Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan's PM Demands International Blasphemy Laws From UN
eldavojohn writes "An article published in Pakistan's Daily Times contains several quotes from Pakistan's Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf indicating his intent to push for international blasphemy laws in both the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (57 countries). These comments came shortly after Pakistan's 'Day of Love for the Prophet' turned into riots that left 19 people dead and, of course, this all follows the extended trailers of 'Innocence of Muslims' being translated. Questionable circumstances surround who is prosecuted under these 'blasphemy laws' and what kind of fear they instill in Pakistan's minorities. The UN's Human Rights Charter mentions protection from 'religious intolerance' but also in the same sentence 'freedom of opinion and expression.'"
You can't legislate respect.
Your demand for "blasphemy laws" is, to us, blasphemy!
...is the perceived right to never be offended.
Oh wait your serious, let me laugh even harder! - Bender
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Blasphemy is used to Pakistan to settle scores between feuding parties: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262
He should maybe clean that up first, before trying to impose that on the rest of the world.
Oh, and by the way, being left-handed is also blasphemous in Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
How about we finally rank freedom of expression firmly above freedom of religion? Freedom of expression already safeguards religious freedom in all the important ways (along with freedom of assembly). But freedom of religion should not include the right to be free from being insulted or offended. We all are offended by something from time to time, but us non-religious types just have to suck it up. And rightly so. In such cases, freedom of expression should trump religious sensitivities
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
At least in Libya they have: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/does-not-represent-us-moving-photos-pro-american-rallies-libya/56803/
"They already have. Most don't like the video, but also don't like the rioting. Problem is, how can they stop it? And how are they supposed to make a statement disowning them? "
Trouble is, there seem there don't seem to be enough of the non-crazy Muslims in some countries. When you have a government minister in Pakistan offering a $100000 bounty for the murder of a foreign civilian, and he's not instantly dismissed, you have a serious problem. He can do that because a large majority of the population back those views, and he knows it. In Pakistan, not so long ago considered an ally of the west, the crazy extremist types are very much in the ascendant, and a lot of Muslim countries seem to be heading that way. It's not just a small minority of crazies making a lot of noise, it's a large majority of them.
Oh no... it's the future.
Thing is, such Muslims stand up and denounce such things all the time, but when the media give them attention the sites are bashed for being 'liberal media' since such denouements do not fit with a certain narrative... so there is a rather strong selection bias going on.
the underlying theme in koran writings IS that the dhimmis (ie, all of us non-moslems) are to be conquered or killed. eventually. until then, they are allowed to lie to us and do whatever it takes in order to secure their future.
LOOK IT UP.
I wish I was kidding. this is nasty, ugly shit, but its the basic overall guiding concept. it really is ;(
no peace can be made with belief systems like that.
(cue the deniers in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Saying "look it up" is not the same as citing a reference, even if it's in all-caps.
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
"i oppose you because of your skin color" is not the same as "i oppose you because you oppose people simply because of their skin color"
but in that difference, is the confusion: some social conservatives view the left as the most intolerant. because the left won't respect their homophobia, for example. "how can you say you stand for tolerance when you don't respect my right to deny someone else's right to marry?"
did you see that trick? did you see how it gets turned around?
it's the same as "if some troll somewhere makes a bad youtube video about muhammad, the honor of islam must be restored with blood from someone else from your tribe, the west"
it all comes down to: how do you deal with people who demand respect for a worldview which is essentially disrespectful
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Go read the Qu'ran. There are plenty of instances in which religiously-motivated violence is condoned or even instructed. Of course, the apologists will immediately cite other examples from the Qu'ran that contradict that. The nice thing about Islam is that its followers can pick and choose: Show the peaceful bits to the ignorant dhimmi and the violent bits to the true followers. You'll never get a straight answer.
This is not unique to Islam, of course. Most religions have similar contradictions that allow believers to pick-and-choose according to the situation and the audience. The problem is that currently, Islam's violent underpinnings are causing far more problems for the world than the violent underpinnings of other religions.
Islam also says that, if you bring someone into your house, you have to protect them from harm. One of it's central tenets(one of the Pillars) is charity. During the Middle ages, the Middle East under Islam was one of the safest places in the world to live in if you were Jewish, much more so than in Europe.
So, because Christians in Europe used to be violent to other religions you are saying its OK for the Muslims to do it now.
During the Crusades Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their religions freely, paying only a small tax, while Christian crusaders generally enforced a convert or die approach.
Tell the whole truth. This payment was seen as acceptance of subjugation, and If someone had agreed to pay jizya, leaving Muslim territory for non-Muslim land was punishable by enslavement if they were ever captured. Also at times it was a heavy rather than light imposition. In addition to this Non Muslims were not allowed to practice their faith in the open, display religious symbols, or build or repair places of worship. They would also not be allowed to testify against Muslims, which is why today so many non-Muslim women raped by muslims have it thrown out as "no case to answer".
And for the record, the Old Testament of the Bible also condones and recommends killing to spread the religion, or even just to take land that you want, and it's ok as long as they don't believe.
And I would be as opposed to Christians or Jews doing this as I am to Muslims doing it. The fact is that they don't any more, whereas Muslims do,
And what if it is? It seems to me that Islam does condone (hell no, recommend) the use of violence to spread Islam.
Then you don't know anything about Islam other than what you think you've learned from news sites and CNN.
No, I've studies the Qur'an and listened to the dictates and fatwas of Imams and it certainly is what Islam decrees
You are defending the Qu'ran by comparing it to the Bible? You religious people are crazy.
Really, the Middle East wasn't too bad in the early part of the 20th century, either. They were joining the modern world at a decent pace, women's rights were strong, they had universities with open-minded debates, female students, and even female politicians and leaders. They had open discourse on politics and religion, and generally everyone in the region was reasonably tolerant of others' religions.
It's the *modern* Middle East that's the problem. The *modern* Islamist rule in the region turned everything upside down with a new interpretation of "fundamentalist" Islam and started enforcing it on their societies. There are still living (old) people in the Middle East who remember how it was before all of this, and they're ashamed of what their countries have become. Religion evolves, and it's fair to say that the plurality of the modern practitioners of Islam in the Middle East represent a very different religion than the more peaceful and progressive variant that preceded it.
There may be an interpretation of Islam that's peaceful, but there are clearly also interpretations that are not. As with Christianity, the important thing in the moment is: which side is winning Islam's internal debate and controlling the majority of its political actions on the world stage?
11*43+456^2
Sensible, non-crazy, fairly secular Muslim here.
I've spoken out in favor of free-speech and reform... but you know what. I'm tired of people like you thinking us other Muslims can somehow fix the 'crazy' Muslims.
There is a reasonable reading of the Islamic text that does mean, you need to spread the Islamic state and when in a position of power to enforce blasphemy laws. This is simply a rather orthodox Islamic position.
So, I can't 'convince' the 'extreme' Muslims to go against a pretty reasonable reading of the texts. The same text that says pray 5 times a day and tells Muslims how to pray is the same one that tell Muslim women to put on the veil and spread the Islamic state.
FYI... Islam is not just the Koran. You need the Hadith as well. Hint... the Koran never even says pray 5 times a day. The Koran says follow Mohamed... so what Mohamed did is recorded in the Hadith. Most of what Muslims actually practice is in the Hadith.
Now that I've given you some background.
Let me tell you who you should turn your demands towards. Your ridiculous governments who have such a perverse view of rights.
Religious rights are extreme. As long as someone can say something is part of their religion... somehow that means they should be able to do it.
Let me tell you how I see it. I live in Canada. Not exactly land of liberty, but a pretty free country.
This is a country where the government takes control of healthcare, can actually deny me treatment, can control a restaurants use of transfat oil, can send me to jail for smoking a plant, takes half my income to fund, can send in child-care workers if I spank my child, monopolizes the school system...
My point of all this is not to complain about my rights being infringed or anything. Just to show how much government interferes with my 'rights' already.
Yet this same government finds it a violation of 'rights' to tell Muslim women they can't wear the niqab. Yeah, which does more social harm. Me wanting to eat fish and chip cooked with transfat oil... or a Muslim women possibly being forced to wear the niqab due to social customs and isolating her and preventing social cohesion.
And do you know who sits on all these government bureaucracies. It's not us Muslims. It's your fellow 'white' Canadians or American. Who sits on Human rights tribunals or drafts legislation?
We have real social issues in the Muslim community. And you 'white Canadians/Americans' actually work to support the 'extremists'. You don't stand up for your Western values... then you suddenly demand us 'moderate' Muslims do everything for you.
Classic Blasphemy example with this video. It pits freedom of speech against a theocracy. And what does the leader of the free world say? What does Barack Obama say? Does he come out in strong support of Free Speech and Western Values? What does Hilary Clinton say? They spend their effort talking about how offensive the film is.
Heck, even George Bush... the so called... 'cowboy' barely stood up for Western values.
Heck, I wonder if Nazism was a religion today, if you Western people wouldn't just sit there trying to be tolerant of it in the name of freedom of religion.
The only people standing up for Western values are the 'crazy' white people... as you would probably call them. In the UK... it's the EDL. In the US, prolly people you'd refer to as rednecks. In Canada... its our 'rednecks'.
So pardon me for not going out of my way anymore.
I was born Muslim. I care about my people and my community, but I've stopped caring. I don't care anymore if you think Islam is a horrible religion. I don't care to defend it. I'm just tired.
If you Western people won't even stand up for your values and way of life... why should I?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People like you amuse me. When someone criticizes a non-Christian religion you respond with "Well, the Bible is bad too..."
Why do you feel that everyone that criticizes a non-Judeo-Chrisitian religion must be a Judeo-Christian? Couldn't it be possible, for example, that a person who rejects Islam because of it's seemingly violent nature rejects Judeo-Christianity for the same reason?
The parent said "religions are always false". There was no need for me to hash through the possible definitions that may lend it credence, it was only necessary for me to provide a single definition which proved it inaccurate. That is why I chose that definition.
Ah, yes. Argument by dictionary. That's an excellent strategy: it allows you to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing instead on specific word-use.
Let's try this instead: no religion has been shown to be true. In fact, no religion has demonstrated a basis by which its truth-claims can be evaluated. Religion has no epistemic footing.
You indicate this yourself when you mentioned, "There are over 4,200 religions in the world." (This ignores the various nuanced schisms that exist in many of those 4,200 religions, but we'll let that slide for the moment.) This number indicates there is no real epistemic foundation on which to build a reliable religion. Basically, it's all just gut-feeling, social mechanisms for control, pareidolia, and a desire to know things that are effectively unknowable (or, without answer because the question is bad, such as, "Why are we here?")
So, yes, I think I can say that all religions are wrong, even if they are right in some details. It'd be like the claim, "The earth is warming." That is a correct statement of fact. However, one can be wrong in stating it: "The earth is warming because Hell is getting closer," would simply be wrong.
Religious statements are effectively without basis. Every religious statement that is not grounded in observation and logic (basically, science) can be summed up thusly: "I believe this thing, but I have no basis to assume this thing is true." Asserting a thing as true without a solid basis in observable reality is worse than being wrong. At best it is misleading. At worst, it papers over ignorance, effectively vetoing reason and inquiry.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If you do not know much about Pakistan, the following story may of help ---
A Christian girl with mental retardation was accused of blasphemy to Islam, by her next door neighbor, coincidently, happened to be an Islamic Imam.
According to that Islamic Imam, that Christian girl had burned pages from the so-called "Holy Quran" - and because of that, the girl was jailed on the charge of "Blasphemy" - and if convicted, can be put to death.
Immediately the whole nation of Pakistan was up in arm. Muslims threatening to kill the minority Christians, Christian churches were attacked and burned, and entire Christian community had to be vacated due to the threats.
After much twists and turns, it was reported that the "burned pages of Quran" was the making of that so-called "Islamic Imam".
That "Islamic Imam" was the one who framed that Christian girl, by putting burnt pages of Quran into the girl's bag.
And because Pakistan is a nation filled with hatreds, the minority Christians are still being threatened, and that Christian girl is still under the official charge of "Blasphemy", although a court granted her a bail.
That Christian girl still face immense danger. She could still be killed by the angry Islamic mob, or the Pakistan authority itself.
A nation like that wants the world to follow suit?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !