France Shoot-Out

[Gilrandir]

EDIT: To get back on topic, interestingly, in the early Middle Ages there were some poets who ridiculed Islam and got away with it. So yeah, this kind of reaction is a modern thing I guess.

In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him. I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases. Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism. Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it. Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.
But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.
It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.

[Hax]

In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him.

Fine.

I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases.

Citation required.

Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism.

Yes we do.

Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it.

No he wasn't.

“اثنان أهل الأرض : ذو عقــلٍ بلا ديــن وآخر ديِّنٌ لا عقل لهْ”

There are two people on the earth: those with brains and no faith, and the other believe but has no brains". Very subtle.

Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.

Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.

But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.

Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.

EDIT: The list goes on.

It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.

Yeah, alright. Perhaps.

[Brenus]

“I don't know whether this means they adopt such a decision legally or make it a custom practice.” Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.
“Many things that are written in the Bible (considered to be holy) are not laws.” True, but we speak of Islam here.

“For example, one of the commandments says that you mustn't desire your fellow's wife” I like this one… Can the fellow’s wife desire you? Sexists, all of them…

The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran. And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.

“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".

[Gilrandir]

Citation required.

John 9:2:
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Of course Jesus answered that neither, yet his disciples (perhaps reflecting the existing social idea) believed that there is a connection between deformity and punishment (for former sins).
Also:
"God displayed anger with them and departed. When the cloud left the Tent, Miriam was leprous, white like snow. Aaron turned to Miriam, and saw she was leprous." (Num. 12:9-10)
And usually in middle ages epidemics were believed to be scourges, punishments from God.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/his...ack-death2.htm

Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.

Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.

I don't claim to know much of medieval islamic poets, so most of my considerations were surmises (as you may have noticed, they were strewed by I believe or I think). Yet I don't doubt that the age of general intolerance (in Europe, in particular) was witness to many executions (Bruno, for once) and massacres on religious grounds. Perhaps, in the East it wasn't the case, yet I think that Islamic world was no exception to the general tendency of the time, so one so knowledgeable of it as you would have find plenty of cases when heretics/atheists were murdered or otherwise suffered for their views (or at least for expressing them in public). For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.

Albeit being a social institution, church (except perhaps in some Muslim countries) doesn't enforce laws.

Can the fellow’s wife desire you?

Nah! Commandments are meant for men. Women can do whatever they want.

The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran.

Yet I (well, not I but wikipedia) gave the limited list of countries in which the equations you offer is more or less kept as sharia is only A SOURCE (meaning one of the sources and I don't know how significant it is in comparison to others) in these half a dozen states. In other muslim countries, evidently immoral =/= illegal.

And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Instead of "mainstream" I should have had "typical, average". And I hope you can figure out typical islamic values.

“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".

Like I said: modern era offers plenty of opportunity to blow some idea or fear out of proportions.