From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Islam: Difference b/w blasphemy and Criticizm
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:50:31 GMT

In article <l9qokhINN6ut@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
> 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"]. 
> 

Hyder Bhai: 

You are completely going in circles. 
You compare donkeys to horses:

example: Comparing Islamic system and US law Justice sytem.

 Islamic system is based is law on earth and law in hereafter.
Which makes sense to muslims ONLY. US law is made to make sense
to EVERYBODY, or as many people as possible.

When you need
ultimate justice, we are back to allah[swt], when comes to 
justifying muslim's death threats, you are out to settle the
issues on earth.

You have vague concept of justice in hereafter,
which can be used to solve any problem whatsoever.
It is like having a non-deterministic turing machine.
Obviously if you have non-detrministic turing machines
you can solve a lot of problems, unfortunately, such machines
dont exist. 

If you want to compare, the two land based system and leave
the hereafter part out of it. 

Then let justice be done in hereafter. 
Since definition of insult differs from person to person. 
I am sure Allah[swt] can take care of such people.

We simple folks dont have the comfort of knowing what Allah[swt]
may do in hereafter. We will resolve all crimes we can. what
we cant, we cant.


> >
> >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. 
> 
Please answer the argument, why are you trying to deflect
the question.

Muslims position on Christianity and Judaism is:

 1. These folks have old copy of a true religion
 2. We have the true religion and new and true copy.
 3. There religion as it stands today is null and viod.

If this is not the position, then state it, otherwise, we
will let people decide what is trashy and what is not.

> 
> >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. 

Still no answer, more deflection. Answer the question:

 Is it basis or not ?

> 
> >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!!!!!!!
> 

But my claim is the very basic claim of
Islam is blasphemous to christians. It is nothing
to do with an individual would say or do.

> 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.
> 

My basic argument is that if you get into this blasphemous business
then just closely examine muslims position on other religions
before trying to stup up everybody in the world.

I will simply say, muslims should show same respect to other
religions, if they expect respect from them.
Just because, they think they have the ONLY TRUE UNIQUE
religion in the world does not make them worthy of respect.

Respect all religions, apply uniform logic, dont be hypocritical,
these are the cornerstones of this discussion, if I want to
proceed any further.

regards,

-Naveed