Pakistani Christian woman accused of blasphemy amid land dispute

Wonderful times we live in...

This is why whenever possible such people should be removed from such hellholes and given asylum in the West. They will always be at the mercy of the savages until then. And we all know about Allah the merciful.

True, it would be preferable to eradicate that disease but since the West lacks the leadership necessary to do so removing the "infidels" from the diseased areas would be easier. It would be easier to take in the miniscule number of infidels rather than accepting the flood of defilers we currently take in.

She complained [to] Haji Kareem that his cattle are spoiling her corps [sic]. Haji Kareem in spite of taking his cattle out started taunting and beating her.

What a classy guy, beating up a woman. This and shooting priests from behind. I'm sure Allah is real proud of his followers, considering how merciful the Koran makes him out to be.

I'm sure glad I read the Koran, painful as it was. It gave me a valuable insight into what kind of god Allah is and why his followers are the way they are.

Do robots have brains?

Posted by: americaningermany at October 18, 2006 11:13 AM

Nope. That's why Allah picked the Islamaniacs as his favorite instruments.

"If you cheer genocide and mass death"

do you mean like the muslim do?

That poor woman.

How does one blaspheme a living person? She should have had a gun on her and when the old bastard started beating her, shoot him.

I guess one must resort to lawlessness when living in a lawless land.

Aren't blasphemy charges automatic convictions? Since as I understand it only Muslims may testify in an Islamic court, no non-Muslim accused of blasphemy can defend themselves in court. Now that I think about it, except in the unlikely case that a Muslim chooses to defend a non-Muslim in court, isn't any criminal charge against a non-Muslim an automatic conviction?

If we stop calling this a religon and call it a theocracy, we may make better headway with our political leaders. I know that's a struggle anyway you look at it.

When Islam is approached as a theocracy/government then our leaders will realize that their time is limited.

God willing, of course.

Stories like this make me so very glad that I was born in the USA. For all our problems real or imagined, this is still the greatest form of government, and the best judicial system on earth.

aynrandgirl: Now that I think about it, except in the unlikely case that a Muslim chooses to defend a non-Muslim in court, isn't any criminal charge against a non-Muslim an automatic conviction?

Exactly so. Which is why, in traditional sharia societies, in order to survive, each dhimmi head-of-household must form a client/patron relationship with a Muslim 'protector', who will protect his dhimmi client from abuse by other Muslims, will bear arms in his defense (dhimmi are forbidden to arm themselves, and can expect to be lynched if they so much as lift a hand to a Muslim), and will testify on his clients' behalf in sharia court. If the protector wishes to. And always for a price.

I have never lived under sharia, but I have known former dhimmi who did, in Yemen back in the bad old days. They tell me it was hell on earth to live that way, and that they would die before they would go back. More to the point, they would kill before they would go back.

I was once told a story about Yemen in the bad old days, before the Jews had left, about how Muslims 'protected' their dhimmi. I don't know whether it's true, but I believe it.

An Arab sheikh went to visit his neighbor, who welcomed him warmly. "Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend. I'm glad you came to visit, it's been far too long. Please come sit, drink some coffee, and tell me what has brought you to my home today."

"Oh Abu Usama, my dear friend, it is black trouble that has brought me here. I am sorry to say that your sons have done something very wrong; they have damaged my honor, and if this thing is not made right, then there must be war between your clan and mine."

"Oh Abu Mustafa, this must not be! Now tell me how my sons have offended you, and for the sake of our old friendship, and of the peace between our families, surely I will make it right."

"Oh Abu Usama, your sons have shot one of my Jews, and raped his wife and daughter. This Jew was under my protection! By harming him, your sons have damaged my honor, and that of my whole clan. Now for the sake of my honor, and for the respect that is due my family, I must demand justice of you, and satisfaction for the harm done to my Jew."

"Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend, I am so glad you came today to talk this matter over with me. You are completely right, and what my sons have done was very wrong. Surely, for the sake of our friendship and to keep the peace between us, I will give you justice.

"Now here is what I propose. Oh Abu Mustafa, let your sons come, and shoot one of my Jews, and rape his wife and daughter. So the balance between us will be restored, and your honor will be made whole."

And so it was done.

Acid attacks on women and girls are on the rise in Bangladesh. Sulfuric acid, cheap and easily accessible like kerosene, has emerged as a weapon used to disfigure and sometimes kill women and girls. Reported reasons for the acid-throwing attacks include the refusal of an offer of marriage, dowry disputes, domestic fights, and disputes over property. Acid attacks leave the victims scarred and often blinded. Treatment, too expensive for most victims, is an excruciatingly painful experience.

look at this link and maybe you can understand why I have Zero Tolerance towards the likes of Naseen or muslims in general

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/10/politically-incorrect-guide-to.html

Making accusations against people like this was used in exactly the same way in Europe in the Middle Ages: in those societies people would be accused of witchcraft or some form of heresy. Once the unfortunate plaintiff was tried and executed the disputed property was simply appropriated. It shows how many muslims really are living mentally in the equivalent of the Middle Ages. It is not an insult to call them medieval, simply a statement of fact. The situation for non-muslims in muslim countries though is actually worse because whereas anyone in medieval Europe could accuse anyone else of witchcraft, the situation for non-muslims is much more one sided.

The story about the two Arabs in the Yemen is not apocryphal. That precise example -- that of a Jew "belonging" as chattel to Arab Tribe A being killed by a member of Arab Tribe B, and by way of obtaining appropriate justice, the members of Arab Tribe A are permitted to kill a Jew "belonging" to Arab Tribe B, is mentioned by R. S. Serjeant, the English scholar, in one of his article on life in Yemen in the early 1950s.

When I read about the Inquisition pre the Spanish Inquisition, I learned that the Inquisitors actually protected the innocent. There were people who acted in the same way as monkey brains, by making false accusations against their neighbours - accusing them of belonging to the anarchists of their day (the Cathars).

In Toulouse, for example, the arrival of the Inquisitor prevented the townspeople taking the law into their own hands, thus giving the Cathars the opportunity to at least get a fair trial, before being handed back to the civil authority for appropriate punishment.

The witch trials came later, and under the Puritans, the witch trials did see innocent women being convicted of being witches, based upon the accusation of young girls. In Scotland it was the Kirk who dished out injustice against an innocent young man (he was guilty of "blasphemy" because he espoused some ideas that were not compatible with the Kirk, and he did express repentance, but the Provost decided to make an example of a 19 year old boy.)

There was one Inquisitor in Germany, who did in fact put on trial a neighbour, in order to do a land grab. The Inquisitor was removed from his position by the Pope of the day.

My point is, that despite what you have heard, the period in Europe when the Inquisitions were active, was not as bad as what is happening under the Sharia laws. We hear a lot of exaggeration about the number of people who died as a result of the Inquisitions. It is a fact that very few died, some received a prison term, and others were pardoned or exhonerated.

Unfortunately, under the Sharia laws that will never happen. That poor woman is now fighting for her life, and we need to be vocal about her case and make sure that the charges are dropped, or that she is found innocent, and that he is charged with assault (that is unlikely to happen in a Muslim society against a Dhimmi)

Maggie,

Excellent points. And don't forget the Catholic penal laws under "good Queen Bess". There was no reprieve under the law from that little piece of forgotten history.

Pakistani Christian woman accused of blasphemy amid land dispute
.................

Part of this, of course, is general ugly human venality. You hear stories like this all the time from totalitarian countries, where people make false political accusations against rivals. It's horribly common in unfree societies.

I think there is another aspect to these blastphemy cases as well, though. Since all things are thought to come through Allah, and all things (in theory) are distributed to the Umma, then no non-Muslim really has the right to *anything*--not position, not property, not even their own persons.

I think this last is the main reason why these cases are so pernicious.
............

I was hoping that the horrible story from Yemen posted by ElderlyZionist was apocryphal, but I see Hugh confirms it.

Horrifying.