From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Islam a fascist ....
Summary: So if somebody says something against a cow and
	 since cow is a sacred animal, which should punish that
	 person ?
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:37:58 GMT

In article <l9l0p1INNfth@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.010334.629@sol.cs.wmich.edu> sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani) writes:
> >In article <l9iqs9INN54e@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu>, hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
> 
> 
stuff deleted

> 2: One is responsible in front of people for huqooq-ul-ibaad.
>    If X wrongs Y, then only Y can forgive X. Technically, infringing
>    on someone's right is called "Zulm" or injustice. So, if
>    X infringes on Y's rights, X has committed "Zulm" or injustice.
> 
> 3: If Y knows about the "zulm" and decides to forgive X, Y can do
>    that. If, however 
>         (i)  Y does not know about it for instance when
>              X has stolen some thing of Y without Y ever finding
>              it out, or
>              when Y is dead and is falsely accused of something
>              he never did. (this is the case you mentioned).
> 
> 	(ii) or, Y is too weak to do any thing about X's
> 	     injustice and zulm for instance when X is too
> 	     powerful, wealthy or inaccessible.
> 	Then,
> 	    the society as a whole becomes responsible for
> 	    bringing X to task. Society has to set up 
> 	    institutions and mechanisms to give "redress"
> 	    for the zulm committed on Y. (The answer to
> 	    your question is therefore that "society" must
> 	    attempt to redress the wrong done to a dead person).
> 
Then Allah[swt] is out, since society takes upon itself to
solve the problem. 

But why, when Allah[swt] has said that HE/SHE/IT is responsible
for such actions and he/she/it will take care of them. We are
interfering in Allah's affairs.

> 4: When the society's institutions are unable to provide
>          justice (for instance when X can not be found or can not
>           be brought to justice for want of enough evidence, or
> 	  because of some technicality)
> 
> 	Then,
> 
> 	    Y's rights revert to Allah. Allah will on the day of
> 	    judgement bring to task (i) X for whatever injustice
> 	    he committed, and (ii) the responsible people of
> 	    the society all the way up the hierarchy from workers to the 
>             incharges of dept of justice to the chief executive
> 	    of the state for NOT delivering the justice and for 
> 	    their incompetence in not fulfilling the trust
> 	    of the people.
> 
> NOTE:  4(ii) will put the responsiblity of that zulm committed
> on Y "ultimately" on the shoulders of ALL those who had the 
> opportunity and the knowledge of the injustices. This was the
> "responsiblity" that I pointed out in our earlier exchange, and which
> gets down on the shoulders of all educated people who feel deeply
> about such things like me, you, Dr. Zhivago, and the nephew of
> Monseigneur the Marquisse in "A tale of two cities".

So in this case, we have the first choice of punishing the guilty
otherwise allah[swt] will clean up, whoever we cant punish.
To me it appears strange for Allah[swt] to take such a SECONDARY
role in such an important affair. 

I think this whole thing of Blasphemy and what roles humans can play in
it sound rather fishy to me. I think some more thinking is required
before muslims issue more death warrants.

I am not motivated to fight injustice because of any divine advantage,
I simply think JUST societies work better. I want to be
productive and I want others to be productive also, but the
system must be just for that to happen. It is as simple as that. 

regards,

-Naveed