Hacker News Reader

Comment by tn135 | Hacker News Reader

It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam.

Contrary to what people might think India too has blasphemy laws and people are regularly jailed even for academic work on religion (mostly Islam) or even private comments that insult the prophet. [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countr...]

I looked up the history of India's blasphemy laws it is indeed a creation of British to outlaw criticism of Islam in India to maintain peace in their colony though now mostly used by Hindus. (Islamists simply hack people to death or put a bounty on people's head. They do not bother with courts).

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/02/banning-wendy-donig...

View on HN

> It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam.

By some Muslims. Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.

The biblical rules you site are from the pre-Christ laws. They were laws that needed to be followed to save man from the wrath of God. Christians believe that Jesus died and therefore took the punishment of their sins away, and all they need to do now is believe in him. So it's not the same at all. As far as I understand the laws of the Koran are very much the laws Muslims must follow.

Most Christians believe that some of the Old Testament rules still apply, such as the prohibition on homosexuality or adultery. To explain why other rules (like the various dietary restrictions, or need to circumcise) do not apply, a rather arbitrary line is drawn between "moral" and "ritual" commandments. This is the position of all Orthodox and Catholic churches (Catholics complicate it further by claiming that the "moral" Old Testament commandments are valid because they constitute "natural law", discoverable through reason alone).

Some Christians believe that none of the Old Testament applies, and only restrictions that can be derived entirely from the New Testament are still valid. This is fairly popular among the more liberal Protestant churches.

Some Christians believe that all laws apply, and would like to see a theocratic state that is actively enforcing all the Old Testament laws and punishments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

And these Christians in your last example are a significant problem (or any problem) where and to whom?

I'd like to introduce you to a two-bit politician called Ted Cruz.

I had the impression that belief wasn't sufficient for a Christian and they still have to avoid sin. E.g., a gay Christian is supposed to abstain from sex.

There is a ton of leeway in the New Testament writings to let people decide what it means. I particularly love the line "everything is permissible, but not every is beneficial". Paul's letters are more like "oh come on, do you really have to be so degenerate?" with no real teeth. Unless you curse the Spirit.

Jesus says he fulfills the law, and despite saying not a stroke of the old law should differ, that's a loophole to drive a truck through (on the Sabbath nonetheless).

Islam doesn't have the benefit of a second prophet coming along and saying "eh, it's all good".

Islam has any number of prophets actually, including Jesus. But the view in Islam appears to be that Muhammad trumps all the others because he's the only one whose message hasn't been corrupted.

I'm an Episcopalian Christian, and my church's priest recently married his long-time boyfriend, with the full support of the American Episcopal Church. I haven't asked him about his sex life, because that would be weird, but I have no reason to think it's anything but normal.

You really can't stereotype the beliefs of one group of Christians (or Muslims) based on another group's.

Edit: It's odd that I get upvoted for pointing out that many Christians are not bigots, and downvoted for saying the same thing about Muslims.

But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights. See the study linked elsewhere in the thread. The majority of Muslims believe things that aren't acceptable by current Western standards (like having Sharia be the law).

> But you can. Just like you can stereotype folks from SF being against Trump or pro gay-rights.

Yes, my mistake. You can stereotype all Muslims as terrorists, just like you can stereotype all Christians as homophobes, or all atheists as sanctimonious jerks, or all black people as watermelon-loving gangsters. It's just, y'know, stupid and bigoted.

No, that's a post-Biblical rationalization. There's nothing in the Bible that specifically rescinds, say, the clothing laws, and some Christians still take the time to rationalize it away specifically, e.g. here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/...

What people don't seem to get is that many, many theists do not choose to follow all the rules in their particular holy book. How many Christian churches now endorse gay marriage, for example? You may call this hypocrisy or, indeed, heresy if you like, but you need to understand that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that a person, their family, or their religious community holds identical beliefs to Osama bin Laden. If you judge people based on stereotypes rather than words and actions, you will judge them incorrectly.

But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia (Pakistan has Sharia courts) nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general. Saying "not all Muslims" or outlining oddities from other religions does not do justice to Islam's role as a geopolitical force.

Christian sharia is called 'the law' in much of the Western hemisphere, which is pretty much what 'sharia' means.

Americans (and others in the liberal democracies of the West) forget about things like 'blue laws' or attempts to prohibit gay-marriage, 'miscegenation' and other moral policing primarily because we have moved away from those practices. So while the current Christian version of sharia is somewhat limited to things like whether folks can buy beer or get their car fixed on a Sunday, it's still there exerting its influence.

I mean, swearing on a Bible? heh

Sure, but these are laws which were the result of shared beliefs of it's constituents. They were not laws because the religion says they should be laws.

Islamic laws are also from the shared beliefs of their constituents.

So if the beliefs change then islamic law can change? What makes it Islamic law then?

Religions change when the beliefs of people in religious communities change. Christianity, including both beliefs and ecclesiastical legal systems (which Christianity has, and which have historically been enforced with State power, or State-like power by the Church.)

Consider, in the Roman Catholic Church, the modern Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as compared to its early 20th Century predecessor, the Congregation for the Holy Office, and it's predecessor, the Supreme Sacred Congregation for the Universal Inquisition, both in terms of the body of law applied, the beliefs underlying that body of law, and the practical methods applied and the persons subjected to the jurisdiction of the Congregation.

> So if the beliefs change then islamic law can change?

Yes, of course. Why wouldn't it?

I feel like people don't understand how religion works in practice. A major religion is never a changeless monolith. Some practitioners will always insist that their way is the unchanging and eternal word of God, but even with a 2000-year-old book at hand, religion is a human institution and has always changed to fit the needs of the people practicing it. As a liberal Episcopalian, my religious practice couldn't be more different than a fundamentalist Baptist's, and both would be unrecognizable to a Catholic from a few centuries back.

> Sure, but these are laws which were the result of shared beliefs of it's constituents.

...What do you think Islamic laws are?

The shared belief rose from them being laws first, and people growing up with those laws as normal.

Church in India uses its influence to pass "Bible compliant" laws.

Christians in India caused a riot because government proposed reservation for women. (Local christian community believes women should remain at home).

> But Christianity does not have an equivalent of Sharia

Christianity absolutely has, in each of it's iterations, bodies of behavioral norms which believers seek to have instituted by the State, or institute by themselves (sometimes through violence) independent of the State.

> (Pakistan has Sharia courts)

The UK, for example, doesn't need the Christian equivalent (ecclesiastical courts, which, also, the established Church has) for blasphemy, because blasphemy against Chritianity has, for over 400 years, been cognizable as an offense against the common law, so the regular courts deal with that. [0]

> nor does it have much to say about statecraft in general.

Christianity has quite a lot to say about statecraft. Thanks to the success of European colonialism, much of what powerful branches of Christianity has said about it have been influential in shaping international law, both customary and treaty.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_...

There are key differences though and for what it's worth I would feel the same about a medieval-era Catholic monarchy as I do about an Islamic state. Islam has many unique concepts -- Sharia, jihad, the Calpihate -- that make it fundamentally difficult to compare to most other world religions. Mohammad was a prophet first, but he was also a conqueror and a statesman.

"Sharia" is just religious law. It is not particularly a unique feature to Islam, though religious law and religious courts have declined in the West over the last few centuries and now mostly are confined to dealing with members of their own religion, and usually lack the backing of the State or State-like power (though that's not universally the case, and is more a regional diffference that correlates with religion than a religious difference.)

"Jihad" has a close parallel in "Crusade", in both the violent and non-violent senses each term has within their respective religious communities.

I'll give you caliphate as somewhat unique, and at least without a close parallel in mainstream modern Christianity.

Speaking as a Christian, people will jump through all kinds of hoops to exempt Christians from the horrible bits of the Bible while insisting that all Muslims are bound by the horrible bits of the Koran.

Papacy?

Not really the same thing, which is kind of the central point behind the Holy Roman Empire.

"Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, unto God what is God's". That kinda stuff sort of opens the way for accepting non religious laws.

You should absolutely acknowledge and resist the efforts of fundamentalists and bigots of every stripe. Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and toxic and kills people. What bugs me is how many people refuse to admit any difference between Islamic fundamentalists and all Muslims. This is not a petty nitpick in an America where violent attacks against Muslims are skyrocketing. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crim...

Pakistan implements Islamic law which includes a death penalty for blasphemy. Nobody's talking about Muslims in America.

The post that I was replying to in the first place said "blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam," full stop. All I'm trying to do is make it clear that no major religion is a unified monolith. We both know that the crimes of terrorists and fundamentalists are used to condemn peaceful Muslims in the US and Europe.

But even in the US, religious tribunals exist among different religious groups and sometimes cross the line between arbritraion and the law.

They are mostly ignored because well organized religious sects are politically powerful.

You are more than welcome to come to India and live in mostly Muslim regions such as Kashmir or West Bengal! :)

Living in muslim majority or heck even places where there are 20% muslims is absolutely hell. You will have to hear ajaan on a large loudspeaker all day, you will have to see kids hacking lambs in the residential areas during Eid and heck if you have to wear or celebrate Pagan festivals around the place of worship.

Liberalism is cool to preach while sitting in a Starbucks in Silicon Valley but incredibly hard to find it in nooks of certain parts of the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com