Re: Another blasphemy law highlight
how naive, how innocent... now someone will group together Taseer with Mufti Naeem (may ALLAH shower blessings on him)
They both died fighting ignorant mullahs at the hands of jihadi terrorists. So, they have lot in common.
Re: Another blasphemy law highlight
They both died fighting ignorant mullahs at the hands of jihadi terrorists. So, they have lot in common.
there is nothing in common, except that they both were Pakistanis... One died because of his non-serious behavior, suppressing law of the land, opposition of basic Islamic belief and he was a known secularists who had nothing to do with religion. while the other got martyred because of his truthful stand against suicide bombings in public, and against indiscriminate killing by fake taleban (that is TTP the killers). and he was a well know and much respected religious scholar. there is nothing in common really except that they were both Pakistani Men.
Re: Another blasphemy law highlight
ravage, i see that we are not going anywhere with it... so will hold fast your ground, i wont let mine go. then its pointless argument if we two have clash of basic beliefs... further more, you chose to distort and twist what i say and happily choose to decide what "I Think"...
just a file note from me on this, blasphemy law is inline with shariah, no muslim can ever tolerate disrespect or "jokes" against Rasool Allah :SAW2: the punishment for this offense is clear and agreed upon by all sects and schools of thought in Islam. So this law is not going anywhere, not anytime sooner. not until a ruler like west lover, america's feet licker mush is made to rule the country... yes we can stream line the law, yes we can protected the innocent against false accusations, yes we can make sure that nobody uses is for their own vested interests, yes we can make sure that law prevails, but no easy getting away with pealing off the law...
You're free to back away, but please dont go away with the misconception that this is a case of two people presenting equally valid arguments and just having different basis. I didnt just 'twist' what you say, if so you would be able to point out specifically what I twisted. You are caught between two options, and you find neither palatable. You say it is merely 'allegations' that you want 17 year old kids and members of differing sects imprisoned because of this law. Yet the only specific modifications you admit to, such as protection from false allegations and vested interests (whatever that means) do not apply in either case, and therefore you support a law that results in consequences you disavow. Either back away from the law that convicts these people, or accept that you support their conviction. It is that simple.
You cant have it both ways, you cant appear humane while also supporting a regressive law.