This came up on the feedback board:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1219270154

and also the wiki (forget where from):

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

What is the penalty for blasphemy under Islam?

Why does Islam forbid blasphemy, even though the prophet apparently was very tolerant of criticism and abuse directed at himself?

Why are modern Muslims so sensitive to criticism of Islam - like rioting in response to the Muhammed cartoons, even though criticism of other religious figures occurs in the middle east? What is the 'correct' islamic response to this?

Some other threads on this topic:

Re: Is Islam against free speech?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/26#26

Re: Islam and Australian values
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/108#108

Re: Islam, Cult or Religion?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218499953/12#12

Re: Sprints Posts=Inciting religious intolerence
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498/59#59

Re: More islamic groups forcing their wants
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215443280/54#54

Re: 'trench treachery'
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212726620/121#121

Re: Islam; Who's in charge?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1212206186/5#5

Give Muslims time to find democratic feet
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179362615/370#370

Islam: From Heretics to Believers
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1205665248/0#0

Re: ISLAM
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1180214242/333#333

Quote:

Why are modern Muslims so sensitive to criticism of Islam - like rioting in response to the Muhammed cartoons, even though criticism of other religious figures occurs in the middle east?

What criticism of other religious figures occurs in the Middle East exactly freediver?

Also you should remember, that when those filthmongers who called themselves 'artists' tried to display their 'piss christ' here in Australia, Muslims were the most vocal opponents of it!!

And bravo for the muslims!

You're the BEST again!!!

woo hoo!

That is not how I remember it.

It was the loonies who were the most vocal, but it were the christian loonies who kicked up the most stink.

Guess what, they were wrong, and if muslims joined in, they were wrong too.

The trouble with blasphemy is that religious believers are trying to force others to accept "THEIR" beliefs, sorry, but we aren't interested.

How about we start with the penalty for blasphemy?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 8:57am:

How about we start with the penalty for blasphemy?

what do you suggest...?

I think it must be death. That would explain the reulctance to say what it is.

the death penalty is applied more often in the states than anywhere else on earth.......

More than China?

uuummmmm....not sure. but they BOTH AINT MUSLIM countries..

So why bring it up then? I'm not asking who uses the death penalty more, I'm asking what the penalty is for blasphemy under Islamic law.

i dont know.....

it would vary from country to country....

indonesia is the most populous muslim country and they havent the death penalty for blasphemy....

is there even ONE that does? i doubt it....perhaps the taliban. but they were viewed as radicals by most muslims. you people seem to forget that muslims are ordinary people, and not at all radical.

Quote:

I think it must be death. That would explain the reulctance to say what it is.

No reluctance, I sincerely just don't know what it is.

Why do you not wish to answer which religious figures are supposedly criticised in the Middle East?

lol, that will get the award for the most humourous post.

FD was asking the guys here who are muslim, assuming that they may have accurate information, rather than guesses from someone who probably thinks the x-files is a documentary.

imperial wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 10:39am:

indonesia is the most populous muslim country and they havent the death penalty for blasphemy....

Indo is largely secular. The death penalty is rare but it does occur occasionally in rural areas. Having said that the latest blasphemy case is where the MUI releasd a fatwa stating that Ahmadiyah are spreading heretical views. This was followed by thousands of Muslims attacking Ahmadiyah believers and their properties. The were unsubstantiated reports of several members being hacked to death and one where the police saved a group from a lynch mob.

bump

Why do you not wish to answer which religious figures are supposedly criticised in the Middle East?

Sorry Abu, I just assumed most Muslims describe Christianity etc the same way you do. For example, I believe you often say that Jesus is not the son of God. To most Christians, this would probably be considered blasphemy. I'm sure if there were any Hindus here they could come up with far more 'undiplomatic' examples.

EDIT: Here's another one. This is a reference to middle eastern newspapers. Obviously they aren't going to criticise those religious figures they also hold to be sacred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Comparable_references

Jewish religious symbols, notably the Star of David, the main feature of the Israeli flag, are displayed in derogatory fashion, e.g. being composed of a menacing snake.

Quote:

I just assumed most Muslims describe Christianity etc the same way you do. For example, I believe you often say that Jesus is not the son of God.

But that's not criticism, that's just a difference of opinion on how he is perceived, we revere and respect him, we would never criticise him, in fact doing so would be blasphemy, and would probably incur whatever punishment it is you're trying to discover here in this thread :)

Likewise we don't criticise Buddha, Krishna nor any other religious figure, as we consider it disrespectful.

Quote:

But that's not criticism, that's just a difference of opinion on how he is perceived

So what if someone said that Muhammed was not in fact a prophet, but was just a man who happened to like war mongering and having sex with little girls. Or that Buddha was not divine, but was just a fat bloke who was always happy. Would that be a criticism, or a difference of opinion? Do you revere and respect Buddha and Krishna?

Is this the correct Islamic punishment Abu?

Pakistani Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy

http://www.english.rfi.fr/asia-pacific/20101112-pakistani-christian-sentenced-death-blasphemy

A Pakistani court has sentenced to death a Christian mother of five for blasphemy, a first such conviction for a woman. Human rights groups protest the conviction and call for blasphemy laws to be repealed.

Asia Bibi was sentenced to death on Monday by a local court in Nankana district in Pakistan's central province Punjab.

Her conviction has sparked protests from human rights groups and indignation from groups representing Christians in Pakistan.

In June 2009, Asia was asked to fetch water while working in the fields. A group of Muslim workers objected to her touching the water bowl on the grounds that she was not a Muslim.

Later the women complained to a local cleric and alleged that Asia had defiled the name of the Prophet Mohammed. Asia was arrested and a local judge sentenced her to hang and ruled out any chance that she had been falsely implicated.

Human rights and minority groups have slammed the conviction and say they want the controversial blasphemy legislation repealed.

“99% of cases against Christians have been filed in Punjab province under the blasphemy law after the formation of this controversial law which indicates a rise in extremism in Punjab,” says Watson Gill, a coordinator for the Pakistan Christian Congress.

Asia's husband Ashiq Masih says he is going to appeal the death sentence which needs to be upheld by the Lahore high court, the highest tribunal in Punjab, before it can be carried out.

"The case is baseless and we will file an appeal," he said.

Around 3 per cent of Pakistan’s population is believed to be non-Muslim.

There can be no correct Islamic punishment when the Caliphate system does not exist, so no.

It is Pakistani law and a Pakistani punishment.

Is American law of sentencing people to death a Biblical law? The same punishment exists in the biblical texts, and America is a predominantly Christian country right?

So they err because they kill the lady without proper authority, but not because they kill the lady?


Quote:

Is American law of sentencing people to death a Biblical law? The same punishment exists in the biblical texts, and America is a predominantly Christian country right?

Are you suggesting that the Bible is a body of law in the same way that Islam is? Is the inability to draw conclusions about biblical law meant to shed light on why you can't answer the question about Islamic law, or confuse the issue?

What is the penalty for blasphemy under Islamic law, in a proper Islamic state, with all the other qualififcations you need before giving an answer?

Quote:

Are you suggesting that the Bible is a body of law in the same way that Islam is?

It quite clearly purports to be.

How more plain does it need to be than "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death."?

Is that ambigious to you fd? Going by your thought patterns thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

That's quite clearly an instruction to implement capital punishment on anyone who blasphemes, whether native (ie. believer) or not.


Quote:

Is the inability to draw conclusions about biblical law meant to shed light on why you can't answer the question about Islamic law, or confuse the issue?

I think you're well aware of the intent. It is to expose your hypocrisy and sensationalism. You harp on and on about Islam and it's books, when the holy book of your own background/society fits the criteria much better for what you wish to condemn.


Quote:

What is the penalty for blasphemy under Islamic law, in a proper Islamic state, with all the other qualififcations you need before giving an answer?

I think you already know it's a capital offense. I honestly don't see the attraction in asking the questions over and over? Your pathetic wiki is based on a misguided premise that Islamic laws somehow contradict Australian secular laws. As above, so do Biblical laws, doesn't stop the parliament reading Biblical prayers when opening does it? Doesn't stop Jews & Christians being good law-abiding citzeins does it? How you take a set of laws is up to you fd. If you choose not to implement the blasphemy law from the Bible, then it doesn't affect you does it? Likewise if you choose not to implement the blasphemy law from the Islamic texts. Your feeble attempt to paint some kind of incompatibility here is thrown right back in your face. It's based on the delusion that each and every citizen is supposedly required to carry out the punishments of the state, which is just nonsense. And we've been over this time and time again, and I've already painted the picture for you of an American citizen living here, believing in the U.S law of capital punishment, not contradicting the Australian law system. But as usual, the feeble minded are far from being able to reason such things out.

The "desire" to have sharia law applied, based upon a book claimed to be divine, and mary poppins like, "perfect in every way", along with the punishments laid down in the text, is very different to abiding by modern secular laws Abu.
Pointing out anachronistic punishments from the bible only highlights the difference between the Islamic approach to justice, and that of modern secular societies, which do not constrain their justice system to a code written in a different time, for a different time, and from a very different culture.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 9:25pm:

[quote]Likewise if you choose not to implement the blasphemy law from the Islamic texts. Your feeble attempt to paint some kind of incompatibility here is thrown right back in your face. It's based on the delusion that each and every citizen is supposedly required to carry out the punishments of the state, which is just nonsense.

Secular states don't follow the law of the Torah or the Koran.

I think what FD is getting at is your willingness to institute the law of the Koran.

And now my interest is piqued, Abu: do you want to see these sorts of laws applied?

I know it's not every citizen's responsibility to make laws, but there's no Jewish move to reintroduce the laws of Leviticus. There is an Islamic move to introduce Shariah.

I think FD is asking you if you think this is a good idea.

Fair enough question, isn't it?

Quote:

I think you're well aware of the intent. It is to expose your hypocrisy and sensationalism.

What hypocrisy? I ask you a simple question, like what is the punishment for blasphemy under Islam.

And yes, it is sensational Abu. I don't need to add anything to it - your own words are enough.


Quote:

You harp on and on about Islam and it's books, when the holy book of your own background/society fits the criteria much better for what you wish to condemn.

But Abu, I do not condemn your holy book. I condemn you for wanting a return to the barbarity. How is that hypocritical? Trust me, if you rejected Shariah law, I would have nothing to criticise you for. I am not disputing that these things happened in the past in all societies. What I dispute is whether this is something we should seek a return to. I don't know how, but you seem to have missed this point.


Quote:

I think you already know it's a capital offense.

Actually, no I did not. Hence the question. This is what I had on the wiki:

Blasphemy/free speech Islam forbids criticism of God, Muhammed or Islam. It also restricts other areas of free speech. Phone sex lines for example would be illegal. Penalty?

I have updated the wiki for you:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values#Conflicts

Thanks again for contributing to the accuracy of the wiki.


Quote:

I honestly don't see the attraction in asking the questions over and over?

I think of it as a little victory every time I get a striaght answer from you. If you think this victory is hollow and you had already given the answer, feel free to link us to it so everyone can revel in my ignorance.


Quote:

Your pathetic wiki is based on a misguided premise that Islamic laws somehow contradict Australian secular laws.

Values Abu - it's about values. Obviously they are worlds apart from Australian law also.


Quote:

As above, so do Biblical laws, doesn't stop the parliament reading Biblical prayers when opening does it?

So long as they don't start stoning people to death and chopping their hands and feet off I think that is pretty harmless. Or is that yet another example of my hypocrisy? Am I wrong to defend civilised society and freedom of speech while not getting wound up over prayers in parliament?


Quote:

If you choose not to implement the blasphemy law from the Bible, then it doesn't affect you does it?

Yes it does Abu. It means I am free to say what I want.


Quote:

Likewise if you choose not to implement the blasphemy law from the Islamic texts.

Do you honestly think I would change my mind if it was some other religious person on here who wanted the death penalty for blasphemy? You are not making any sense Abu. You still see this whole argument as a battle between Islam and one religion or another, but you have not even figured out what you are up against, and why Shariah law is something that every other religion, every atheist, every agnostic will unite against, not because it is Islam, but because it is barbarity.


Quote:

Your feeble attempt to paint some kind of incompatibility here is thrown right back in your face.

So you don't see any incompatibility between the society you grew up in and the death penalty for blasphemy? Why is it so hard for me to believe that you grew up in a typical western community?


Quote:

It's based on the delusion that each and every citizen is supposedly required to carry out the punishments of the state, which is just nonsense.

What is based on that Abu? BTW, I agree with you, it is nonsense.

I don't think Abu wants to discuss this anymore. Pity! It was quite interesting.

It just occured to me that I may not have asked him whether he supports shariah law. He does appear to be a bit embarrassed by it, so maybe his views differ from Malik's.

He always comes back to it eventually. If not here, the topic will come up again in another thread. You just have to get used to only getting a bit out of him at a time.

karnal,


Quote:

Secular states don't follow the law of the Torah or the Koran.

Precisely. So all the hype and garbage about Shari'ah law being "snuck" into the West is just absolute nonsense.

Christians themselves, who are the majority, cannot even get their laws applied in their own countries, as neither can Muslims in their own countries, so the idea that Islam is a threat as it has laws is just ludicrous, that's my whole position here.


Quote:

I think what FD is getting at is your willingness to institute the law of the Koran.

Well there's a lot of people in Australia, who'd like to institute a lot of laws that are not in compliance with Australia's current legislation. I don't see too much hype about those people not being compatible with the "Australian way of life". Come on Karnal, don't let yourself be whored off for this cheap and nasty cause.


Quote:

And now my interest is piqued, Abu: do you want to see these sorts of laws applied?

I do believe the Islamic Shari'ah to be perfect, and under a Caliphate of course they should be applied. Should they be transplanted into an Australian secular context? No, of course not. Any hype claiming Muslims are calling for this is fanciful at best.


Quote:

I know it's not every citizen's responsibility to make laws, but there's no Jewish move to reintroduce the laws of Leviticus.

Ultra Orthodox Jews are constantly trying to re-introduce Torah/Talmud law in occupied-Palestine. Britain has been implementing "Jewish law" alongside English law for over 70 years now (no hoohah about that), and it's the same kind of thing that was spoken about with regard to Muslims, and the whole of Europe were up in arms. I think you can quite clearly see there's an agenda behind all this.


Quote:

There is an Islamic move to introduce Shariah.

Yes, in the Muslim world (and a fairly unsuccessful one at that), not here, hence it's complete irrelevance to Australia.


Quote:

I don't think Abu wants to discuss this anymore. Pity! It was quite interesting

Similar stuff to this was discussed with fd for several years running now. It leads nowhere, except to him going off and taking things wildly out of context and writing his little wiki, thinking he's making some great contribution to exposing Islam or something. I'm sure that you can see why I find it tiresome.

Abu - the only thing I like about Sharia law is that the Muslims
are not afraid of hanging: murderers, rapists & thieves.

We give them light sentences here & they can return to do it again.

As for blasphemy - it's not fair to punish someone for their beliefs.

bobby,

Whilst I like that you appreciate certain aspects of Shari'ah law, I am disappointed that you apparently don't realise Shari'ah law is a very complex law system. It is not merely a few physical punishments as we're led to believe in the West, it is a very detailed and comprehensive law system, which covers all aspects of the human condition.

For instance, few people ever talk about land laws according to Shari'ah. Did you know for instance that if you are able to put a fence around unused land, and to utilise it (ie farm it etc) then you attain ownership over that land?

Or how about welfare laws, senior citizens were given pensions over 1400 years ago by Shari'ah law, something which only reached most Western countries in the past century.

Or that a head of state is not above the law, and must be tried like anyone else, even if in office. There was the famous case of a Jewish man who took Khaleefah Ali to court and won against him, whilst he was head of state of the entire Muslim world.

Or that a child has a right to be breastfed for the first two years of their life, if the mother is capable, something the U.N/WHO now recommend and which has shown to be extremely beneficial to an individual's lifelong health and immunity.

These kinds of things make up the vast bulk of Shari'ah law, yet the anti-Islamists are not interested in hearing about them. Instead they just take a few physical punishments out of context and promote them as the embodiment of what Shari'ah law is.


Quote:

As for blasphemy - it's not fair to punish someone for their beliefs.

Blasphemy laws do not punish people for their beliefs, they punish people for slandering and libeling other people's beliefs.

Btw fd, going to add those comparisons of laws to your wiki?

For example, something like this:

Health legislation
Islam: Child has a right to be breastfed for first two years of life (an action known to dramatically increase their lifelong health & immunity)

Australian: Child has no such right at all, the full right is given to the mother to go out and party and fill her body full of toxins and give the kid powder replacement instead.

Quote:

Quote:

[quote]As for blasphemy - it's not fair to punish someone for their beliefs.

Blasphemy laws do not punish people for their beliefs, they punish people for slandering and libeling other people's beliefs.[/quote]

Therefore if I stood outside a Mosque in Iran & said:

Quote:

I don't believe that Mohammad was a prophet

I would be killed & that is OK by you?

Firstly Iran is not a Shari'ah implementing country, contrary to the claims.

Secondly, no I don't think you would be. You might get abused for being insensitive or hear "good for you", but that'd probably be about it.

Islam does not legislate that people can be convicted for not believing in Islam.

Would you actually feel any great need to go and do that, just out of curiousity?

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 11:58am:

Firstly Iran is not a Shari'ah implementing country, contrary to the claims. Secondly, no I don't think you would be. You might get abused for being insensitive or hear "good for you", but that'd probably be about it. Islam does not legislate that people can be convicted for not believing in Islam. Would you actually feel any great need to go and do that, just out of curiousity?

Rubbish - they would hang me in village square immediately.
They are barbaric people.

I would feel the need to tell them the truth.
There is no prophet because "God" doesn't exist except in peoples imaginations.
I am a scientist not a religious crank.

Quote:

Christians themselves, who are the majority, cannot even get their laws applied in their own countries, as neither can Muslims in their own countries, so the idea that Islam is a threat as it has laws is just ludicrous, that's my whole position here.

Abu, anyone who opposes freedom is a threat to freedom. Anyone who opposes democracy is a threat to democracy. Anyone who opposes human rights is a threat to human rights. All these things are fragile, and it is your argument that is ludicrous. The fact that Christians can't impliment what you think their law should be is irrelevant. Whether you oppose these things because it is part of a law that is part of your religion, or because you are racist, homophobic, or watever, is irrelevant. The fact is that you oppose them, and no amount of wrapping it up in cotton wool or impotence will change that. People are not going to ignore these things because of your gentle reassurances that you will fail.


Quote:

Well there's a lot of people in Australia, who'd like to institute a lot of laws that are not in compliance with Australia's current legislation. I don't see too much hype about those people not being compatible with the "Australian way of life".

Again Abu, we do not criticise you merely because you want to change the law. It is what you want to change the laws to that brings criticism on you. This is little more than a series of infantile strawmen. You can address everything but the elephant in the room.


Quote:

I do believe the Islamic Shari'ah to be perfect, and under a Caliphate of course they should be applied.

So what should a Muslim do if asked to bring judgement on someone before the caliphate overthrows the government? Should a Muslim refuse to play any role in law making, law enforcement or justice until they get their own version of a perfect government? What should a Muslim do if given a choice to impliment some aspects of shariah law?


Quote:

Should they be transplanted into an Australian secular context? No, of course not. Any hype claiming Muslims are calling for this is fanciful at best.

Aren't Muslims asking for exactly this in many parts of the world - some kind of self governance under shariah law?


Quote:

Britain has been implementing "Jewish law" alongside English law for over 70 years now (no hoohah about that)

Abu, your strawmen are just getting more and more absurd. We do not reject shariah law because it has foundations in religion. We reject it because it is barbaric. If Enland started stoning people to death for adultery or chopping limbs off as punishment or condoning rape or dismantling democracy, you might have something more than a strawman, but at the moment that is all you have. There is no shortage of hoohah in the west about the Jews.


Quote:

I think you can quite clearly see there's an agenda behind all this.

Like what? Protecting freedom? Protecting democracy? Perhaps you think we made these things up just so we could bag on Muslims?


Quote:

Similar stuff to this was discussed with fd for several years running now.

Can you link to a single previous example where you answered my question about the punishment for blasphemy? It's a tad hypocritical to complain about these discussions going on for years when it takes a few years to get a straight answer from you.


Quote:

It leads nowhere

Not true. For example we recently got you to admit you support people getting stoned to death for saying the wrong thing about Muhammed.


Quote:

except to him going off and taking things wildly out of context

Can you explain where I have taken something out of context? Should we only complain about people wanting to take away our democracy, freedom and human rights the night before they succeed?


Quote:

thinking he's making some great contribution to exposing Islam or something. I'm sure that you can see why I find it tiresome.

So why do you go to such great lengths over many years to try to justify not answetring my questions in case your answers end up on the wiki? If you didn't try so hard to mislead people about Islam, there would be nothing to expose.


Quote:

Whilst I like that you appreciate certain aspects of Shari'ah law, I am disappointed that you apparently don't realise Shari'ah law is a very complex law system. It is not merely a few physical punishments as we're led to believe in the West, it is a very detailed and comprehensive law system, which covers all aspects of the human condition....These kinds of things make up the vast bulk of Shari'ah law, yet the anti-Islamists are not interested in hearing about them.

So we should appreciate the detail and ignore the bits about stoning people to death?


Quote:

Instead they just take a few physical punishments out of context

Are you suggesting that putting the barbaric parts of Islam into context will make them seem more benign?

freediver.

Quote:

So we should appreciate the detail and ignore the bits about stoning people to death?

That is the point isn't it?
Abu seems to be brainwashed.
He really thinks that the Koran is the word of God.
God can't be wrong so he justifies even the most barbaric & ridiculous punishments.
He is an apologist for the Koran.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 12:25pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 27th, 2010 at 11:58am: Firstly Iran is not a Shari'ah implementing country, contrary to the claims. Secondly, no I don't think you would be. You might get abused for being insensitive or hear "good for you", but that'd probably be about it. Islam does not legislate that people can be convicted for not believing in Islam. Would you actually feel any great need to go and do that, just out of curiousity? They are barbaric people.

You've obviously never met any Persians. They are hardly barbaric people. Most urban Iranians are extremely well educated. There is a literary culture in Iran which goes way back, and all the Iranians I've met have been accomodating, hospitable and humble, gentle people.

Yes, the educated Iranians from Tehran are generally nice cultured people. Tehran used to be called the Paris of the East. Most of them can't stand the current regime. It would be a tragedy if Iran was invaded. There is so much culture there.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 8:24am:

Yes, the educated Iranians from Tehran are generally nice cultured people. Tehran used to be called the Paris of the East. Most of them can't stand the current regime. It would be a tragedy if Iran was invaded. There is so much culture there.

Their films are often brilliant - Tehran has been at the cutting edge of cinema for years. Some of the writers in Iran are literary giants. Iran has a lineage of poetry going back years - many of their classical Sufi poets have influenced writers such as Shakespeare.

Romeo and Juliet, for example, is based on an old Persian story.