"Manzoor Qadir, the president of the Lahore Bar Association, said that the present government was not doing enough to rein in foreigners indulging in blasphemous acts."
"500 Pak lawyers protest against anti-Islam Dutch film," from Asian News International:
Lahore, Apr.15 : Hundreds of Pakistani lawyers on Tuesday staged a protest against a Dutch film that satirically depicted the Prophet Mohammad and accused the Koran of inciting violence.
The movie made by Dutch lawmarker Geert Wilders last month, interspersed caricatures of the prophet and the Koran with images of the 9/11 attacks and other Islamist bombings.
Titled "Fitna," a Koranic term sometimes translated as "strife", it also shows an image of the Prophet Mohammad primed to explode.
Reports said that 500 lawyers took part in the demonstration and shouted slogans like "Death is acceptable in the service of the prophet" and "God is greatest".
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet", said a banner.
Cartoons and movies don't kill people. People overreacting to them do.
The protesters marched for about a kilometre from the high court building to the Data Darbar, the shrine of Lahore's patron saint.
Manzoor Qadir, the president of the Lahore Bar Association, said that the present government was not doing enough to rein in foreigners indulging in blasphemous acts.
He demanded the expulsion of the Danish envoy and called for a snapping of diplomatic ties with Denmark.
Don't worry. They're only lawyers.
Thus, they'll use their pens to stab Wilders to death, instead of a machete.
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet", said a banner.
Whose death? Yours? And no, "prophet" was only sanctimonious, which is not the same.
Reminds one of what Mark Twain said:
"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately,
and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself."
And Leo Tolstoy:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet", said a banner.
If the muslims would just choose death for themselves to 'save the sanctity of prophet (sic!)", I'd say, do please get on with it and kill yourselves!
I mean, Buddhist monks have been doing this for decades.
Buddhist monks however have not killed anybody else in the process - and thats the snag: muslims don't just want to die by themselves, they want to kill as many infidels as possible while doing so.
So I'm not impressed with their slogans, they are just plain cowards, as far as I'm concerned.
"He demanded the expulsion of the Danish envoy and called for a snapping of diplomatic ties with Denmark."
The government of Denmark should oblige them, by recalling the diplomatic personell, immediately cease any foreign aid, begin mass Muslim deportations, and institute a ban on future Muslim immigration..
And Shakespeare:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity Freedom, Democracy, the rule of law from the soldiers of Allah who want to turn our world into a Muhammedan nightmare"- how's that?
Just trying to correct it...
"satirically depicted the Prophet Mohammad "
Sorry. I missed the "satire". This is straight-forward documentary depicting Moslem violence and its roots in the Quran. Even the examples of the Motoons are not original to Fitna; they are presented as examples of what can trigger Moslem rage and violence.
So I find it hard to view this as a "satirical" depiction of Mohammad.
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet", said a banner.
So die. No one's stopping you. You're free to fall on your own sword anytime you like. What your banner really means is:
"Murder is acceptable...."
THAT we very much object to. Sorry to disappoint you.
Let these fools perform a mass suicide in the service of their god.
Or else let them all ascend the buskin stage and attempt to become at least credible actors.
Or at least the WWF.
What fools.
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet", said a banner.
SAVING the sanctity? Either your prophet is holy or he isn't. If allah made him holy then there is nothing you can do to change that. Nothing any infidel does could change that. There's nothing for you to save. It's out of your hands. More arrogance from the minds of islamaniacs. They actually think they're gods. They also have an appalling lack of faith in the supremacy of their own god.
Regarding those recent "elections" in Pakistan, I took note that the myriad analysts and "experts on Pakistan" in our media nearly universally portrayed Pakistani lawyers opposing Musharef as doing so, not as any furtherance of the al Qaida Sharia agenda, but rather in the best tradition of our own civil and secular exercises of freedom of thought and conscience and expression. Care was taken to mention the "lawyers" in every depiction of the rioting, and the photos which accompanied depicted men wearing mourning suits like any good British barrister ("ignore the fact that they're throwing sticks and stones! Wouldn't YOU if YOU lived under Mushareff?!" the press seemed to convey...) as if to reinforce the notion that Pakistani "opposition" wasn't limited to the "rage boy" types only. The dissonant images of "lawyers" potesting violently was explained away by implication, I believe, to whitewash the pervasiveness of radical Islam in Pakistan, and to provide the threadbare narrative we were presented about what's afford in that Islamic dung hill. I did not see a single item which explained the agenda of the stick throwing stone hurling "lawyers" of Pakistan. We were to infer theuly are just like us, want what we want. We were to infer that Pakistan has the secular rule of law mechanisms identical to our own-- if ONLY we'd let them get on with it!!
But I noticed the way the "secularity" of the assassinated Bhutto was a constant refrain, and her rival's blatant radicalism was never or only obliquely mentioned.
The Pakistani "Supreme Court" was also invoked constantly, but its orientation was nevet explained, and the implication seemed to be, without further revelation as to how utterly different Pakistan's "Supreme Court" is from our own, that the two must be more similar than not. This all seemed to be carefully designed to portray an image of Pakistan at variance with reality.
Bolstered by those "experts on Pakistan", our media cultivated a narrative which allowed them to click their tongues at the trannical nature of Mushareff, click their tongues at the badness of America for associating with Mushareff, and pushed all the right buttons, even with such thinly veneered nonsense as the "secular" Bhutto, that "Supreme Court" and those incarcerated "Chief Jusices" (which so badly needed reinstating if Mushareff had any hope of appearing less of a monster), and those "lawyers"...
jsla,
Thanks for the recap. I had forgotten all about the lawyers protesting in the name of rule of law. We are not being well-served by our media. They have their own dogs in this fight and their coverage reflects it. When will they realize that they will be among the first "converts" when Islamic law becomes a reality?
Regarding those recent "elections" in Pakistan, I took note that the myriad analysts and "experts on Pakistan" in our media nearly universally portrayed Pakistani lawyers opposing Musharef as doing so, not as any furtherance of the al Qaida Sharia agenda, but rather in the best tradition of our own civil and secular exercises of freedom of thought and conscience and expression. Care was taken by our media to mention the "lawyers" in every virtually every depiction of the rioting, and the photos which accompanied the reporting always depicted men wearing mourning suits like any good British barrister would.
"Ignore the fact that they're throwing sticks and stones, dear reader! Wouldn't YOU if YOU lived under Mushareff?!"
"No, Pakistani "opposition" isn't limited to the "rage boy" types only! Don't be so parochial!"
The complete dissonance of those images of "lawyers" rampaging was explained away by implication, I believe, to whitewash the pervasiveness of radical Islam in Pakistan, and to provide the threadbare narrative we were presented about what's happening in that Islamic dung hill of Pakistan.
Bolstered by those "experts on Pakistan", our media cultivated a narrative which allowed them to click their tongues at the trannical nature of Mushareff, click their tongues at the badness of America for associating with Mushareff, and pushed all the right buttons to imply that Pakistan is not so different after all, even when it's completely alien. The media did this with such thinly veneered nonsense as the "secularity" of that charlatan Bhutto, the constant invoking of Pakistan's "Supreme Court" ( as if this smelly Sharia institition bears any resemblance to something called "The Supreme Court" in the West), and those "lawyers"...
"Reports said that 500 lawyers took part in the demonstration and shouted slogans like 'Death is acceptable in the service of the prophet'"
So, are these guys lining up as volunteers?
I didn't think so. But they're lawyers, so what would you expect?
"Or at least the WWF."
Hey, now! Don't be steppin' on my whitebread, backwoods, redneck, rasslin-lovin' tendencies.
Or did you mean the World Wildlife Fund???? LOL
Lawyers who want to die........................
I don't know.............there's a lawyer joke or maybe a jihad lawyer joke in that.
BTW, just who are these "lawyers" anyway? What is this term supposed to imply? Did they go to "law school" and just what kind of "law school" did these "lawyers" graduate from? Are the law schools in Pakistan in any way similar to what they are in the West, and what is the source of their law? You can be pretty sure it's not English Common Law. Islam? Probably, some part of it, but which part? Right there you have a problem.
The uncritical usage of such terms as "lawyer" in news stories appears meant to convey a positive view of a group that is presumed to be educated, as opposed to uneducated illiterates. But "education" does not necessarily translate to possessing the kind of qualities we hold in high regard in the West. After all, the 9/11 hijackers were "educated" too. Even aside from the generally low regard in which "lawyers" are held in the West, without qualification about the type of law the lawyers in the story are supposed to uphold the term is meaningless and misleading.
BTW, just who are these "lawyers" anyway? What is this term supposed to imply? Did they go to "law school" and just what kind of "law school" did these "lawyers" graduate from? Are the law schools in Pakistan in any way similar to what they are in the West, and what is the source of their law? You can be pretty sure it's not English Common Law. Islam? Probably, some part of it, but which part? Right there you have a problem.
Posted by: Eastview
In other words "Imams of the courtroom".
Dunk,
Thanks for those quotes. They illustrate the very problem we have. It won't be easy reeducating Muslims who grow up with a world view of the superiority of themselves and their religion. Maybe they recognize this as true, too, from their side of the divide, and have decided it's hopeless to convert the infidel, the only solution is to kill him.
Another prime example that the most educated and affluent sectors of Muslim society are among the most radical. Let us collectively toss the "poverty" and "lack of education" canards into the trash-heap where they belong....(along with the displaced-responsibility variety of "victimization").
"Cartoons and movies don't kill people. People overreacting to them do."
Your statement is both intelligent and quite funny.
Always a pleasure to read.
Death is a personal thing.....can they do it at home alone?
Y'know, Jack Kevorkian's running for Congress. Maybe he should run for Ayatollah and save us a lot of time and troops.
And we think American lawyers are bad.
This is the wests greatest ally to fight jihad what a joke. The most stupid and idiotic policy to befriend an Islamic country that was created to have a homeland for Indian Muslims instead it has became a dictatorship bent on training terrorists and Jihadis against India and the West. All the British Muslim bomber got their training in Pakistan. This is one of the MOST DANGEROUS Country in the World. Our leaders are idiots or I am missing something. UK is bringing over MODERATE Imams from this country, what is moderate about this reaction from these Muslim lawyers.
"Death is acceptable in the path of saving the sanctity of prophet"
== == == == ==
What a pantywaist religion and what a piss-ant prophet: they obviously can't stand on their own merits; no, they have to be defended and protected and propped up constantly.
Tell me why this "religion of losers" is such a threat to us? There's obviously no "there" there, as Gertrude Stein would say.
>>Tell me why this "religion of losers" is such a threat to us? --A Nonny Mouse
Muslim Demographics.
Western Political Correctness.
Those reasons.
"Tell me why this "religion of losers" is such a threat to us?" --A Nonny Mouse
DARCY: "Muslim Demographics. Western Political Correctness. Those reasons."
Additional reasons....
Oil trillions.
A death cult combined with the inevitable acquisition of WMDs.
Corruption in the West (how many politicos and ex-politicos, not to mention the plethora of MES Depts in US universities...have been bought by the Saudis, the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar).
Is it true that the only sentences a Pakistani judge can deal out are: Death or treatment so bad you wish you had received the death sentence...
doene,
Please be very careful not to mix up God with Allah,
You said "Let these fools perform a mass suicide in the service of their god."
You meant to say "Let these fools perform a mass suicide in the service of their Allah."
God is great, peaceful and life loving.
Allah is an evil that loves terrorism and killings and the Muslims are doing a good job at pleasing him.
A_Nonny_Mouse
"There's obviously no "there" there, as Gertrude Stein would say."
The exact same thought occurred to me when I read the Qur'an. This faux "religion" has nothing important to say. It is rather hollow. Hence the constant need to "defend" it.
Good grief. Never again shall I expose my boody without my hijab on in the midst of lahore lawers when nature calls.