Pakistan to execute Christian mother who verbally insulted Muhammed

You lived in a country that endorsed and lived by torture. Correct me if i'm wrong, not even a third world country like Mexico does this ****.


Actions of a group of people are not reflective of the whole.

 

They sure aren't reflective of everyone, but they are reflective of the source material.

DD

 

I'd just like to note a few things in this thread. One, there seems to be a lot of unnecessary diatribe thrown around by both "sides" if you want to call them that. Not that it's surprising or anything, but can you guys have a discussion without getting your emotions all in a tizzy?

Secondly, I see no need for vitriolic nonsense like calling the entire country a piece of crap. Additionally, it seems that in these threads Sweet Lou/sunsrocketsfan/saintcougar rehash the same old bull**** they've been saying for months now.

Of course the first few posts are ATW mocking the collective intelligence of the Muslim population while seemingly wanting them to:
1) admit that they're dumb
2) identify Islam with hate/evil
3) agree with fanaticism
4) denounce their faith

(seemingly being the keyword of course... and this may explain why every response you get by these people makes it seem like they have their backs against the wall and are supremely defensive.)

Furthermore, is it wrong that I don't think adeelsidiqqui has said too many ridiculous things in this thread? He seemed to point out that he doesn't agree with the situation one bit. As far as that exchange about blasphemy or "words" being the most harmful things of all, I think he's right. All fanatic behavior/aggression stems from words. If his premise was this somehow correlates to the punishment being correct (which I don't think it was) then he's wrong. But, philosophically speaking, I do think he has a valid point.

Sladnballa, no offense, but I think you're trying to take the "I'm not that type of Muslim" position. I think it's quite obvious that the course of action the Pakistani law takes is a direct result of Islam. It was also kind of lame trying to show adeel that he was wrong without actually pointing out anything in what he said. Saying that something is irrelevant to the thread when you yourself digressed later on is probably not the best thing to do when you're trying to make a point....

Of course, none of this is intended to defend any part of the current situation. These acts should be condemned, and honestly if Islam is the true reason behind these actions (which it may be to an extent, but I don't think it fully is) then it should be owned up to. That's a separate debate altogether though.

Lastly, I would like to point out a key point that I think ATW unintentionally made...
<br>

<br>
The important point to note here is that the Christian and Jewish worlds for the most part have moved on from those periods of tribulation. Now, most but not all Christians and Jews are not extremists. Most Islamic countries are marred by: 1) being a century behind everyone else in the world. 2) being extremely undereducated.

I think the solution to this whole ordeal is education the mass of Muslims. I think there's a direct relation between education level and reliance on religious texts. There's a reason most notable scientists/scholars have been atheist. Not to knock anyone's belief system, but education moves humans past primitive thinking. It allows you to actually think about God if you choose to do so without blindly believing in scripture/what other people tell you.

Anyways, as you pointed out, Christianity had the same issues a long while back. However, we don't see witch trials or the like in modern times. The route of education has worked to correct many of their flaws. The Muslims should put an emphasis on this if they ever hope to shake the stigma they're associated with....

 

There is a video posted already of the lead prosectuor saying that this punishment is not Islamic law, it is a Pakistani law. There is no correlation between the two in this case. It;s a case of how backward Pakistan is......hell the original article even points this out, how are people still confused?

 

Wrong.

1) I do not want anyone do show that they are dumb. Some just do it, like adeelsiddiqui. I know Slandballa is not dumb and as much as I disagree with Mathloom on many things, he is certainly not dumb. Misguided? Still brainwashed to some extent? Yes (there is simply no other explanation for him e.g. wishing that the cartoonist should live in fear for the rest of his life). But not dumb. Mathloom is interesting. His intellect fights with what he has been brainwashed with. And the more I question/"attack" it, the more he is defensive about it, even though his intellect tells him there is something to what I say, but he would not admit that.

And there are many other Muslim posters who are far from being dumb - Azadre, BrownBeast99, many others. Even showtang who is very zealous about his faith - misguided/brainwashed, maybe incoherent sometimes, but not dumb.

2) No. Not "identify" Islam with evil. On the contrary. I want Muslims to root out hate and evil in Islam as it is practiced today in many places.

3) What? I do not want them to agree with fanaticism, the exact opposite is true. Unfortunately, too many do agree with being fanatic, though. It did not take long to find someone who was not embarrassed to say that he thinks the death penalty for "insulting Mohammed" is appropriate. Do you really think that was an outlier? No, it was not.

4) Again, wrong. What I want is for them to denounce the culture of violence and hate that has been undermining their faith. I am happy for anyone who finds peace for himself from believing in a faith. But I am not happy for an idiot who says he cried tears of joy because a woman got sentenced to death for supposedly "insulting Mohammed". I want people to denounce the spirit behind statements like this - not their faith.

So it is my fault that someone calls me Hitler and that someone says he thinks the death penalty is appropriate in this case? LOL.

Yes. If you do not think that, you have issues.

Lame disclaimer. Why would it be a separate debate? That IS the debate.

I agree with everything you said in this last paragraph, but what was "unintentional" about what I said?

 

<br>
How is being brainwashed and misguided any different than being dumb. Aren't those who lack intelligence the most likely to become brainwashed and as a result misguided? Again, I really couldn't care any less what your intentions are in this thread. I'm just trying to explain why all these people seem to get touchy and defensive whenever you post.
<br>

Again, I was just trying to point out what it seems like. I'm trying to see where the people who argue the other side are coming from
<br>

<br>
I never said you want them to agree with fanaticism. Why would anyone want that? In earlier posts you repeatedly posed questions such as "what do you want to happen to the lady?" and "so, you think this is a fair punishment?" One could interpret the intention of those questions to force out an admittance to agreeing with fanaticism. You even pointed out in the thread many times that "so and so agrees with it, but keeps beating around the bush" (i'm paraphrasing, but it was something to that extent)
<br>

<br>
Hey, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment here. I think it's just the way you post that seems to get under a lot of people's skin. Not that I personally have any issue with it, I actually think you usually always offer valid points and contribute to the discussion at hand. An additional problem is that no one wants to admit that the religion itself is behind quite a bit of the issue. Just as a question: where does the spirit behind statements such as that come from?
<br>

<br>
I read through most of the posts in this thread and I didn't see anyone explicitly call you Hitler. If we're referring to implications, then how is that any different than what I wrote about the implications your posts seemingly make? Both sides seem to do the same thing. Someone makes an idiotic statement, you call someone dumb. Someone implies you're Hitler....rinse, recycle, repeat
<br>

<br>
Maybe I missed it, but what things has he said in this thread that have been ludicrous. I'm actually really interested in this one, and if you could point out which statements have been ridiculous and what's wrong with them, i'd love to discuss this more.
<br>

<br>
I meant the disclaimer to be that the above wasn't necessarily intended to pertain only to this thread. I was simply mentioning some trends i've seen in the D&D relating to Islam in general. As far as this discussion itself goes, I don't think there's much to discuss that you haven't already pointed out.
<br>

<br>
Because you said it to show him that was basically a red herring response to deflect criticism of Islam. But, it also served to convey what I stated in my previous post.

 

I'll address your other points later, thanks for them, as I am a bit tired. Just quickly about this one - the thing with religion (and especially Islam) is that in many cases, you get exposed to it at a very young age, in formative years, and in high doses. You can grow up to be extremely intelligent, and your brain might tell you that some things just don't make sense, but there are many reasons why you would still not be able to dissociate yourself from them (e.g. habit, having been indoctrinated that that would be sin, you would burn in hell, peer pressure, fear of repercussions or "shame" for you or your family, etc. etc. etc.). So there is a huge difference between being brainwashed and being dumb.

 

I may be from Pakistan but I already knew this country was in the dumps, but wow this is terrible...

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean - I was in no way trying to defend Pakistan's apparent backwardness.

One of Adeel's earlier comments was that "it is the words of man that cause violence and wars, and at times they may justify execution", citing Hitler and Saddam as examples. I definitely pointed out what was wrong with this comment. In his example, he was alluding to Heads of State whose "words" came in the form of commands. A Head of State commanding his military to commit murderous acts ("words") is in no way comparable a civilian spewing blasphemous speech ("words") that offends a certain group of people.

Maybe the people that get incited to become violent when the hear blasphemous speech towards their religion should take your advice and not get their "emotions all in a tizzy."

 

Interesting article that was sent to me by a very knowledgable poster. This article shows that Asia Bibi's case is not a unique case, but symptomatic of larger problems for minorities in Pakistan.

---------------------------------------

http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2010/11/20/sentenced-to-death-on-pakistans-minorities/

Sentenced to death: On Pakistan’s minorities



Earlier this year I asked someone who had been a senior minister in the government of Pakistan why the country could not change laws which discriminated against minorities. I asked the question because more than 80 people from the minority Ahmadi sect had just been killed in two mosques in Lahore, which at the time served as a wake-up call of the dangers of growing religious intolerance in Pakistan.

His answer was unhesitating. You could not possibly do something like that in Pakistan.

Such is the power of the religious lobbies that no government dares challenge them. Each ”wake-up” call is soon forgotten until another injustice against religious minorities punches its way to the surface.

The latest was the sentencing to death for blasphemy of a Pakistani Christian woman. According to press reports Aasia Bibi had been working in the fields in Punjab province when she was sent to fetch water. When she returned, some Muslim women refused to drink it, saying it was unclean because it had been carried by a Christian. As the argument escalated, police became involved and Aasia Bibi was charged with blasphemy for allegedly insulting Islam. After a year in jail, she was convicted and sentenced to become the first woman to be hanged for blasphemy in Pakistan.

Aasia Bibi’s sentence has garnered unusual international attention, with human rights groups like Amnesty International calling for her release and the Pope using his weekly public audience to plead for her life. President Asif Ali Zardari has now stepped in, asking his government to look urgently into the case. Her plight has also prompted a fresh round of calls for a change in the law.

Yet whatever happens in her particular case, it is hard to escape the idea that once the noise dies down, everything will go back to the way it was before.

The blog Changing Up Pakistan complained that Aasia Bibi’s case was not noticed until she was sentenced to death rather than when she was first accused.

“I am not sure what’s worse – that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws [sections 295 and 298 of the Penal Code] are still in effect and arbitrarily used to persecute the country’s minorities, or that Aasia Bibi’s case is only really garnering headlines now, not a year ago, when this case first transpired.”

Human Rights Watch analyst Ali Dayan Hasan argued that the problem with Aasia Bibi’s story was not that it was unusual, but that it was commonplace.

“Aasia Bibi’s case is so unremarkable, so commonplace, so routine in its casually callous violation of basic rights that it did not even register in the public consciousness. And, of course, it is no secret that the belief that Christians, and non-Muslims in general, are ‘unclean’, though not propagated by any known school of Islamic thought, has widespread currency, particularly in Punjab. In all likelihood, the police felt the mob was justified. There is a thin line between faith-based lack of hygiene and blasphemy goes this logic. And it is crossed if you refuse to view your faith as filth,” he wrote in Dawn newspaper.

“But Pakistan’s lower-level judiciary managed through a shockingly bigoted judgment passed on Nov 7 to bring Aasia Bibi’s case to centre stage. In sentencing Aasia Bibi to death under Section 295 C, Judge Naveed Iqbal of the Sheikhupura district and sessions court “totally ruled out” any chance that Aasia was falsely implicated and said there were “no mitigating circumstances”. Apparently, the court thought that it is absolutely fine to argue that Christians are simply unclean and if they respond by accusing the allegers of bigotry, they are guilty of blasphemy.”

There is a long history to this. Among the litany of recent examples, eight Christians were killed in the town of Gojra in Punjab last year following unsubstantiated allegations that a Christian had desecrated the Koran. In a barely noticed incident this month, Pakistani police forced an Ahmadi family to exhume the body of a relative because it was buried in a Muslim graveyard.

Sectarian bombings have extended to Shiites and even to the majority community who attend Sufi shrines in Pakistan.

When the Ahmadis were gunned down in their mosques in Lahore, some commenters on this blog compared it to the Kristallnacht, when Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany in 1938. Others quoted the lines of German Pastor Martin Niemoeller, usually remembered as “First they came”, about a mindset in 1930s Germany where the majority looked the other way while the Nazis targetted communists, Jews, trade unionists and other pereceived enemies. “Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It might have been a watershed. It was not.

With the sentencing of Aasia Bibi, the anguish about the treatment of minorities, so alien to the spirit of Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, has begun again.

Yet that former minister I spoke to earlier this year was probably right. The government will not, and dares not, repeal the laws which leave Pakistan’s minorities vulnerable. That can’t happen until the overall environment changes in a way which makes religious tolerance possible. And nobody quite knows how to change that environment in a country which already faces so many problems.

 

Thus the term "Stereo-typing"

 

Swing and a miss Lou.

I don't question the people, I question what they are being taught, and the validity of the teachings.

If you build your house on a weak foundation, it is not going to last.

DD

 

They are not being taught, they are being told.

 

The Pakistani cops are real puss cakes. A few months ago, during Ramadan, a group of adult gangsters beat to death two teenage brothers, while fasting, in broad daylight, just because of some cricket field spat with the gangster's brothers. These guys beat, with sticks and stones, the boys which gathered a crowd. You know who was there in the crowd watching? Uniformed cops. Didn't do anything to stop it. The boys were beaten to near death, then hung upside down in the back of a jeep, and driven around town, then finally dumped in a sewage. The higher ups said they were going to bring those ppl to justice, but if cops were unwilling to stop what was going on in front of them, which citizens are gonna be willing to give up names? I remember the day that video went viral, every Paki I knew was disgraced to be a Paki.

These mobs and their gangs are really affecting Pakistan's government. The situation in Pakistan is turning into a similar one in Mexico. But instead of being fueled by drugs, it's fueled by egotism and arrogance.

 

Fair enough, but the source material is still an issue, at least for me.

I know others are dedicated to it's teachings, and I respect their right to choose for themselves.

My issue comes when it infringes on the rights of others to choose their own path, which could mean they think the Quran is bunk.

Everyone should be able to choose their own course of action, regardless of others views.

Otherwise it is a bully pulpit....and not a free choice.

DD

 

There have been multiple posts in this thread which show text from the "source material" outlining freedom of beliefs.

Example

 

Yes, I can appreciate that, but aren't there some in that same source that contradict freedoms as well?

It is like Christians conveniently ignoring the old testament because the new one fits their way of thinking better.

You can pick and choose versus in any religion that show it in a good light, just as you can pick and choose contradictory passages that show it in a negative light.

Thus my belief that the source material is on a foundation of sand.
DD

 

As I've told you for ages now, not one contradictory passage in the source book.

 

I don't believe you, and feel you have no credibility on the matter, you are too close to the source.

We have gone back and forth with both of us posting passages. I don't believe that God's message would change because the messengers status in life changes.

I simply do not believe that anyone was talking or getting a message from God.

I don't believe that Islam is any more correct, or close to the truth than any other religion, which is not at all.

Basically, I don't believe in religion at all......

God, yes...religion...no....anything created by man, and yes that includes Islam is tainted by man's frailties and fallabilities....

Not a beleiver, at all.

Some contradictions in the spoiler:

Spoiler

Contradictions in the Qur'an
The Qur'an states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22). If the Qur'an is a perfect book from Allah, then there shouldn't be any contradictions in it. Of course, the Muslims will deny any contradictions exist in the Qur'an, but they do. Some of the contradictions below could be debated, but some of them are clearly contradictions.

A contradiction occurs when one statement on a subject excludes the possibility of another. The first one here is a good example. In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing. In 15:26, man is created from clay. Since clay is something, we have a contradiction since "nothing" excludes the possibility of "clay." Both cannot be true.

All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online.

1.What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
A."Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
B."We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
C."The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
D."But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
E."He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

2.Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?
A."Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
B."And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
C."But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
D.Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).

3.The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
A."And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
B."When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
C."And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).

4.Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
A.Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
B.The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

5.Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
A."Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
B."The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
C.None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
D.When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).

6.Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
A."We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
B.Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).

7.Is wine consumption good or bad?
A.O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
B.(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
C.Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).


Now cue people whining about the source instead of dealing with the contradictions.

DD