From Reuters:
A Pakistani counter-terrorism court has sentenced to death a man who allegedly committed blasphemy on Facebook, a government prosecutor said on Sunday, the first time someone has been handed the death penalty for blaspheming on social media.
[...] Shafiq Qureshi, public prosecutor in Bahawalpur, about 500km (300 miles) south of provincial capital Lahore, said Raza was convicted for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad, his wives and companions.
"An anti terrorism court of Bahawalpur has awarded him the death sentence," Qureshi told Reuters." It is the first ever death sentence in a case that involves social media."
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Monday June 12 2017, @02:37PM (1 child)
If the real-world manifestation is subject to change, I'd assume it is per definition not fundamental, and therefore cannot be the base of a fundamental incompatibility. The text of the sharia is incompatible with our western values, the laws in some countries, based on this sharia, are therefore also incompatible. But the interpretation of the law is apparently fluid and can be adapted to public perception, otherwise we would see way more executions. Therefore I agree there are incompatibilities between western culture and muslim countries, but seeing how Christianity manages to cope with democracy and capitalism, I dispute that these incompatibilities are fundamental.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 12 2017, @02:46PM
I don't softball sharia law: it's always awful and always incompatible with modern civilized values. You're right though that there is some room for interpretation, such as sharia countries which give people 'whippings' so tame as not to leave a mark. It would be comical if it weren't so medieval.
Right. I just apply the same thing to Islam too. While I don't deny that most of modern global Islam is incompatible with civilized values, it's not always that way, and a religion's brand isn't really tied to any set of fundamental values (as odd as that might seem).