difference between blasphemy and rape/murder/etc.

Yes, there is a big difference. There is also a very big
difference between libel and murder. However, this difference
is not sufficient to stop a state from enforcing "some"
penalty for libel in accordance to its constitution.

The outline of the Islamic concept of justice I presented the 
other day is especially much more strong and judicial than (say) the
Western concept (i.e. equality).

>These are physical crimes, and can be logically defined
>and precisely stated.
>
>On the other hand, what is insulting to one prophet/religion
>may not be to other. 

So, are you arguing that ALL  "acts" which can NOT be precisely 
stated or logically defined should NOT be considered "criminal"?

In Islam, an "act" is considered "criminal" if its commission
results in the violation of some right of the "affectee".

This is irrespective of whether the due process of law is 
physically capable of ascertaining it or not. It is here we see the
clear divergence of Islam from other legal codes. Although,
an Islamic court is "constrained" to give the verdict within
the physical limitations of the court, Allah's court on
the day of judgement is under no such constraints. Even though
a murderer can go scott free in a USA law if the dead body can not 
found, the same is not true in the Islamic law. Just because
a dead body can not be found, is no reason to let the person go
free. I agree that in such a case a worldly Islamic court can not
hang the murderer (because the due process of law didn't prove it),
however, JUSTICE will then be done in the hereafter.

Similarly, if a court can NOT prove the "insult", it does not mean
that "insulting behavior" will not be punished and the affected
person will not have his redress. Justice will be done, if not
here, then in the hereafter.

[I think you meant "due process of law" by the phrase 
 "logically defined and precisely stated"]. 

>
>If Muslims have the first right to punish a person, whoever
>says anything against Islam --blasphemy, then we have to
>allow this right to all religions.
>

No Muslim has the right to punish any person on his own. Only,
the competent court excercising justice according to the 
constitution (Quran) of an Islamic state can do that.
The present confusion is a result of ignoring this point. What
a kufr-ka-fatwa from a "maulvi" or a "mufti" signifies is
ONLY his legal opinion. Just because a legal expert holds some
view in USA, does not make it into an executable law, similarly,
an Islamic scholor's opinion on an issue doesnot make it into 
a law. His opinion will only be considered as legaly binding
and executable when he excercises it through the authority
conferred to him in an Islamic state according to Quranic
constitution. 

>If that is the case, almost all muslims are guilty of
>blasphemy to christianity and judaism. Since muslims
>insist that they have a BETTER copy of their religions
>and christians and jews have 'corrupted' copies.
>
>To me this amounts to a direct insult--blasphemy.

The above remarks be-speaks of not being able to 
differentiate between a scholorly criticism and a trashy
four lettered-type words. A scholarly criticism is not
construed by any of the major religions as insult or
blasphemy. Islam has never considered it, and Christianity
at least, doesn't do it today. I think you will find more
scholorly criticism of Islam within Islamic literature than
outside. Even today, the orientalists critics of Hadiths
mostly rely on that earlier criticism done by the Muslims
themselves. 


>Unfortunately, this is VERY BASIS of Islam. So islam
>is based on blasphemous remarks to other religons.

Unfortunately, you can not differentiate between
criticism and blasphemy. 

>My suggestion is ofcourse, let us get out of this mess in a
>simple way:
>
>    You practise your religion and I will practice mine.
>    If you say anything demeaning about my gods they will take
>    of you. My business is to keey my relation with my God clear.
>  

I don't think that critics like Ahmed Deedat ever say any
thing to demean the gods of Christians. In fact, all three
are more revered by us than by them! Muslim criticism and
Quran's criticsm of Christianity  doesnot is not blasphemous
by even their standards. Ahmed Deedat, in fact, entirely 
relies on their books!!!!!!!

So, don't take ire, if I use your standards to criticize your
religion. Remember, filthy and trashy language, not supported
by evidence is not considered criticizm in any religion.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan