Pakistan to execute Christian mother who verbally insulted Muhammed

This right here proves to me that you are a huge problem with my country America. The fact that you do not understand how to read, and you clearly skip over the truth and remain steadfast to your hatred.

Every single Muslim that I know and that has posted in this thread has said this is an injustice. Pakistans supreme leader Mr. Zardari has stayed the execution (It means he didn't look the other way)

There is widespread condemnation against this right here. If you knew or spoke with any Muslims you would realize that. Heck if you just read and understood...

 

It's a shame, but for those here who proudly condemn Pakistan and Muslims here as inferior or lesser then their beliefs, don't forget that's the same kinda of reasoning guys like the Nazis used.

And let's not forget that Christianity was no less barbaric before modernity and science won out.

It wasn't too long ago that people use to get lynched in this country for being black. In fact, it still happens on occasion these days. Let's not forget about Jasper.

 

He incited terrorist acts, which directly led to the loss of human life. If you cannot see the difference, I feel sorry for you.

Regarding § 166 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch = German Criminal Code), note the following differences to what we are discussing in this thread:

1) It does not favor one religion over another
2) It does not protect religion, but public peace
3) There are practically no cases in which this paragraph has been applied.
4) If anyone has been sentenced at all based on a severe disturbance of public peace (and I would not know of any cases, but I guess an example that might potentially lead to a court proceeding (doubtful) would be if someone burned a bunch of Qurans in front of a mosque, blocking the entrance to the mosque for a while, leading to riots, or something like that), then the actual sanction carried out was a minor monetary fine and nothing else.

So it is in no way comparable to what is happening to Asia Bibi, or even relevant to the discussion.

Regardless of the above, I think it should be abolished.

 

No one is arguing that First Amendment rights allow you to go around saying anything you want, anywhere you want, with no legal repercussions whatsoever.

If you yell "BOMB!" on an airplane, you will go to jail (rightfully so).

 

You and penda45 did clearly not condemn this, but you defended it, even though you did not dare to express yourself clearly.

 

You are the second dumbest person to post on this thread, right after adeelsiddiqui.

 

Wait - so according to your logic, if she had meant it and had understood it, a death sentence would be the correct punishment?

 

Exactly, and that is exactly and the entire reason why Blasphemy is a crime in many nations. Because it incites people and disrupts the peace of the society.

It is simply stupid for me to go to the Vatican and Curse the pope. I wouldn't do that, because these words against religion, god, nation, state, etc are more than "JUST WORDS"

Thank you.

 

How does it feel to live in and support a society that suppresses the rights of its citizens to say "just words"?

 

And what do you think would happen if you did? You think you would get a death sentence?

Let me tell you: NOTHING would happen to you. And that is exactly the cultural difference here, and the difference between these two religions as they are practiced today.

 

And you committed treason against Germany even though you did not dare to express it clearly

You sir are pathetic.

 

Where in this whole thread did I say that I am for the execution of Aasia Bibi? Anyone with half a brain and not trying to prove a personal agenda can see she did not intend anything evil in this and this was done out of ignorance.

If you read my posts I was merely trying to say that this woman was not educated in this matter prior to this therefore she was ignorant of the matter, and in Islam, something done out of ignorance is forgiven and the person who is ignorant should be educated. If my posts somehow suggested otherwise I would like to clear that up right now.

Secondly, I was trying to stay away from the ignorant people on this thread but ATW took a personal shot at me asking me if I stated to be Educated and that I agree with her punishment.

In my previous posts I SPECIFICALLY said that I was not a religious scholar and NOT to take my words in stone.

 

We're talking about the death penalty for saying "JUST WORDS."

Even though you haven't directly said it, you appear to be fine with the death penalty for someone accused of blasphemy, given that they mean what they say.

 

Why don't you try it and let me know how that goes. While you are at it, go to the wailing wall and curse god. Or go to the Ganges and mock any Hindu deity.

 

Looking at your qualifiers:

So if someone INTENDED to insult Mohammed and was not ignorant, and would say "Mohammed was an illiterate pedophile" - would you deem the death penalty appropriate for that person?

Simple yes or no question.

 

The penalties attached to blasphemy

In the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith's son: "The man that curseth His God, shall bear his sin: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die" (Leviticus 24:15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (2 Kings 18:37, 19:l; Matthew 26:65).

Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a constitution of A.D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks, according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A.D. 818, this sin was a capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of "the things that defile a man" (Matthew 15:20; Mark 7:21-23).

Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by Pius V in his Constitution "c*m primum apostolatus" (p. 10). According to the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year's income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys.


Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm


I am not trying to say that this would be the case right now, but just trying to say that it did happen in Catholicism as well. This post is not to attach Catholicism in any way it is just a response to ATW's post.

 

coming from a brainwashed r****d like yourself, your statement means nothing.

 

Wait, so now you feel like you need to imply what I meant, even though I clearly said that it wasn't.

Just give it a break. I have clarified my stance, and my statements.

 

don't you get sick of your annoying pestering ways?

 

At least he's able to visit the wailing wall.

The Dome of the Rock is unfortunately off limits to non-Muslims.

I got to visit both.