Pakistani man accused of insulting Islam killed in court

[Shadow Wolf]

In Pakistan! Perhaps a few women from elite families whom the rioters cannot touch, but totally ineffective, more for sounding good and progressive. All others will either join the rioters or keep mum.In countries where it is possible and safe to do it. In other places, people get killed or imprisoned. Hong Kong, Charlie Hebdo.

France has proudly stood by Free Speech. It was Muslim radicLs who shot up Charlie Hebdo. France defended the publications rights.

 

[Spirit of Light]

France has proudly stood by Free Speech. It was Muslim radicLs who shot up Charlie Hebdo. France defended the publications rights.

Should a person be proud of stepping other people just because it is "fun" to mock prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

Free speech yes, but not for all costs.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And what is in us law is indeed so similar to the Islamic ruling regarding both apostasy and blasphemy.

So you're seriously saying that speaking against the prophet Muhammad is equal to a charge like those mentioned in the U.S. law you quoted?

• "levies war against"
• "adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"

Those who DO NO MORE THAN SPEAK against Muhammad are your "enemies?" As in, you are seeking to defeat them? What does it mean to wage war against these types of "enemies" in your estimation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Should a person be proud of stepping other people just because it is "fun" to mock prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

Free speech yes, but not for all costs.

People should be proud for standing up against unreasonable and intolerable repression and hate. They should be proud to be a strong country who is secure enough in itself that a slight can be protected and not cause an outrage. They stood up against intolerance, they stood up for their rights, and the courts dismissed the claims brought against Hebdo because context matters and extremists shouldn't be considered sacred and off limits to satirizing. They are taking sex slaves and killing people. But they shouldn't be satarized in cartoon?

 

[Spirit of Light]

People should be proud for standing up against unreasonable and intolerable repression and hate. They should be proud to be a strong country who is secure enough in itself that a slight can be protected and not cause an outrage. They stood up against intolerance, they stood up for their rights, and the courts dismissed the claims brought against Hebdo because context matters and extremists shouldn't be considered sacred and off limits to satirizing. They are taking sex slaves and killing people. But they shouldn't be satarized in cartoon?

Are not you showing a form of hate toward Islam? Where is the difference? Why should you have free speech, but not them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are not you showing a form of hate toward Islam? Where is the difference? Why should you have free speech, but not them?

Killing and demanding silence are unreasonable and not compatible with free soeech.
And Hedbo wasnt insulting Islam. They were insulting extremists. Thats a crucial thing to understand. If Muslims want to get upset, they need to get upset at their fellow Muslims who are extremist bungholes who prompted the cartoons in tue first place. But true colors were shown as France stood up for free speech while Muslim radicals murdered over a cartoon.

 

[columbus]

So sad. So, 500 years ago.

This.
For most of human history the socially approved way to deal with unusual people was to kill them. From sexual orientation to mental illness to religious beliefs to congenital defects, just kill them.

Modern ethics are far more reason and evidence based. And the results are more along the lines of "The Religion of Peace" or "Love your neighbor as yourself" than the conservative versions of Abrahamic religion. That's a big problem that I have with Abrahamic religion in the 21st century.
Mostly the practitioners adopt secular humanist values, and are decent people. But the religions themselves still teach the ugly ethics of the primitive people who created them. And as a result, the profoundly immoral ethics of ancient people get dragged into the modern age. Not always, but all too often.

And I believe that Islam is the worst offender. Far more than Judaism or Christianity, over all, Muslims tend to exhibit ugly behavior and justify it with "God said...". Not that other people don't do this, they certainly do. But Islam is much worse, in general.

It's the religion most likely to justify immoral behavior based on Scripture.
In my experience. I could be wrong about that. And please don't misunderstand me. My opinion is not based on anecdotes like the OP. It's based on the prevalence of strife, poverty, bigotry, and tyranny found across the Muslim world.

It's easy to blame western powers for this. But, it's also quite dishonest to blame us for the entire culture.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, we're on the same side here. This is a rare occasion.

Blasphemers of the world - unite!

With me every day involves blasphemy.
Mocking your god is a blast for me.
Most thankless of jobs.
In Pakistan, mobs
might make this day into the last for me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Still, the article mentioned riots over blasphemy. I'm just wondering what can lead people to such an extreme degree of anger and hatred over someone who is mentally ill and probably harmless.

We've had riots here in America, but generally over gross injustices committed by government. If some crazy homeless guy says some outrageous and offensive things, most people would just ignore it. Maybe one or two might get angry, but not enough to riot.

In fairness some of the biggest and most destructive riots in the US were over sports games. I cannot possibly fathom having enough stakes in a sports game to riot over it either.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, but the situation you describe there is nothing like what is in the article. And what is in us law is indeed so similar to the Islamic ruling regarding both apostasy and blasphemy.

What US law bans airing different beliefs?
Had McCarthyism become law, you'd have a cromulent
argument. But that hysteria was finally crushed.
Treason sets a higher bar than mere public denouncement
of the country, denial of its tenets, & hate speech.

Ref...
Treason laws in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't understand why blasphemy should be accepted at all, but of course I do not defend life in prison or death penalty for it.

And just who are you to imprison the minds of others?

 

[Father Heathen]

None of the religions are blasphemy to me. But speaking badly or try to hurt them is.

Some would consider it "blasphemous" to criticize the practice of clit-snipping. Should we turn a blind eye to horrific abuse out of "respect" for such beliefs? People will cloak things in religion with the expectation that it will be regarded as beyond reproach, but all things should be subject to critique and scrutiny.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is not much different from the US stipulation regarding treason.

False equivalency.

 

[Father Heathen]

Should a person be proud of stepping other people just because it is "fun" to mock prophet Muhammad?
I don't think so.

Free speech yes, but not for all costs.

Do you think spilling blood over butthurt is a proportionate response?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Killing and demanding silence are unreasonable and not compatible with free soeech.
And Hedbo wasnt insulting Islam. They were insulting extremists. Thats a crucial thing to understand. If Muslims want to get upset, they need to get upset at their fellow Muslims who are extremist bungholes who prompted the cartoons in tue first place. But true colors were shown as France stood up for free speech while Muslim radicals murdered over a cartoon.

You are aware of that to draw Muhammad is against Islam, and when done it will rase anger from some but maybe not all Muslims, is it then wrong of Muslims to say that it is wrong?
And yes some Muslims extremists did answer back in a wrong way, that I agree to too.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Blasphemy is religious speech.
Why ban one kind, but allow another?
Moreover, one person's religion is blasphemy to another's.

Agreed, Islam is blasphemy to me.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

From the article:



Riots? Really? Over "blasphemy"? I guess I just can't understand this level of fanaticism.

Doesn't anyone ever fight back against this? Don't the blasphemers have any champions for their side?

Apparently it's not the liberals. They just call Islam the "religion of peace."

 

[Spirit of Light]

And just who are you to imprison the minds of others?

I do not inprision others, all I ask is that one side should not have to be ridiculed but when they chose to answer back they become terrorists or bad? Muslims are allowed to answer back when people criticise them. Or is it only the white man who can defend them self?

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not inprision others, all I ask is that one side should not have to be ridiculed but when they chose to answer back they become terrorists or bad? Muslims are allowed to answer back when people criticise them. Or is it only the white man who can defend them self?

Muslims can't be white?
White folk can't be Muslim?
Blasphemy can't be civil?
I sense a lot of presumptions.

 

[Windwalker]

This.
For most of human history the socially approved way to deal with unusual people was to kill them. From sexual orientation to mental illness to religious beliefs to congenital defects, just kill them.

Modern ethics are far more reason and evidence based. And the results are more along the lines of "The Religion of Peace" or "Love your neighbor as yourself" than the conservative versions of Abrahamic religion. That's a big problem that I have with Abrahamic religion in the 21st century.
Mostly the practitioners adopt secular humanist values, and are decent people. But the religions themselves still teach the ugly ethics of the primitive people who created them. And as a result, the profoundly immoral ethics of ancient people get dragged into the modern age. Not always, but all too often.

And I believe that Islam is the worst offender. Far more than Judaism or Christianity, over all, Muslims tend to exhibit ugly behavior and justify it with "God said...". Not that other people don't do this, they certainly do. But Islam is much worse, in general.

It's the religion most likely to justify immoral behavior based on Scripture.
In my experience. I could be wrong about that. And please don't misunderstand me. My opinion is not based on anecdotes like the OP. It's based on the prevalence of strife, poverty, bigotry, and tyranny found across the Muslim world.

It's easy to blame western powers for this. But, it's also quite dishonest to blame us for the entire culture.
Tom

You raise many good points. What it really is about is modernity in general. That gets called the West, simply because modernity took off from there in the Western Enlightenment. It is a clash between traditionalism, and modernity, as well as it's newer form of postmodernity, and beyond. That clash exists wherever traditionalism meets modernity, and it is that clash which gives birth to traditionalism own form of mental illness, fundamentalism.

Much of the world is now entering into the modernity, and that creates tremors in a society and culture when norms become questioned and held to the scrutiny of critical thought and science, as well as advances in the humanities. These are literally different worldviews, different structures of reality, different modes of perceiving and interpreting the world. To someone in a traditionalist worldspace, to question scriptural reliability, for instance means you are challenging the truth of God to them. To question God, is to deny everything you believe, and the whole world makes no sense. You are therefore seen as an enemy of truth.

Much can be said about this.