Samuel Masih's grieving family (Reuters)
Don't you think that if this were a Muslim beaten with a hammer in his hospital bed by a Christian cop, that this story would be on the front page of the New York Times and in the frontline of media coverage worldwide?
Said the cop: "I have offered my religious duty for killing the man. I'm spiritually satisfied and ready to face the consequences." From WND, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Samuel Masih was buried in Lahore, Pakistan, yesterday following injuries he received from a Muslim policeman who beat the 27-year-old Christian with a hammer as he lay in his hospital bed recovering from a bout of tuberculosis.Masih had been in jail since Aug. 23, 2003, awaiting trial on charges of blasphemy under Pakistan's strict "Law 295" – which forbids desecrating the Quran and "defiling" the name of Islam's prophet, Muhammad. On the day of his arrest, Masih was collecting garden rubbish, which he heaped temporarily against the wall of a mosque in Lahore's Lawrence Gardens section while collecting more that he planned to burn later. This action brought the blasphemy charge, which carries a maximum two-year prison sentence.
He had been held in the Lahore Central Jail for nine months when he had a severe tuberculosis attack and was transferred to a local hospital. According to reports in the Lahore Daily Times, the constable assigned to guard the prisoner's room at the hospital, Officer Faryad Ali, savagely beat Masih with a hammer used for cutting bricks after learning he had been accused of strewing garbage near the mosque's walls.
Faryad Ali, who has been jailed and charged with murder, reportedly told investigators it was his religious duty as a Muslim to kill the Christian man. According to Voice of the Martyrs, he is reported to have said, "I have offered my religious duty for killing the man. I'm spiritually satisfied and ready to face the consequences."
"This is another example of the danger our brothers and sisters in Pakistan face every day," said Todd Nettleton, VOM spokesman.
Baboo Emmanuel, Masih's father, told the Daily Times he did not know his son was in jail until approximately four months ago. A whitewasher by trade, Masih was frequently away for extended periods while working. But even when informed of his incarceration for blasphemy, the family did not pursue the case because of fear of the police. No one defended him on the charge.
"Poverty, society’s pressure and the lawless wild police system prevented me from following my son's case, Masih's father told the Daily Times.
The Christian minority's fear of the police and Pakistan's blasphemy laws were themes echoed by Lahore Archbishop Lawrence J. Saldanha who led the procession of 500 mourners at Masih's funeral.
"Sections 295 B and C and Section 298 A, B and C of the PPC are vague and can be interpreted in ways that cause suffering and death and devastating pain to society," Saldanha said. "The existence of these laws gives rise to injustices. It is usually the poor and weak who are the victims."
Masih's father, emboldened by the support of several human rights NGOs and media publicity, is asking the government to investigate the basis for the blasphemy charge against his son. No one in his senses would attempt blasphemy, he insisted to the Daily Times. "Particularly a person who belongs to a minority would never dare to do so because of the extreme sentence provided in the law," he said. Emanuel believes his son became a victim because he belonged to a minority.
According to human rights groups, Pakistan's blasphemy law is much abused and frequently used to settle personal grudges. Where convictions are made, most are overturned on appeal. However, Reuters notes that several Christians and Muslims accused of blasphemy have been killed by "religious fanatics" while in prison or police custody.
"This is a brutal act of terrorism committed by the police constable and a clear misuse of blasphemy law," said Shahbaz Bhatti, president of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance. "This is the time that government should abolish blasphemy law."
President Pervez Musharraf has called for a review of Pakistan's system of strict Islamic law, including the laws against blasphemy introduced in the 1970s during the regime of military dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq.
For skeptics of WND, here is Reuters story that, although less informative, confirms the facts above. (Thanks to Fanabba.)
And the "world" can seriously be told and believe there is a Peaceful Isalm?
How do the Muslim spokespeople keep a straight face??
It reminds me of the joke about a woman catching her husbamd in bed with another woman and then he shouts at her "Are you going to believe ME or your Eyes??"
Yes, I'm sure he received "spiritual satisfaction," Demonic spiritual satisfaction. Only satan himself would demand the brutal murder of innocents.
Is there perhaps an article that sets out the full story of Pakistan's minorities? I am thinking of the suicide, the real martyrdom, of Bishop Joseph, who killed himself several years ago to protest the persecution and murder of Christians in Pakistan -- an event that ought to be recorded, remembered, ought to have some recognition, and some attention paid to it, though one doubts that the assorted official mainline churches will touch the matter, for they tend to take the Muslim side and are not quick to protect the Christians of northern Nigeria, of southern Sudan, of Egypt, of Lebanon, of the Moluccas -- no, that is left to those "evangelicals" and "fundamenalist" Christians who are regarded, quite falsely I'm afraid, as too primitive in their mental makeup not to realize that no boats should be rocked, Christians if persecuted by Muslims should not be rescued -- these are people in the manner of the thoroughly-modern minister in a Peter De Vries novel, who will mention everything except God (he was thinking, perhaps, of Harvard Divinity School), or all those using a clerical color to push their own transparent poltical (anti-American, anti-Israel, "interfaith- dialogue-with-tragically-misunderstood-Muslims") agenda. In politics, as in the copious quotation from the King James masterpiece, give me that old-time religion, not the thin gruel of Updikesque pastors preaching peace at any price.
Here and there one reads a small item, or perhaps a few paragraphs never to be repeated or made much of, about a Christian church in Pakistan being destroyed, a Christian school attacked, Christians being arrested on ludicrous charges of blasphemy. There ought to be one place to find all of the information. And then, of course, there ought to be a site that lists the attacks on Hindus and Sikhs, the peasants with their throats slit, in Pakistan and in Kashmir. In Bangladesh, the millions of Hindus who have fled have to watch, helplessly, as those Hindus who remained behind are persecuted and murdered, as are the Christians of Bangladesh.
Strange, isn't it, that Irene Khan, the head of Amnesty International, which was once -- like the U.N. some fifty years ago -- a respectable organization, where some semblance of reality, and some attempt at proportion and reasoned justice, was still possible -- herself a Bangladeshi, and on a recent speaking tour did deliver herself, to her credit, of remarks about the treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh (and now the persecution of the Ahmadiyyas, stemming from their being officially declared a "non-Muslim" sect). Yet she really has no sense. She still denounces American policy in Iraq, an entrprise she finds utterly without merit, vicious from start to finish (yes, all those water treatment plants, all those electricity grids, all those textbooks free of inculcated hate, and that relatively innocent new flag to April's Baghdad breeze unfurled, and all those schools built or repaired, and all those hospitals fully equipped, even the "university" in Tikrit handed hundreds of thousands of dolalrs, and that monstrous regime stamped out -- all part of that horrific American terrorism and viciousness, in Irene Khan's world-view, of course, where nothing matters but Abu Ghraib, and the seven soldiers (7? Why stop there? Just put in any number you like here -- 700, or 7000, or 70,000. No, make that 700,000 American soldiers who "tortured" those prisoners. And 70 million Americans who were egging them on -- why, as Irene Khan knows perfectly well, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz apparently enjoyed nothing more than to watch, with a few friends over beers, the videotapes of Abu Ghraib). And Irene Khan's other great fixation are the "war crimes" of the Israelis, as they attempt, still, not to surrender to the endless Jihad against them, by daring to elminate terrorist leaders, and possible infiltration of the kind of weaponry that can bring down civilian aircraft. She may no longer be a real Muslim, but her palpable dislike and total want of sympathy for Israel's plight, and her remarkablye, Shirin-Ebadiesque ability to pretend that the mistreatment of women throughout the Muslim world is simply a reflection of "local cultural influence" and has nothing to do with, for example, sura 4:34 or many other passages in Qur'an and hadith, is extraordinary. An apologist for Isla, who ascribes the mistreatment of women, and of non-Muslims -- those Hindus, those Ahmadiyyas -- to something other than the teachings of Islam, now is at the head of Amnesty International. And is taken seriously. And is quoted. And her opinion, some think, should matter. Good God.
Along with the murderous persecution of Christians -- and Musharraf should really ask himself if the occasional soothing words he utters about religious minorities is a substitute for a wholesale, frontal attack on the manichaean hatred for Infidels preached all over Pakistan (he can compare, any time he wishes, the perfectly splendid treatment his Muslim son, an accountant, is receiving in American society from his new home in Canton, Massachusetts -- don't the native-born Christians and Hindus of Pakistan deserve no less?).
In India itself, those who follow the domestic Indian press, which is well worth it for the amazing blend of 19th century English, and the hippest Hollywood demotic, a blend of Macaulay and Macaulay Culkin, one finds example after example of attacks by Muslims, attacks on the Malabar coast (where the Moplah Insurrection arose in 1921), or Muslims with bombs away in Bombay, or the slitting of the throats of Hindu pilgrims or Hindu farmers who were just minding their own business. And none of these attacks, that go on round the clock, ever make it out of India -- unless you read the domestic, even the local Indian press, you simply won't hear about it. It is the same in Indonesia, where thousands of churches were destroyed in 2003 -- but there the problem is even worse, for the local Muslim press siimply passes over this pogrom in silence.
Yet, when there is a reaction by Hindus , when finally the fury of a primitive peasantry erupts, as it did in Gujarat after Hindus were burned alive in a train, and many Muslims murdered by people running amok -- then every Western newspaper, radio station, televisiion channel breaks out in breathless coverage of those mad Hindus, those silly purveyors of Hindutva (and just what is so comical about wishing to recover, and to protect, Indian civilization? Is K. S. Lal an inaccurate historian? Is Sita Ram Goel, on the subject of Islam, really wrong? In what way, pray?), those crazed Hindutvadis. The fashionable attitudes of London are adopted as the the fashionable attitudes of Delhi, Calcutta, and Bombay.
It is not hard to see why. First, in India, where Muslims live as a minority, the best-educated have produced a version of Islam that allows them to get along in that society. It is not simply a matter of biological adapatation. When Muslims live outside a hothouse atmosphere, and are subject to constant pressure from non-Muslims, they can adapt. Muslims from India can be far more outwardly presentable -- and some of them not only seem to be "moderate" but in fact, are. But only some. And we Infidels have no way of knowing which are, which aren't. And then there are those who continue, out of filial piety or, even more amusing, out of a good career sense, to pretend in the West to be "Muslims" when everything about them shows that they are completely secular ex-Muslims. Fareed Zakharia, the mediagenic foreign-affairs writer employed by Newsweek who even runs a wine column is quite secular, though he is an apologist for Islam rule in India, denying its depredations. Yet he is probably not much more "Muslim" in his religious beliefs than Ibn Warraq. But it is not only filial piety that might explain his denial of the Muslim record in India. Zakharia's career partly depends on his being a "Muslim" voice, and he knows it, and is careful not discuss either the tenets of Islam, or his particular belief or disbelief, because if he were to be seen as an "ex-Muslim," or a "secularist Muslim" (this term has to be analysed -- a "secularist" like Ataturk? A "secularist" like Nasser or Saddam Hussein? A "secularist" ayatollah like Al-Sistani who does not want direct power as Khomeini, but would still like the imposition of shari'a?) A "secularist" who tells the truth to Infidels about, not his own personal upbringing, since he may hardly ever have gone to a mosque, but what Islam means to the hundreds of millions of non-Newsweek-editing and non-wine-connoisseur Muslims throughout the world. Zakharia is no sure guide here; rather than fulfill his duty to tell the truth, he presents a false view of Islam, its tenets and its practice, on those few occasions when he discusses the matter. It may be that, though born into Islam, he knows little about it, probably did not attend a madrasa (as Ibn Warraq did), seldom went to a mosque, ignored more primitive adherents, and is essentially a non-believer who continues to call himself a "Muslim" without more. If he, if others like him, were -- more accurately, and bravely -- to come out of the closet andcall themselves ex-Muslims, as do Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Anwar Shaikh, and more and more of the very best, most thoughtful, most interesting and amusing people born into Islam, his usefulness on the American media scene would perhaps diminish, and his career suffer. For there is no doubt that he is brought on, and attended to, and made much of, precisely because he continues to describe himself as a "Muslim." As an ex-Muslim, he becomes less marketable.
This attitude toward ex-Muslims is extraordinary, and must change. They need to be paid heed, to be given fellowhsips and other support, to be invited to talk, to be what they are -- witnesses, temoins. They are even more important, because the subject of Islam is confused by the invocation of that word "religion" that immediately, in many quarters, commands respect and serves to defuse suscpicion, and they can help to understand how this belief-system, this total system, indoctrines its followers, and provides a clear and rational framework for keeping them Muslim, beginning with the treatment of apostasy as treason, deserving of the death penalty.
Those ex-Muslims are even more important for Infidel understanding of Islam than were those ex-Communists who told the truth about Stalin, the Comintern, the real face of Marxist-Leninism, from Jay Lovestone to Victor Serge to Alberto Moravia to Arthur Koestler to R. H. Crossman? Isn't it precisely the same thing with Islam? In Congress, in the Pentagon, at Fort Bragg, at Langley, at the F.B.I., it is Azam Kamguian, and Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina who ought to be invited to speak, to explain how Islam works, the sources of its continued appeal (including its appeal to the psychically marginal, the John Walker Lindh-Adam Gadahn lost souls looking for The Truth, or the Richard Reid-Jose Padilla lost souls looking for Brothers -- and a way to get back at the System, and finding it in Islam, with its total explanation for everything (from comets to skin-diseases), teased out of Qur'an and hadith by hundreds of thousands of Islamic "scholars" for whom the discussion of Islam is a permanent WPA (Works Progress Administration).
But back to India, which followed naturally from the matter of Pakistan. Urban, well-travelled, westernized HIndus, so unacquiainted with their country's history, so quick to deplore Hindutva activism, and quick to overlook what the Islamic invasion did to India, shjould be less dismissive of their own past, the past that the Muslim invaders tried physically and in all other ways to destroy, to eliminate, to ignore.
India recovered its own past, its own history, only when the British came. It was the sympathetic treatment of Hindu civilization, beginning with Sir William Jones and the Asia Society of Bengal, that helped to disentomb from the centuries of Muslim rule all that had existed before the Muslim conquest. Dominic Kirkham, an acute student of history, wrote a few years ago in a letter to the TLS: "Mughal rule had severed India's links with both its own pre-Islamic past and the wider Classical world, leaving a fragmented and often fossilized HIndu culture...Within a century they [the British] had unlocked ancient treaturers, presenting India with the symbols of its identity such as the lion capital of Ashoka, restored or rejuvenated its national treasures such as the Mahbodhi Temple and Taj Mahal, rediscovered the truth about its forgotten beliefs, such as Buddhism, deciphered the secrets of its ancient languages and unearthed the origins of pre-Aryan Indus civilizations at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa."
Perhaps Indian-Americans who are Hindu, and who -- though no doubt they are friendly with Muslim Indians as well, may as a matter of duty to historicla truth, not be so inclined to ape the Islamophile attitudes of the BBC and the West End, nor so inclined to mock the supposed troglodytes of Hindutva. No doubt many of those associated with the later have been foolish, or exaggerated, in their public performances, but the basic idea that Indian civilization had been badly "wounded" (Naipaul's famous epithet), and needs repair and restoration from the centuries of cruel and destructive Muslim overlords -- Aurangzeb was the rule, Akbar the exception, disliked by Muslims precisely for his genial syncretistic inclinations -- is not foolish. If there are those contemplating academic history, they might try to disabuse themselves, and others, of what Muslim rule really menat in India. And what it meant helps to explain the behavior of the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis toward non-Muslims. For that rule, basing itself on the clear tenets of Islam, and the attitudes that flow naturaly from the teachings of Islam, destroyed as much as it could of the indigenous population (some 60-70 million Hindus were murdered), until there were simply too many to kill, and too many left unconverted, so they were treated as dhimmis (that is, given a kind of honorary ahl al-kitab, People of the Book status), and of the artifacts and temples, both Buddhist and Hindu, that were found all over India before the Muslims came.
One recalls the story of the two soothsayers who pass each other outside the Forum in Rome. One haruspex looks at the other -- and what is each of them thinking? When a Muslim from India or Pakistan looks at someone else, a Hindu or a Sikh or a Jain, what does he think to himself? Though every third Pakistani seems to have awarded himself a family tree that begins with Muhammad (that is what "Sayeed" indicates), surely some of them realize that at one point, in the distant blood-soaked past, their own ancestors were forced to convert to Islam, on pain of persecution, or death, or slow asphyxiation through the imposition of the various economic and social disabilities placed on them by their Muslim conquerors. Why continue to identify with those who forced one's ancestors into this belief-system? Why not demonstrate loyalty to those persecuted ancestors, or the generations before them, who were not Muslim, and slough off the religion of the cruel conquerors? Why not, indeed? And if HInduism itself is found to be, at this point, unappealing (and of course there is the matter of caste, as a moral and even practical consideration -- everyone will want to be a Brahmin, no one a member of the Scheduled Classes), other religions, or no religion, beckon. That is one solution for Pakistan's descent into chaos and violence. Is there another?
How many times have we seen this... a defenseless person being killed by a Muslim for the sake of their religion. A man laying in a hospital bed for God's sake... and the innocent Buddhist old man in Thailand being decapitated!
This is completely foreign to Western culture which looks at attacking the weak and defenseless as despicable and cowardly. In the West, we would be ashamed of committing such an act, but instead all Faryad Ali has to say is that he is "spiritually satisfied"!
Another example of "Peaceful" Islam!
Peaceful Islam? Where? Great post, Hugh.....as always.
Here we go again,I can just see the Muslim
groups typing up their press releases stating that the Cop wasn't a "True Muslim" because the Quran forbids the killing of innocent( but wait! who defines which humans are "Innocents" according to ALLAH) people.
The charade is over folks,we are now seeing
the real face of Islam and it's coming to a Mosque near you.
KNOW ISLAM - NO PEACE
Excellent posts as always, Bill, DC...
I really cannot help but feel the war is comming.
Another "peaceful Muslim" anyone?
The old man in Thailand, Tali Hatuel and her daughters in Israel, the christian man axe murdered on his doorstep by a passing Muslim, (for complaining about the muslim's donkey, f I remember correctly) Yet another corpse dragged behind a car in Saudi.
Does anyone remember the hostages for rockets scandal a few years back in the US? Little known fact is that the Palestinians mistakenly kidnapped a Russian diplomat of low rank once...the ransom was paid, and a stern warning about Russian citizens being kidnapped was issued. The Palestinians chose to ignore it, kidnapped another diplomat, higher rank this time, even killed his security man. The Russians did not pay the ransom. Instead, they themselves kidnapped the brother of the kidnappers leader; then cut off both thumbs or trigger fingers, I forget which...and sent them to the kidnappers in lieu of the money...the diplomat was released, and the brother as well, after being pretty thoroughly beaten...the PA from then on, made DARN sure it was some other nationality BEFORE the attempted kidnappings...perhaps we need to get real, and take a paralell approach.
After the storm about Abu Ghraib I hope we will see an outrage in the muslims countries aginst the killing of this Christian.
To protect and to serve, indeed.
Tim,
I really do think you are right. It's not in our nature to respond to kidnappings and suicide bombings in brutal ways like in the Russian story you cite, but something tells me it is the only thing these people understand.
Our good nature makes us want to "win hearts and minds" rather than intimidate through brutality. I truely struggle with what it means for us as a country if we begin to sanction similar tough tactics. Nevertheless, I'm becoming increasingly convinced we must consider them.
are these people of this faith the most backward people in the world?
is their religion just based on killing non believers, its trully sickening are they that insecure of their beleif that they have to enforce it upon others with force or death in case someone else may show them that it is wrong what they believe, as it obviously is
This murder is unbelievably shocking and disgusting. I can't for the life of me imagine how such hatred and bile can fill a person to do such evil on a defenceless human being. This is pure evil. We're looking into Satan's eyes when we look at Islam. I'm not a religious person and don't believe Satan is a specific entity. Rather he/it is the personification of the worst evil in human beings - the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Mohammeds, Koreshes, the serial killers, the child molestors, etc., etc., and the true Muslim, the one who follows his "faith" to the letter.
Seems odd there is not ONE single comment from our muslim friends Mahmoud, Reza, Arxo (sorry if I spelled it wrong, we'll get it right on the tombstone), or Dina.
Takers, any of you?
Islam is a religion of peace. How many times do I have to tell you? We are in a war against terrorism, not Islam.
Hugh: While I agree with the substance of your post, you pissed the boat on Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria once spoke of the possibility that India's Muslims, a 10% minority in a Hindu-majority country with a secular government, could have been an example of a pluralist Islam (Zakaria was born and raised in India).
My own take on Zakaria, after reading his _Illiberal Democracy_is that like most American media people (he became a US citizen a few years back), he has a shallow understanding about most traditional religions, including his own.
As for the Masih case, I'm pessimistic. The keepers of the humanitarian conscience in most of the Western world are among the most rabid post-Christians themselves, and simply don't care what happens to Christians anywhere. Expect them to cheer for the butchers. In this, they are morally inferior to even the Muslim dissidents frmo Xinjiang, who once went to bat for a persecuted Christian from central China.
this article would never appear in the u.s. media because thay will not speak of the religious war we are in with muslim islam and yes it would have appeared all over the u.s. media if it were a muslim killed by a christian. the media in the u.s. is already leaning toward the muslim side on all things.
Islam is one of the great poisons in the history of mankind.But is it just an infection?
is there any genetic evidence that the arabs could have bred themselves into an aggressively dominant subspecies of the human race that is extremely susceptible to the violence of Islamic thinking?
It seems hardly likely that if Islam had started in Europe , it would have not gained any momentum.
In over 2000 years of prior history there is no evidence that Arabs left the Arabian Peninsula to plunder or attack others until after Mohammed and Islam had appeared on the scene.
Draw your own conclusions, please.
Muslims are not all Arabs, they come from every walk of life.
They are brainwashed into the cult from early age.
Some people are just stupid and are the type that could be brainwashed into any cult. Jihadists love those types. "My Johnny was such a good boy, he would never do anything like that" are the sounds uttered by stupid parents who allow their children to get sucked into such cults, because they lack spiritual grounding themselves.
Somehow the peaceful words of Christ become villainous, and the ungodly barbaric acts of the Islamic cult gets romanticized. We have seen how cults work, Islam is no different.
This will never appear on the US main media simply because it was Muslims that did it. I am firmly convinced that a muslim can do *anything* and the leftist media would either ignore it, forgive it, or blame it on Bush.
And I think, worse yet, this is a deliberate and calculated attitude by the media.
maybe because we are so accustomed to muslims doing these things, its like yeh thats what muslims do nothing new, if it was a christian it would be like what the? this person must be a freak?
am i right?
Hugh, a great post.
Hugh's post is extremely erudite and well researched. I cannot but commend you and I agree with the general premise of the post.
However, I have to respecfully disagree with few sentences. In particular, this one :-
"India recovered its own past, its own history, only when the British came. "
I would not rush to give credit to Brits as Hugh suggests. Brit historians were quick to denigrate hinduism for its caste system in eighteenth century India while slavery and apparthied were still rampant in the west and Islamic world at that time. A case of twentieth century morals applied to eighteenth century India. The brit historians also ignored the affirmative action (sometimes practised to ridiculous proportions) for histroically wronged people that modern day India produced after independence and also the many other reforms which are occurring on a continuous basis. Not being armed with a final and immutable truth like muslims helps in producing reforms for other religions. Also Brits had arrived too late. The Sikhs already had a powerful empire in Western India, present day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hindu Marathas had also produced a powerful empire in the west and South and Muslim Mughal power in Delhi was declining. It is now anybody's guess what would have happened had the brits not arrived for another century. While the brits did produce some of the much needed reforms (after having initially discredited the Indian civilization completely and also having obfuscated its history), they also destroyed (even if unintentionally) the economy from which India has not yet recovered. (Nehruvian socialism only exacerbated the economic ills.)
Also while no fan of the leftist (and sometimes interpreting secular as being anti-hindu) Indian press, I still have to commend them for exposing any mob rampage against minorities dutifully. They are one of the many reasons why minorities in India are so much more confident than whatever little is left of the minorities in Bangladesh and virtually none left in Pakistan. Demographic statistics of minorities (including hindus forced to live under christian names) in Pakistan eventually tells what Pakistani press refused to tell.
Once again I read news and comments on this web site and once again I am given hope that common sense may still be common. Regardless of the intense efforts by our public shcools ,colleges and of course our wonderful mainsteam media. Hugh it is a pleasure to read your postings. They always give an edge when speaking to people that are spoon fed by sound bytes and disinformation. Islam is evil. It is evil because instead of enlightening the ignorant it uses them as a weapon. When will we see one of these clerics with a bomb strapped to his butt to do the will of allah, or better yet when is yasser or one of his children going to blow themself to bits for the sake of their"religion of peace."When are those who speak for and defend this sewer of a religion going to realize that if the muslime take over that they will be no more safe from these animal than the rest of us INFIDELS. In fact they would probably be less safe than most because of their personal moral corruption. If the terrorists begin their activities in the US on an even small scale we must respond with an eye for an eye.As no man will deny me my pound of flesh if any one near me is hurt or killed. We know who are the ones responsable and they will not do it a second time. Let GOD judge and punish them.
Sharkey
It is horrible to kill a person especially a patient. But can you imagine if it was a Christian cop killing a sick Muslim patient? We could have protests all over the world. Among protesters could you see Jack Straw, UK foreign secretary, The BBC, Amnesty London Branch, EU, UN and thousands of Muslim organizations. The mullahs in Iran treated Iranian minorities not better than their counterparts in Pakistan. I, not being a minority, was ashamed of how our minorities were treated in the hands of mullahs. We didn't see any protest by the UK government, Amnesty London, EU, UN or any Muslim organization.