I am not talking about the legal aspect of privacy. the authorities did not breach privacy, because they didnt tap the email, it was given to them along with the person's location.
The person who made a private correspondence public committed the privacy breach.
you might dislike his approach but legally he didnot breach any law or else under which law do you think he should be tried? The mail was sent to him , he didnt copy the mail that was between two other people and then made it public.
[QUOTE]
You asked me for an instance where munafiqeen were not punished (in the manner this guy is threatened with) once the Islamic state was established. dont move the goalposts.
[/QUOTE]
lets not go into this. because we will be sidetracked.the instance that you gave is compounded and i already brought up the dissimilarities. my personal understanding (and i can be wrong) is this that Abdullah wasnot open in his munafiqat, that is to say there was no clear evidence of his hatred so he couldnt be punished for what wasnt proved against him. So comparing his treatment with the incident in this question is different since here you have a clear proof.
[QUOTE]
Because Im shia doesnt mean I am orthodox or believe in holy iran. iran has some terrible human rights abuses going on. the salman rushdie fatwa is the least of their worries.
[/QUOTE]
Well then i guess your bone of cotnention is with the concept of religious blasphemy laws to begin with. Not whether or not the current laws are as per islam or not?
[QUOTE]
I condemned it without invoking religion till discussing with you. And I gave you religious basis when asked.
[/QUOTE]
yes but you yourself conceded that majority alims now and through history have shown a preference for capital punihsment in this scenario
[QUOTE]
Maybe that has to do with the saudies you meet :)
[/QUOTE]
I cant understand what you mean by that.Regardless of where people migrate from (and what laws are in place in their brith countries) they are treated under the secular law in same manner because that is the nature of secular law itself. I donot think that should or would change.
[QUOTE]
And if they wish to protest any new laws that limit the free speech/thought/expression of Muslims? Do they have any grounds to ask for better treatment? Say France banning hijab, American patriot act, some law against Muslims preaching or speaking out against Israel.
[/QUOTE]
Bahi sahab freedom of speech is something and abusing and disrespecting a prophet of another religion is somethingelse. I would definitely advocate islamic law and as i said i wouldnt mind the counterpart, if it didnt suit me i wouldnt migrate to that country. Similarily what do you suggest that blasphemy shouldnt be a punishable offence in a islamic country? or that anyone who reports it should be than tried for breaching privacy?
[QUOTE]
You do not get to decide for other nations where free speech boundaries should be. Also this isnt about Western countries, or christianity. Say India, where the other major religion is one who's icons we do not respect and preach against.
[/QUOTE]
Similarily others should not decide how pakistan persecutes blasphmers.India again is a secular country, the muslims residing their can call the gov to implement their law but they cannot expect them to implement shariah on everybody else. This is islamic republuc of pakistan it shouldnt be guided with secular standarads. Why should people of pakistan have international laws imposed on them?