Offcourse anyone who does not believe in the existance of Flying Spaghetti Monster is confused. And anyone claiming to have studied enough but still not believe in his existence then they have not studied enough so they are dishonest and insincere to claim of studying with honesty and sincerity because when one does, the nature opens a 1001 ways for him to get to the truth.
Now that we got that settled. Daesh seems pretty Islamic to me. They are spreading Islam, fighting kuffar, killing infidels and enforcing Sharia. They are following Islam very closely.
I don’t believe in religion at all. However, all sects of Islam have a sizable following in Pakistan. People won’t flock to your Ghamidi just because he makes sense to you. The fight each other over who’s Islam is the correct one. And we haven’t even begun to talk about the non-muslims. Is it fair for the majority to oppress the minority? I guess it depends on if the muslims are the majority (they oppress) or the minority (they complain they aren’t getting their rights).
Religion is an extremely contentious issue as can be seen from our brief exchange on this forum. Therefore, it would be prudent to remove religion from government. We all agree that murder is wrong (we might disagree on whether death penalty is appropriate). We agree stealing and bribing are wrong. We agree on most basic things. Why bring something as contentious as religion into government and complicate our lives unnecessarily. What gives government the right to dictate how I live my life as long as I pay my taxes and am not hurting anyone.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I did not say Islam encourages gaining and spreading knowledge. “I never claimed Islam restricts people from sciences” could best be interpreted as Islam doesn’t restrict people from sciences. I don’t have a problem with Islam as long it does not affect me. However, that is not the case when you bring the religion into sphere of government. Now everyone from believer to unbeliever (and everyone in middle) is affected by it. I have a problem with people using their gods to justify restriction on my freedoms.
Islam is not a religion of pacifism. Muhammad waged wars, his companions who succeeded him after his death waged wars. Daesh is simply following in their footsteps.
If you believe daaesh is following islam then i only have words of sympathy for your incureable dysfunctional brain. May you recover soon. Nothing more i can do for you sorry.
Re your second post, it’s funny how brainwashed people write posts after posts accusing others of being brainwashed by religion. Your source of information is clearly a dump of garbage thats why your head is full of garbage which is impossible for me to clean because that would mean contaminating my head with the same garbage so very sorry.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your worldview has an incurable dysfunctional brain? Says a lot about your critical thinking skills. The good news is that your condition is curable. All you need is to expose your self to different world views from around the world with an open heart and open mind.
My source of information is rational thought. And if you think rational thought is garbage then my sympathies are with you.
I have already said prayers for hour brain so not here to repeat that.
Sure my condition is curable because I am not the one going around humiliating other people’s God’s, religions, prophet’s, companions, based on very negative, ill sources of information. And those who do that are nowhere close to ‘rational’ but ill informed, careless & cruel. The funny thing is such arrogants view themselves as having ‘diffetent’ views than others.
I called you all that I did because of your poor knowledge which as per your own confession you got from negative people and sources, not because of having a certain set of beliefs. One can have any belief and expresress without insulting religions and without suggesting to change the constitution of an entire country besed on their own and their friends’ hate for a specific religion or all religions. That is where you differ from any sensitive, rational thinker. Sorry to burst your bubble you are not anywhere close to someone like that. In all my posts above my focus was not ro attack anyone else’s religion but the misinformation, misunderstanding, wrong views, insufficient knowledge of someone who regards himself as agnostic and wants an entire country to renounce religion just because he himself does not believe in God. If you think anyone with a critical thinking will respect you for this attitude then you are highly mistaken. Try the same with someone else, from some other part of the world, with different education, culture and upbringing, who speaks different language who believes in a different God. Then if they respect your for your inadequate knowledge then you can come an tell me. I do not impose my religion on others by force. All that I said in this thread to try to explain why it was a bad suggestion. Because of people’s lack of knowledge about true Islamic teachings. And you claim Im not a critical thinker because I do not accept people’s lack of knowledge in suggesting change in a country’s constitution.
And the moment I said I avoid engaging in useless arguments with negative destructive people to preserve energy, you made it a point coming back with a more obnoxious post than the last time. That also says alot about a rational thinker eho claims to have respect for other people’s views. Goodbye. You were a lost cause from the beginning but revealed too late in the thread.
I’m sorry that you feel that way. And I apologize if the truth humiliates your gods. Trust me, being different is not the goal of this discourse. Despite how you feel my goal is not to piss you off or troll you.
You say you’re not forcing your religion on others. However, making religion a part of the constitution does force that religion down people’s throats. I think secularism is the way forward and religion has no place in government. A secular Pakistan is not possible with the constitution in it’s current state. And the good thing about a constitution is that it is not some sacred text that cannot be changed. It is a piece of text written by men that can be improved over time as the needs of the society evolve.
No one forced you to reply to my last comment. You can end the conversation by not replying. What you can’t expect is to post something contentious then expect people to not engage in a discussion with you.
Wrong. You are taking my point of freedom of speech limit as being lenient on lawlessness. You wont die out of keeping your mouth shut on issues regarding companions. If you are engaged in logical debate on role of the companions, it should be encouraged. But abusing them for the sake of hatred is aimed at provoking others you know what it means. If majority decides democratically on this law why is pain then?
No disrespect but for the sake of argument, one could say your mother or sister is important to you not others. Well for some it could be ok but not for majority.
By the same token, women won’t die if she stays at home or wears a burqa. What if I want to criticize Mohammad for marrying a 9 year old? I’m sure that would offend a lot of people. Should I be sentence to death for blasphemy. What if start calling Mohammad names? Should I be sentenced to death for blasphemy. I’m not threatening to kill anyone, I’m not threatening to harm anything. I don’t see why I should be punished. I’m just expressing my self. Person A should not allowed to express his love for Mohammad if Person B isn’t not allowed to express his hate for Muhammad. They’re both emotions. However, I’d definitely have a problem if someone started saying kill all Muslims. Now that’s a problem because it’s a call for harm to a people.
Hatred of a personality dead or alive is fair game. Calling for someone’s death is not.
A lot of Muslims express their hate for kuffar, yahood, nasara very openly. They’re not punished for that. Heck they’re not even punished when they call for death of someone.
Provoking others, I think I’ve heard that phrase before. Also known as blaming the victim. “Of course she got raped, have you looked at how she dresses.” Imagine if the courts started prosecuting women for provoking men by dressing provocatively.
My mother and sister are important to me and my 5 brothers. Our thoughts and emotions don’t hold any value just because we are a smaller group. What happened to protecting minorities and affording them equal rights?
It’s my job to control my actions if someone says something derogatory about my mother just like it’s the responsibility of muslims to control their actions when someone says something derogatory about people important to them (prophets, companions).
Placing the blame of your actions on the other people’s expression results in what happened when the Danes first made their cartoons back in 2005. I still remember the destruction caused by Mohammad loving muslims. Traffic lights were smashed, restaurants broken into and trashed. That was a time when muslim scholars should have come to the forefront and explained to their people how free speech works. “We love our prophet dearly, however, there are people who do not share our beliefs. To them the prophet is no more special than Bashir down the street, therefore, to them he’s fair game. I know this hurts you deeply but we must not act like barbarians and draw negative attention to ourselves.”
The uproar in the muslim world brought more ridicule to the religion than the cartoons themselves. I didn’t even know the cartoons existed until the protests started happening. The muslims who first saw these cartoons could have simply ignored them and not shared them with other muslims. However, they chose to make a big deal out of it causing the most damage in muslim world itself. Also, drawing the ridicule of the rest of world for being an intolerant people who don’t understand the concept of freedom of speech.
In short people have the right to ridicule whoever they want. No one should be beyond reproach, not christopher hitchens, not mohammad, not nawaz sharif.
PS: I’m not trying to say women should stay home or wear burqas. Just trying to expose the flaw in punishing a person for doing something that might offend other people.
PS2: Personally, I have nothing against Mohammad or his companions. He lived in a different time and it’s unfair to judge his actions by today’s standards. The problem arises when people use his life and standard to run a modern country. They want to impose his rules indiscriminately without considering if they’re harmful or helpful. The religion is beyond reproach.
Although you make some very strong arguments but the society has a right to declare what cannot be said, mind you i moderation. In France you cannot make anti semitic statements. In certain countries you cannot deny holocaust and certain other atrocities. I remember a comedian got arrested in France for making a joke re jews. The rights here are getting pretty restricted and now people can be thrown in jail without a trial on suspicion of terrorism ect.
That said there has never been a theological govt that has been successful, Europe only came out of darkness when it separated the church and estate. We do have a full knowledge of history and secular govts do better than those based on theology.
Religion in govt manifests itself in a way where women protection bill is called blasphemous and age restriction on marriage is also called blasphemous in KSA.
Family law cannot be made more current and there are huge incidences of abuse and crimes against women
Society declaring what I can or can’t say is a slippery slope. I’d have to say France is wrong in giving semites a privileged status. Anti-semitic statements are fair game as long as the person making those statements does not call for violence against the people. A line is drawn at threatening harm to someone and that’s it.
I’m not a holocaust denier (they say it happened I don’t have a reason to doubt it). That said, I support the right of a person to deny holocaust in public space. Getting arrested for making jokes about jews, muslims, christians, satanists, etc is atrocious. No one is forcing you to listen to those jokes. Step away, change the channel, don’t read the offensive book.
I’m not going to stand behind a law just because it’s practiced by a Western nation. The best way to combat bad ideas is by educating people about good ones, teaching them how to think for themselves not banning people from expressing those bad ideas.
I’m as Pakistani as you are if not more. Online forums are the only place dissenters can voice their opinion and you wanna take that away as well. Why am I not surprised?
That said, I’d advise anyone posting views divergent from the official Pakistani narrative to be careful, given the country’s draconian blasphemy laws. Look at what happened to Taimoor Raza for expressing his views of facebook, all while the likes of Maula Abdul Aziz (Lal masjid) roam freely right under the government’s nose. Pakistan: Death penalty for blasphemy on Facebook | Pakistan News | Al Jazeera
You say democracy is the only good system but also go against it when majority want to limit certain speech to control law and order situation., you as an outsider has no right tell them what right for them.
The point is when is something required. A Muslim in Pakistan expressing hate against Non-Muslims who are invading Muslim countries is not creating anarchy in US. Society can make laws if someone ridiculing other’s religion to rile up majority.
someone being offended by women going to work is not freedom of speech issue. Its freedom of act, right to earn.
If you believe democracy is the only system that works then let majority decides what is good for them. there is no need to be moral police if majority want something you dont like. else curse on democracy.
TL;DR I think that people should be allowed to belief in whatever they want. No apostates were ever killed in Prophet Muhammad’s time and muslims always like to quote that there is no compulsion in religion. Plenty of muslims and non-muslims, some of whom actually became muslim, used to argue / criticize the Prophet. I still remember the Jew who came and grabbed the collar of the Prophet that will you pay me back? and he had to stop the sahabi from harming that guy. That jew was so impressed that he converted to islam. Of course, there were others like abu jahal who died a non-muslim.
I think that this anger and propensity to violence is where the muslims / islamic world is doing it all wrong.
How about insulting someone I care about in return for insulting someone you care about. Killing someone for the act isn’t fair by any measure. Call blasphemy terrorism? I’d call it joke of the century only if people weren’t being killed for it.
Women going to work or wearing burqa is not a freedom of speech issue but it’s an example of people using their religion to control the lives of other people.
Human rights supercede national and religious rights, if a country is going to violate the human rights of women, children, minorities etc then the international community can and will act against the perpetrators. The terrorism the hate against the west breeds is serious business and they have a right to take action on it. On the one hand there is billions of dollars in foreign aid and on the other hand you want to have the liberty to spew hatred. You absolutely do not have the right to promote violence and hate against any religion or nation.
Like Christmas is a holiday Eid is not. You cannot fulfill every socalled demand of minority rights. Ridiculing others religion is definitely not a right. If you lack basic morals you would resort to abuse.
Give majority full freedom of speech and it can be like below.
A majority start abusing minority and make it social norm. You name it freedom of speech I would say it is sort of racism.
If law forbids minority from ridiculing other religions, majority should also follow it.
