I have heard that this law is used in Pakistan. In the courts?
If a person born in a muslim home, but wants to become a christian - is this blasphemy?
If a person said that 'it is wrong to divorce a women, by saying talak, talak, talak - is that Blasphemy.
Unstable people or in jest - if a person says that they are Allah/God - is it blasphemy.
The punishment is death!!!
Re: Blasphemy law
I wanna know if you want the answer from pakistan point of view or frm the Holy Quran.
Then i will go ahead and answer. But please from next time you can come here for knowledge, because you just post and run away but dont reply or atleast acknowledge. I would really love to if you atleast drop in to acknowledge.
Thanks.
Re: Blasphemy law
Blasphemy law is silly, an affront to civilized legal process and a knock on free speech. I dont deny that the reason may be a noble one (to protect the status of faith in a religious nation), but it has only ever been misused and abused.
Also it sould be uniform, its against the law to insult all faiths, be it Islam, Hinduism, Xtianity or anyother. With the provisio that open academic debate between scholars of each be allowed in public forums.
Re: Blasphemy law
^
If anything has been abused, it is free speech.
Re: Blasphemy law
Blasphemy law is silly, an affront to civilized legal process and a knock on free speech. I dont deny that the reason may be a noble one (to protect the status of faith in a religious nation), but it has only ever been misused and abused.
Also it sould be uniform, its against the law to insult all faiths, be it Islam, Hinduism, Xtianity or anyother. With the provisio that open academic debate between scholars of each be allowed in public forums.
It depends on what you regard as insult, different nations or people have different tolerance levels and interpretations of a joke versus insult. I can also see equal laws of tolerance and respect towards all faiths in a society following secular laws but not in a theocratic state. In an Islamic state non-muslims are supposed to be dealt justly, which means we do not insult them for their beliefs because that is a form of injustice however they cannot preach against the state religion because that would be regarded as treason whereas in secular states it should not be regarded as treason.
Blasphemy law is not silly but needs to be understood in the correct context. I might agree that the way it is implemented and executed in Pakistan is wrong but it has a place in a theocratic state. Blasphemy law is similar to treason in any other secular state, the difference is what actions are subject to treason. If people from a secular state are involved in actions which are deemed dangerous to the national security and its existence and ideology then it is treason, similarly actions which are deemed dangerous to the ideology and existence of an Islamic state should be prosecuted under laws of treason. The foundations or creed of an Islamic or any theocratic state are based on faith and belief and its citizenship is based on whether you have a common belief with it or not. If you do not agree with it then leave the state and go to one which coincides with your beliefs or live under the privileges that the theocratic state provides.
To me blasphemy should not be dealt with capital punishment by their rights or privileges that are based on their faith should be revoked. It is their choice whether they want to continue to live in the same country or not. Capital punishment is only justified if they are committing activites that threaten the national security of the state. For Pakistan 10 people changing their religion out of a population of 160 million does not threaten its national security. If they change their religion and launch attacks on muslims as part of their newly found ideology or religion then its a problem and deserves punishment.
Re: Blasphemy law
The foundations or creed of an Islamic or any theocratic state are based on faith and belief and its citizenship is based on whether you have a common belief with it or not. If you do not agree with it then leave the state and go to one which coincides with your beliefs or live under the privileges that the theocratic state provides.
I'm curious, do you hold the same opinion for Muslims living in democratic societies that do not share the common belief of a secular democracy? Should clerics be allowed to preach against democratic institutions or should they leave the state and to one which coincides with their beliefs?
Re: Blasphemy law
I'm curious, do you hold the same opinion for Muslims living in democratic societies that do not share the common belief of a secular democracy? Should clerics be allowed to preach against democratic institutions or should they leave the state and to one which coincides with their beliefs?
This is a thin line. I don't see why muslims should lobby against democratic institutions if they are in harmony with their beliefs. If they are imposing something that affects us in a disrespectful way then yes. Its mutual respect. If a secular state is not imposing a certain belief on me I have no problem with it. If it is violating something out of lack of respect for my belief and yet claims to be tolerant of all faiths then I have a problem.
Re: Blasphemy law
I'm talking about those who preach salafism and other belief systems that are totally against western and democratic ideals.
Re: Blasphemy law
I'm talking about those who preach salafism and other belief systems that are totally against western and democratic ideals.
First what point of their ideology is against western and democratic ideals?
Re: Blasphemy law
For starters, they reject western concepts like capitalism, economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution, social justice and believe in establishing sharia and an Islamic state.
Re: Blasphemy law
For starters, they reject western concepts like capitalism, economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution, social justice and believe in establishing sharia and an Islamic state.
None of the things you have stated fall under ideals. Ideal is something you aim to achieve, an idea, a concept, a vision etc.
Islamically speaking there is support for all these things.
Re: Blasphemy law
For starters, they reject western concepts like capitalism, economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution, social justice and believe in establishing sharia and an Islamic state.
Hi semi how you doing buddy, just a small help from you can please explain to me
1) Capitalism
2) Socio, political and economics (constitution, political parties, revolution,social justice)
3) What is you ideology, from ideology what i mean is do you believe in the above stated system as perfect, flawless, and if your preference is YES need a reason for it, as well as if you choose NO.
Appreciate if you can just answer my 3 points aforementioned.
Regards,
Re: Blasphemy law
No one agrees with everything about a system, that's why in a democracy, unlike in Islam, people can make changes. Freedom of speech and thought is cherised.
Musilms are welcome to practice their faith as they please, but the foundations and ideals on which western democracies were built are in deep/systematic conflict with these ideals. As you say, USResident, if they don't agree with the* basic* ideals of a society, they should leave the state and go to one which coincides with their beliefs or live under the privileges that the system provides.
Why shouldn't these radical ideals be "deemed dangerous to the national security and its existence and ideology or treason" as you say is the case when those who disagree with the fundamentals of an (imaginary) Islamic state are?
We are talking about advocting fundamental changes to societies where Islam has never had any influence -- changing centuries of established laws and culture with a religion and culture that not only has been proven to be unsuccessful, but imposes religious restrictions in a secular society.
Re: Blasphemy law
what is the source of this law that you heard? that unstable people claim to be God and they are punished to death?what bull?
Re: Blasphemy law
No one agrees with everything about a system, that's why in a democracy, unlike in Islam, people can make changes. Freedom of speech and thought is cherised.
Since nothing in democracy has a divine origin, there is no problem in changing it either through mass concensus. Muslims amend and change their policies and procedures all the time that are not of divine origin. Freedom of speech does not exist in the west, this is a misconception. If someone gets up and incites people against the state his freedom of speech will be curtailed and he will be deported. The same is the case with an Islamic state. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, every thing has limits whether defined by God or people. When people who are bound by a common belief hear someone preaching against it, it is the same as inciting people against it. When you say thought is cherished, please specify what sort of thought are we refering to here?
Musilms are welcome to practice their faith as they please, but the foundations and ideals on which western democracies were built are in deep/systematic conflict with these ideals. As you say, USResident, if they don't agree with the* basic* ideals of a society, they should leave the state and go to one which coincides with their beliefs or live under the privileges that the system provides.
Heheh! trying to use my argument against me. What I had said was when people rebel against the ideals and try to damage the state is when it is better to look at your options. Peacefully preaching or trying to propagate a change is not wrong provided the state gives the permission for it. I do not see what ideals are in conflict except for a few maybe, if you call them ideals at all.
Why shouldn't these radical ideals be "deemed dangerous to the national security and its existence and ideology or treason" as you say is the case when those who disagree with the fundamentals of an (imaginary) Islamic state are?
When you are disagreeing with the fundamentals of Islam then you really ain't a muslim are you. You are not dangerous unless you are indulging in activities that will incite rebellion against the state. If you wish to live peacefully and respectfully then there is no problem and Islam has no issues with it either.
We are talking about advocting fundamental changes to societies where Islam has never had any influence -- changing centuries of established laws and culture with a religion and culture that not only has been proven to be unsuccessful, but imposes religious restrictions in a secular society.
It was successful as long as it was practiced. Who is advocating fundamental changes to these societies? I live in USA, I am not saying Islam should be religion of the state, it would be absurd for me to say that because this is a pre-dominantly Christian country.
Re: Blasphemy law
No one agrees with everything about a system, that's why in a democracy, unlike in Islam, people can make changes. Freedom of speech and thought is cherised.
Musilms are welcome to practice their faith as they please, but the foundations and ideals on which western democracies were built are in deep/systematic conflict with these ideals. As you say, USResident, if they don't agree with the* basic* ideals of a society, they should leave the state and go to one which coincides with their beliefs or live under the privileges that the system provides.
Why shouldn't these radical ideals be "deemed dangerous to the national security and its existence and ideology or treason" as you say is the case when those who disagree with the fundamentals of an (imaginary) Islamic state are?
We are talking about advocting fundamental changes to societies where Islam has never had any influence -- changing centuries of established laws and culture with a religion and culture that not only has been proven to be unsuccessful, but imposes religious restrictions in a secular society.
Well if you are answering to my post then i think you have overlooked the complete post, i personally feel then you must be knowing nothing regarding the 3 points stated above.
1) I never spoke about Muslims, its you own conjecture.
2) Never answered regarding capitalism, and secp.
3) Never wrote regarding western culture.
All i asked was you to explain to me, what have you understood by
1) Capitalism
2) Social economy and political conditions.
3) Your belief in above mentioned points.
I though you will answer each in a sequence but faltered, i request again if possible explain to me, the aforementioned points otherwise i personally feel you know nothing and its just gas talk to evade the topic.
Re: Blasphemy law
Since nothing in democracy has a divine origin, there is no problem in changing it either through mass concensus. Muslims amend and change their policies and procedures all the time that are not of divine origin. Freedom of speech does not exist in the west, this is a misconception. If someone gets up and incites people against the state his freedom of speech will be curtailed and he will be deported. The same is the case with an Islamic state. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, every thing has limits whether defined by God or people. When people who are bound by a common belief hear someone preaching against it, it is the same as inciting people against it. When you say thought is cherished, please specify what sort of thought are we refering to here?
Of course there are limits to free speech in any society whether it's a democracy or some imaginary Islamic state. There should be. But I don't think I need to explain the freedom of thought in the west vs. the kinds of limits one would find in a hypothetical Islamic state, do I? By the way, some believe democracy and its principles have more of a divine origin than Islam claims. The divinity of Islam is limited to its believers and many believe the rights afforded by democracy are God given rights.
And as far as "Muslims amend and change their policies and procedures all the time that are not of divine origin" - I am unaware of - especially since I don't think there is consensus of what is of divine origin.
[quote]
Heheh! trying to use my argument against me. What I had said was when people rebel against the ideals and try to damage the state is when it is better to look at your options. Peacefully preaching or trying to propagate a change is not wrong provided the state gives the permission for it. I do not see what ideals are in conflict except for a few maybe, if you call them ideals at all.
[/quote]
You really don't see the conflict between wahabism, ht, salifsm and western principles? They are *totally *in conflict in all the areas I mentioned before. There is no way western societies will or should change to the type of societies they desire.
[quote]
When you are disagreeing with the fundamentals of Islam then you really ain't a muslim are you. You are not dangerous unless you are indulging in activities that will incite rebellion against the state. If you wish to live peacefully and respectfully then there is no problem and Islam has no issues with it either.
[/quote]
But you said that those who don't agree with the way an Islamic state is run or the principles it represents should leave that state. That it is treason. I contend if that is the case then those preaching for radical wahabi-like changes in the west should leave as well.
[quote]
It was successful as long as it was practiced. Who is advocating fundamental changes to these societies? I live in USA, I am not saying Islam should be religion of the state, it would be absurd for me to say that because this is a pre-dominantly Christian country.
[/quote]
If you are not advocating or preaching for these kinds of changes, then we are on the same page. If you are not inciting and radicalizing the local population, then no problem. I was specifically referring to those elements.
Re: Blasphemy law
Of course there are limits to free speech in any society whether it's a democracy or some imaginary Islamic state. There should be. But I don't think I need to explain the freedom of thought in the west vs. the kinds of limits one would find in a hypothetical Islamic state, do I? By the way, some believe democracy and its principles have more of a divine origin than Islam claims. The divinity of Islam is limited to its believers and many believe the rights afforded by democracy are God given rights.
Some of the God given rights that are talked about in democracy are the same in Islam but what we forget is with that God given right there came a God given responsibility as well and you do not see that in the kind of democracy the western countries pursue i.e. as an example, take homosexuals, surely God did not say it was legit but democracy has turned it into a legit thing.
And as far as "Muslims amend and change their policies and procedures all the time that are not of divine origin" - I am unaware of - especially since I don't think there is consensus of what is of divine origin.
I challenge you to find any two pre-dominantly muslims countries with the same constitution.
You really don't see the conflict between wahabism, ht, salifsm and western principles? They are *totally *in conflict in all the areas I mentioned before. There is no way western societies will or should change to the type of societies they desire.
And you do not see it the other way around. For the Salafi or Wahabi, he see's conflict within the western philosophy for him (not all but selectively I would say, there are many good things as well). For people with different POV its always conflicting. What is so abnormal in that?
But you said that those who don't agree with the way an Islamic state is run or the principles it represents should leave that state. That it is treason. I contend if that is the case then those preaching for radical wahabi-like changes in the west should leave as well.
If you are trying to stir some upheaval which will cause unrest and problems then it is treason. You can excercise your right to preach as much as mandated by the state. Just because something comes from a different belief does not make it wrong or unacceptable (which I sometimes also tell my fellow muslims, there are a lot of good things the west has done and they should be acknowledged for and on the same token the west should acknowledge things they have done wrong as well, there is no one way street. There is a lot of good things in muslims as well that should be acknowledged and a lot that needs shunned as well).
Re: Blasphemy law
Some of the God given rights that are talked about in democracy are the same in Islam but what we forget is with that God given right there came a God given responsibility as well and you do not see that in the kind of democracy the western countries pursue i.e. as an example, take homosexuals, surely God did not say it was legit but democracy has turned it into a legit thing.
No, surely you and other fundamentalists believe God says homosexuality is not legit. Others believe ones' sexuality is a God given trait.
[quote]
I challenge you to find any two pre-dominantly muslims countries with the same constitution.
[/quote]
I wasn't referring to Muslim dominated governments, I was speaking of religious interpretation. Any changes that exist between different sects cause so much upheaval that they cannot respect and live with each other in a civilized manner.
[quote]
And you do not see it the other way around. For the Salafi or Wahabi, he see's conflict within the western philosophy for him (not all but selectively I would say, there are many good things as well). For people with different POV its always conflicting. What is so abnormal in that?
[/quote]
Because they are in total conflict with society, we are not talking about nuances, but a totally different interpretation that conflicts with everything democracies are built upon.
[quote]
If you are trying to stir some upheaval which will cause unrest and problems then it is treason. You can excercise your right to preach as much as mandated by the state. Just because something comes from a different belief does not make it wrong or unacceptable.
[/quote]
Yes it does. When it is in total conflcit with the history, culture, laws and norms of the country. Just as PFLAG wouldn't be welcomed in Saudi Arabia.
Re: Blasphemy law
No, surely you and other fundamentalists believe God says homosexuality is not legit. Others believe ones' sexuality is a God given trait.
I think your sexuality is defined by which organs you are born with and if that seems a little odd to you then there is a lot more to worry about. And if you support that oddity then there is a even more wrong with you. Perhaps you do not understand that a dick does not belong in a pooper. Sorry for this language btw.
I wasn't referring to Muslim dominated governments, I was speaking of religious interpretation. Any changes that exist between different sects cause so much upheaval that they cannot respect and live with each other in a civilized manner.
Now what does that have to do in comparison with a secular society which does not even enforce any laws prescribed by religion.
Because they are in total conflict with society, we are not talking about nuances, but a totally different interpretation that conflicts with everything democracies are built upon.
Well lets here some points then with evidence ofcourse.
Yes it does. When it is in total conflcit with the history, culture, laws and norms of the country. Just as PFLAG wouldn't be welcomed in Saudi Arabia.
PFLAG ???