A piece on how a court ruling opens up the possibility of Islamic law being applied in a libel case gives more evidence of how Islam may indeed become THE postmodernist religion:
In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s seminal 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision defined libel or slander by a journalist as stating or writing falsehoods or misrepresentations that damage someone’s reputation—and in cases of public figures, doing so with malice.
Under sharia, by contrast, libel constitutes any oral or written remark offensive to a complainant, regardless of its accuracy or intent. Slander “means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him,” according to Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib (d. 1368).
If truth is relative, how can there be slander or libel laws? The answer has to be that slander must consist of words that someone does not LIKE and so finds “offensive.” In our popular discourse, we have ALREADY adopted the Islamic definition.