There is not a law that says anything about the use of the name (from everything I can read and find). It says there can be no disrespect of the Prophet. And according to even their law, intent is supposed to be required.
The law is basically whatever the religious court "thinks" it is. And unfortunately, religious courts tend to lean more towards the fanatic than the reasonable. Which is the inherant problem with mixing religion and government and law. (Not faith mind you, but religion) And no, I needn't keep in mind cultural and historic perspective. Or only enough to know that even when we do it, it is wrong. The world has changed. We are moving forward, mostly to a better kinder world. The wrongs you mentioned are for the most part in the past, even if the recent past. And when then crop up today, they are recognized by most people as wrong, and there is an attempt to prevent them from happening again. There is much less acceptance of this sort of thing in today's world. As for the lynching example, even those racist jerks had to do their work "outside the law". The lynchings were not codified in law or even allowed, they were extra-legal. Once such things _become_ the law, things get very, very scary. I think they are wrong. The law is wrong in the first place. The application of the law was wrong in the second place. And the verdict given the facts was wrong in the third place. The majority of the world thinks they are wrong. Even most Muslims I have asked here in the US think they are wrong. I think they are intolerant. I think they are cruel and repressive and basically mean. And I think they are actually disrespecting their religion more than the teacher was. Sadly, I am thinking more and more that the world is heading towards a clash between those (of many religions) that want to return the world back 1000 years to a time of intolerance and pain, and those who want to move the world forward into a better, kinder place. BTW, thank you for playing devil's advocate, and making me think through my attitudes on this. I think my gut level distaste for this story is the religious intolerance and attempt to force religious values on people of other religions. And secondly my dislike for giving my hard earned (well, earned anyway) money to people like these to keep doing what they are doing. Just to establish my anti-establishment creds, I spent the entire year of 5th grade in the principal's office, rather than in home room, before school. First for wearing a baseball hat indoors (it was against the rules for boys, but girls on the same baseball team could wear their hats. Which was patently wrong). Then for not saying "under God" during the Pledge (which the Supreme Court of the US that year had ruled I didn't have to say) Sadly, that still makes me happy. On Nov 30, 2007 7:42 PM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sudan's law is very clear about the use of the name Mohammad. She > broke their law. Some folks ran around demanding the death penalty. > Really not so different from lynching mobs in response to violation of > the American segregation laws. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:247366 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
