Just for a second imagine if some author had written the same about the prophet(pbuh). I seriously doubt if the author would have been alive now. We do not want blasphemy laws to protect historical figures…
Think for some time before you reply…
Just for a second imagine if some author had written the same about the prophet(pbuh). I seriously doubt if the author would have been alive now. We do not want blasphemy laws to protect historical figures... Think for some time before you reply....
first of all muslim wud laught at that ignorant jerk ....................... who is denying the existence of prophet peace be upon him .
by the way around 20% ppl have posted the same comments in response to jug suriya article ( though they also included the jesus as well) , as u have mentioned here.
by the way u sounds funny ................... is not it ?
i m sure the person who is denying the physical existence of prophet .................... wud be sent to mental hospital by court (declaring him lunatic) instead of prison.
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
^^
You are telling me that you dont see any problem in the court interfering in this matter.
Also you have problems with the Tajikistan govt bringing in this law.
I have nothing more to add. I rest my case.
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
Maverick_27 is an Islamic extremist, he has no problem with the blasphemy law that triggers attacks on Christians yet he has a problem with this? how hypoctrical can one get?
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
Maverick_27 isnt an extremist. He just isnt that bright.
Maverick_27 is an Islamic extremist, he has no problem with the blasphemy law that triggers attacks on Christians yet he has a problem with this? how hypoctrical can one get?
i think u dont deserve reply nemore.
instead of talking about the topic that is "secular extremism" u r constantly after blasphemy laws. further for ur kind info cases under blasphemy law have also registered against muslims who did blasphemy..........
avoid personal attacks!
Re: Secular Extremism …
So if a Shi’a were to slander the Sahabas, you think they should be punished as well?
Wow, and here you are trying to make yourself even more hypocritical in the process.
Face it, focus on your own country before lecturing about others. Lord knows that Pakistan is one of the worst offenders of human rights, far worse than Israel, but some people think because it is an alleged Islamic Republic they can do whatever it wants, including following in the footsteps of Abdur Rahman Khan and forcibly converting non-Muslims to Islam 
All than I meant to say is that U have to make little adjustments to achieve a bigger goal. Here checking radicalism is bigger goal and not allowing teachers to keep big beards is small adjustment. Provided it works.
Why having a long beard is considered equal to radicalism?
This is simply a mindless conclusion. And you agree to it? You have very skewed idea of radicalism.
Having a long beard or short, wearing a scarf or not is a personal choice. very personal. No govt. should make a law on it.
This discussion of secular extremism, hatred and intolerance has occurred before.
i think u dont deserve reply nemore.
instead of talking about the topic that is "secular extremism" u r constantly after blasphemy laws. further for ur kind info cases under blasphemy law have also registered against muslims who did blasphemy..........
avoid personal attacks!
By now you should know he is simply a troll on GS.
His only agenda is to derail any thread and making mindless comments. :-)
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
Still no condemnation. And we wonder who the real racists are?
Why having a long beard is considered equal to radicalism?
This is simply a mindless conclusion. And you agree to it? You have very skewed idea of radicalism.
Having a long beard or short, wearing a scarf or not is a personal choice. very personal. No govt. should make a law on it.
This discussion of secular extremism, hatred and intolerance has occurred before.
Because plenty of extremists who want to murder innocents or impose their way of life on others tend to sport beards.
Violation of the basic tenent of Human rights. The right to practice your religion freely. Shocking considering this concept is 60 years old and people still have an issue with it. If you have an issue with such a basic fundemental human right, you need help.
The law applies to government buildings. There is no human right to practice religion in government buildings. I don't agree with that ban but it is completely different than interfering with someone's practice of religion outside the religious sphere. My advice is for people to do homework before deciding to immigrate to a given country...
[QUOTE]
hat its NOT ok for Pakistan or any Islamic country to cause hardship to minorities!!! Who said its OK? If some nuts out of almost 2 billion Muslims said this does it make a law?
[/QUOTE]
Some nuts? Um...do some research. Name Islamic countries which give equal rights to religious minorities? There is a consensus among the "ulema" that non-Muslims should not be given equal rights, as the 1,000+ year record of Islam post-Muhammad (the Constitution of Medina did guarantee equal rights) shows. Umar, a "rightly guided one", for instance, did what today would be called ethnic cleansing when he forced all non-Muslims to leave Arabia. Was he just some random nut? There is a long history of bigotry in the three Middle Eastern religions but Christian nations evolved past bigotry and equal rights and freedom of religion are a basic value in Christian nations, at least in the West and Latin America. Muslim nations, aside from Turkey and a few other isolated cases, have not reached this view.
[QUOTE]
No one i mean no one even not India (and u know what is happening in India with minorities do i need to sum it up for you?) should minorities be marginalised, discriminated or be caused hardship.
[/QUOTE]
The situation in India is far better than Pakistan. India has a Sikh as its leader; Pakistan bans non-Muslims from even running for president in its constitution. Pakistan is one of the worst countries on religious freedom. LOL at comparing isolated examples elsewhere to make it seem as if the level of discrimination is the same elsewhere.
[QUOTE]
et you only condemn the ones by Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this is a Pakistan affairs forum, no? Besides, the worst abuses in the world are in Muslim countries. For instance, no one gets killed for changing their religion in South Africa, Brazil, or Poland.
[QUOTE]
Basic human rights are universal. Shows how little you know, doesn't matter which country it is in. The concept is Universal.
[/QUOTE]
Again, this is another area where there is an "Islamic exception." The entire world adheres to the UN Declaration of Human Rights--except the Muslim world, which has its own declaration, which among other things does not guarantee equal rights for women.
[QUOTE]
i m unable to understand y r u not able to comprehend the basic fact that blasphemy law does not interfere with the relegious belief of a non muslim nor it restrict to a person to practice its relegion.
what it simply restricts is to say nonesense about holy prophet and other prophets including christ.
[/QUOTE]
This is a perfect example of why the Muslim world is where it is. If it can't handle intelligent discussion of religion how can it ever have an open society?
In the US you can say Moses was the worst person in history (citing him ordering the killing of infants and women. Is this talking "nonsense"? The "holy books" admit he did this) and room with the president for a month; in Pakistan if you said that you would be killed by an angry mob within a few hours.
[QUOTE]
protection of relegious susceptibilty by state is most important personal right and shud not be offended.
[/QUOTE]
Why are Muslims so insecure? Yet again here is another "Islamic exception." There are no "blasphemy" laws in Christian or Buddhist countries. Why can't the self-proclaimed one true religion handle criticism like every other religion in the world?
[QUOTE]
first of all muslim wud laught at that ignorant jerk ....................... who is denying the existence of prophet peace be upon him .
[/QUOTE]
No one but there are those who criticize him--just like any other historical figure. Everywhere in the world you can criticize Moses, Jesus, Buddha, etc. Only Muslim countries can't handle criticism of their religious figures. Why?
The irony is we are attacked for calling out the Muslim world--especially Pakistan (a nation we either live in or are tied to by ancestry) on this. We are trying to help. Religious bigotry is hurting the Muslim world--and the world. The people who are holding the Muslim world down are Islamists.
[QUOTE]
Still no condemnation. And we wonder who the real racists are?
[/QUOTE]
There is no "right" to bring religion into government buildings in some countries. If the bans applied to people going to the grocery store or car dealers then I would object.
PunjabNewsline.com - Ahmadi Muslims declare ‘Wajibu Qatl’ in Pak controlled Kashmir
You simply don’t see this happening in Western, Latin, Buddhist, Confucian countries Japan, etc.
It is 'extreme form of' extremism to force people to either shave or force them to have any particular facial features.
Why having a long beard is considered equal to radicalism?
This is simply a mindless conclusion. And you agree to it? You have very skewed idea of radicalism.
Having a long beard or short, wearing a scarf or not is a personal choice. very personal. No govt. should make a law on it.
This discussion of secular extremism, hatred and intolerance has occurred before.
Having a long beard shouldnt be considered equal to radicalism, but the govt. which imposed the crub seems to think that having long beard could promote radicalism in their country.
I dont agree to it in principal, but if they can successfully check radicalism by doing this, than it should be considered a small price to pay for lives of innocent muslims.
[QUOTE]
Having a long beard or short, wearing a scarf or not is a personal choice. very personal. No govt. should make a law on it.
[/QUOTE]
I couldnt agree more on that, but if any such thing is done to save life of innocent ppls and it works, than it should be welcome. Religion is something much more than mere keeping a long beard.
Peace.
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
Reason one simple question. Where does the Universal Declaraction of Human Rights state that government buildings are exempt? We will go on to the rest of the posts after you show me that.
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
Property rights > human rights
Re: Secular Extremism ...............
For these Indians right. Not under the rule of law. Once a country accedes to a convention then it applies across all aspects covered under its soveriegnty. So once you sign on to the right to practice your religion freely, it applies across the board.
After all if property rights came before human rights, once could set up torture centres in private houses and they could be legally viable.
The law applies to government buildings. There is no human right to practice religion in government buildings. I don't agree with that ban but it is completely different than interfering with someone's practice of religion outside the religious sphere. My advice is for people to do homework before deciding to immigrate to a given country...
Thats a pretty weak argument. What is a beard? Should the government now regulate beards within public buildings which have been built by the coercive mechanism of taxation; money stolen from the very same people its banning from their buildings? This is preposterous! And then you claim that we should research where we live? What is wrong with you? By the same argument Saudi's should move, Zimbabweans should move and North Koreans should move. Whatever dude.
Some nuts? Um...do some research. Name Islamic countries which give equal rights to religious minorities? There is a consensus among the "ulema" that non-Muslims should not be given equal rights, as the 1,000+ year record of Islam post-Muhammad (the Constitution of Medina did guarantee equal rights) shows. Umar, a "rightly guided one", for instance, did what today would be called ethnic cleansing when he forced all non-Muslims to leave Arabia. Was he just some random nut? There is a long history of bigotry in the three Middle Eastern religions but Christian nations evolved past bigotry and equal rights and freedom of religion are a basic value in Christian nations, at least in the West and Latin America. Muslim nations, aside from Turkey and a few other isolated cases, have not reached this view.
Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how where it occurs or how little it occurs. The very few fringe radicals on this forum may disagree, but they are just batsh*t crazy.
The situation in India is far better than Pakistan. India has a Sikh as its leader; Pakistan bans non-Muslims from even running for president in its constitution. Pakistan is one of the worst countries on religious freedom. LOL at comparing isolated examples elsewhere to make it seem as if the level of discrimination is the same elsewhere.
f*ck the leaders. What the hell is wrong with you, the leaders can be Jew or Hindu or sh*t worshipers. These sort of tactics have long been the chief means by which the State wins back the loyalty of its subjects. Depriving Christians from being president of Pakistan is a technique used to keep the ignorant masses in check, and giving presidency to a Muslim in India another way of keeping the Muslims within the folds of the establishment.
Well, this is a Pakistan affairs forum, no? Besides, the worst abuses in the world are in Muslim countries. For instance, no one gets killed for changing their religion in South Africa, Brazil, or Poland.
What are you talking about? Unless its state sponsored killings one should only *be questioning the individual and not society. Why should I be responsible for some individual killing someone else because their change in religious affiliation. Only individuals can, think, feel, choose, *kill, and that “society” is not a living entity which should be responsible for any actions that an individual makes.
Again, this is another area where there is an "Islamic exception." **The entire world **adheres to the UN Declaration of Human Rights--except the Muslim world, which has its own declaration, which among other things does not guarantee equal rights for women.
hmm....
This is a perfect example of why the Muslim world is where it is. If it can't handle intelligent discussion of religion how can it ever have an open society?
In the US you can say Moses was the worst person in history (citing him ordering the killing of infants and women. Is this talking "nonsense"? The "holy books" admit he did this) and room with the president for a month; in Pakistan if you said that you would be killed by an angry mob within a few hours.
How is it that the fault of anyone's other than the mob? Im not responsible for it any more than everyone else on this forum is.
Why are Muslims so insecure? Yet again here is another "Islamic exception." There are no "blasphemy" laws in Christian or Buddhist countries. Why can't the self-proclaimed one true religion handle criticism like every other religion in the world?
You have misunderstood the history of the church. The catholic church is one of the most evil corrupt organizations is the history of the world. In the modern era, where theocratic christian arguments have lost much of their lustre among the public in the west, the intellectuals have posed as the scientific cadre of “experts” to further decrease the role of the church and to increase the interests of the state. One only has to open the books of history and read the how the Church ruthlessly killed millions when it had power.
No one but there are those who criticize him--just like any other historical figure. Everywhere in the world you can criticize Moses, Jesus, Buddha, etc. Only Muslim countries can't handle criticism of their religious figures. Why?
Touche.
The irony is we are attacked for calling out the Muslim world--especially Pakistan (a nation we either live in or are tied to by ancestry) on this. We are trying to help. Religious bigotry is hurting the Muslim world--and the world. The people who are holding the Muslim world down are Islamists.
I support anyone **who fight against the State**. Who fight against the corrupt establishment. However, In no way do I support the Islamists in principle as they are totally against freedom themselves, and nor do I suport any group who kills innocent people.
There is no "right" to bring religion into government buildings in some countries. If the bans applied to people going to the grocery store or car dealers then I would object.
**** that's a stupid comment.