"Master, a man has been accused of blasphemy, but in the country there is only a blasphemy law with regard to a christian god, not a muslem god."
"A blasphemy accusation is by far the simplest and easiest case any judge in the world will ever meet with."
"I do not understand."
"Of course you do. The accuser must first prove the very existence of the victim, the blasphemerised god, and that, beyond reasonable doubt. One cannot act anti-socially or criminally with regard to a non-existent person, a non-person. Imagine you going to court and accuse Mr.Zombo. of slander against Mr.Xenopaxis. You have Mr.A as witness, who swears that he knows that Mr.Xenopaxis exists. When asking how he knows, he answered that he heard it from Mr. B, who in turn had it from C, told by mr.D, who in turn, E, and the whole alphabet, in the case of christianity, even an alphabet of 2000/20 = 100 letters or generations. The judge would laugh you out of court! He would say that the victim's existence is not provable on these grounds. It is hearsay upon hearsay a 100 times. Let the god turn up in court, identify himself (itself, herself), and speak for himself! It is not very scientific too, not proof, but only emphasis 'AS' proof. Emphasis by a hundred hearsays, and resting on further emphasis through repetition and large numbers of shouters. It would be ridiculous as justice goes. But then, I mean a rational Judicature. Not one in which one has to swear, being put under oath, calling a non-proven god as his witness."