How Pakistan's blasphemy law is used to persecute non-Muslims

Re-posting, from my records, what I kept of the original comments made to this article while we were using IntenseDebate. Note: this comments thread contained some lengthy exchanges with two apologists for Islam, 'Abdullah Mikail' [AM] and 'Yom al Jumah' [YAJ]. I have retained these as illustration, for anyone new to this site, of the ways in which apologists for Islam tend to argue.

MRSJ said - (quoting froma rticle) "The vast majority of those 'offences' listed in the article are not proven or substantiated, nor are they properly dealt with by the police."

One rumour is all it takes for the mobs to form, who have not the slightest semblence of anything we would regard as civilised behaviour.

-ABDULLAH MIKAIL [AM] said (quoting MRSJ) - "One rumour is all it takes for the mobs to form, who have not the slightest semblence of anything we would regard as civilised behaviour. "

So, you are saying they should have engaged in an organized smear campaign orchestrated by multiple media outlets in concert in a for profit venture that has the dual purpose of casting a negative pall over the targeted group... then some of those same media profiteers should act as lobbyists and push their elected officials through trumped up reports to national government on the dangers of these Christian groups so that official sanctions against them can be made into law and sweeping changes can be pushed through (under the cover of public fear) and that legislation further makes descrimination an official policy... is that the "civilised" way to do it?

-FREEBIRD told AM - You and your gobblety gook. You know jack crap about smear campaigns and discrimination.

Non-muslims in the muslim countries are the targets of concerted smear/death campaigns for religious profit. Take you crap else where mikey we aint buying it here.

-AM said - I am not selling anything....

"Non-muslims in the muslim countries are the targets of concerted smear/death campaigns for religious profit."

You seem to be adept at "crap" yourself.

-FREEBIRD told AM - Yup I am adept at crap, I can argue with, and beat you any day of the week. I still have yet to receive an answer about why my status as a civilian is a concern to you.

-ABSCEDERE told AM - (quoting him) "So, you are saying they should have engaged in an organized smear campaign..."

What are you whining about?

In a civilized community, a credible allegation is followed by a proper investigation by authorities. If the evidence supports the allegation, the culprit(s) are arrested, and await a trial.

Seldom are house burning, murder in the street, and vandalism seen as the first resort, in civilized communities.

-AM said - I seem to remember something about white hoods and burning crosses... charges of sex with a white woman....when was that? Where was that?

Hmmmm... suddenly you wave the magic wand and that place is now "civilised?"

Maybe you need to take your wand over to Pak and give it wave...

-ABU LAHAB told AM - Really, really stretching things AM.

If that's the closest comparison you can draw you're really lost.

Face it, the world doesn't need your islamic death cult.

-VANS told AM - Abdullah sweetie, hate to tell you this but your unholy book the Quran and religion condones such activity towards non-muslims and anyone that is not muslim enough.

-IMNODHIMMI said - In a civilized community, there are no anti-blasphemy laws!

-MO FOE told AM - Echoing ImNoDhimmi,

The civilized thing to do is to not even have blasphemy laws. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder, and not only that, but a archaic leftover from a less civilized age. Freedom of religion is civilized and there is no such thing as the freedom to not be offended.

-MRSJ replied to AM - Your counter argument isn't even tu quoque. It has no relevance whatsoever to the debate

ALEXB said - If the rest of the world does nothing to stop the spread of Islam, we will be seeing anti-blasphemy laws passed everywhere and cases like the ones mentioned in the articl will become the norm.

DOG WITHOUT SLIPPERS said - Another muslim way to slay those who look sideways at allah!

DADCITO said - We continue to give billions to the Pakis to "fight terrorism". What is wrong with this picture? The real power in Pakistan is in the hands of the ISI that actively supports the Taliban and other fundamentalist groups. In other words, US Dollars are being used to finance the killing of American and Allied troops. This is unimaginably sick and has to stop. Is anyone in Washington listening? I somehow doubt it.

The Pakistani constitution clearly states that laws are derived from the Qur'an and this is a sympton of that. We should expect nothing less from our "ally".

YAJ said - The christians and the ahmaddiya are teh worst blashemy offenders...

for some reason they keep descrating copies of te Quaran...and they are repeat offenders

-FREEBIRD told YAJ - You are about the stupidest person I have ever had the displeasure of encountering in my life. I hope you have not had the opportunity to breed and pass your stupid genes on to a new generation. You should have yourself rendered sterile for the sake of future generations. You are a perfect example of a species devolving. Have a nice day!

-YAJ told FREEBIRD - And you are a christian right....what's happened to your other cheek?

-CHAMP said to YAJ - (quoting it) "...what's happened to your other cheek?"

Huh? Christians are not expected to turn the other cheek when confronted with bold-faced lies.

Turning the other cheek pertains to individual insults, not lies about Christians in general;

and turning the other cheek does not mean that a Christian keeps his mouth shut while BEING insulted.

In fact, speaking out against any lie, whether to him personally or not, is a Christians duty even in the midst of an insult.

-SORROW said to CHAMP, re. YAJ's calling VANS a 'Christian' - It is a variant of calling someone a Jew, which is not really an answer either.

-GREATICON told YAJ - Yom a good use i suggest for that murder manual, The unholy koran can be used as toilet paper, there is not much use other than that for that murder manual. To feed the donkeys as they eat useless paper, it was eaten by a donkey before in the past. Ass swipe paper for all its worth.

-DJRZ said to YAJ - Muslims (in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Israel, and elsewhere) have burned churches, synagogues, temples, and Torahs and Bibles, disrupted religious services to rape and murder church members, insulted the Bible by telling LIES about what it says, called JESUS (actually Jeshua, NOT "isa") a liar and a fraud, insulted our beliefs by LYING about what we believe, colonized and enslaved people who were originally Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and many other religions, plus many, many other atrocities many times beyond ANYTHING ever done to Muslims.
Islam IS blasphemy.
We have a saying in Christianity: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" Luke 6:41

-MUHAMMADBEAR said to YAJ - No, I won't have it. I am a much worse blasphemy offender.

I am always being caught referring to the Prophet, Mahound, as an illiterate, thieving, genocidal, robbing, lying, perverted, cross-dressing paedophile whose only contribution was to plagiarise (poorly plagiarise in fact) parts of the Torah and the Gospel to invent the most violent and intolerant idiology ever to plague humanity.

If pushed on the point, I often respond that Mahound was simply the most vile human being that ever lived and that the Koran is so clearly fabricated that even a particularly stupid Cocker Spaniel could see right through it. Which shouts volumes about the mental capacity of the average Muslim.

In short, Mahound's very welcomed death was a deliverance but his accursed legacy is a blight on civilisation.

-REACHER said - I must be a blasphemer too. Gee - is that a bad thing ? My Cocker Spaniel agrees with you

-MRSJ said to YAJ - (quoting it) "for some reason they keep descrating copies of te Quaran...and they are repeat offenders"

NO

for some reason Muslims keep spreading rumours of desecration of the Quran...and they are repeat offenders.

-AM said - Yeah, well, lacking credible witnesses on either side of that issue seems to be "the issue"...{for the benefit of any new reader, it should be remembered, here, while reading what AM says about the Muslims and non-Muslims in Pakistan, that under sharia the testimony of a Muslim *always* trumps that of a non-Muslim - dda}.

Too much trouble has been stirred up in that pot too often by too many people...

-MUHAMMADBEAR said to AM - No, sections 295B and 295C of the Pakistan penal code are the problem.

Do you really believe that blasphemy warrants the death penalty?

-AM said - I am adressing the issue of dissemination of unsubstatiated media reports for the purpose of causing social unrest targetted at a minority group deemed "undesireabe" by the establishment.

And, No, I don't think "blaspheme" should be punished by death.

Now do me a favor, and answer this:

Do you think high treason in time of war should be punished by death?

-MUHAMMDBEAR asked AM - How do you know the media reports are unsubstantiated?

Regarding the death penalty, I don't know. I am mainly opposed to the death penalty. However, every so often a crime is committed where I think it may be warranted.

In the case of treason it would have to depend on the facts. I don't consider the death penalty as a rigorous principle to be dogmatically adhered to in every situation.

In treason you are usually faced with an action that puts a large number of lives at risk. No such thing in the case of blasphemy. Not a good comparison.

-AM said - It was not a comparison, it was an unrelated question, just as yours was unrelated to the subject matter I was commenting on.

By the way, our UCMJ penalty for sedition ( high treason in time of war ) for any person, military or civilian, is death.

-FREEBIRD said to AM - (quoting him) 'By the way, our UCMJ penalty for sedition ( high treason in time of war ) for any person, military or civilian, is death.'

As it should be.

-AM said to FREEBIRD - We agree on something.

Be careful....

your friends might talk...

-MUHAMMADBEAR said to AM - I think you'll find that my comment regarding Pakistan's blasphemy laws was bang on topic. It was directly relevant to the matter you were commenting on.

It doesn't matter what the law says. You asked for my opinion and I gave it.

-AM said to MUHAMMADBEAR - (quoting) "bang on topic"

Not in respect to my comment to Mrs. J.

-MUHAMMADBEAR replied to AM - It was actually. You argued that the problem was unsubstantiated claims - a point you still haven't backed up by the way - and I disagreed, stating the problem being the death penalty in the blasphemy laws and its abuse.

It seems to me that if you took the law off of the statute books, a point you seem to be in agreement with, then the problem of false blasphemy complaints disappears.

You may still get violent outbreaks but no more misuse of an antediluvian statute to support religiously motivated violence.

-AM said - Let's pull you back in to focus, okay? It was a riot... remember LA? A bunch of idiots running around destroying stuff because of "the Man"... similar problem, the way I see it...those people had nothing but raw emotions of anger and they took it out on innocent people.

My point addressed the nature of the allegations that caused the riots.. "unsubstantiated" ... and how that ties in directly to what we have here.... a plethora of "unsubstantiated" reports unreasonable fears fueled by an orchestrated media campaign...that fuels a lot of trouble here in this country .. but not for the majority religous party, just the minority religious party.

Riots don't have official santion in any country's law... and we can't say "true" or "false" charges if they are "unsubstantiated" can we?

-ABU LAHAB said to AM - (quoting) ' similar problem, the way I see it...'

I wouldn't trust anything you 'see', the haze of islamic mind-control techniques of OCD prayer and fasting have taken their toll. Your lack of coherent thought, exhibited on JW daily, is enough to prove you lack the mental faculties to give anything other than gibberish and moslem bias.

-AM said - Weak projection.

And only monkeys speak gibberish, funny you should bring that up?

:(-0

"ook,ook".

-ABU LAHAB told AM - Still no coherent argument? I said islam was the cause of your idiocy. Refute or don't post.

You are a sad little muppet, aren't you Mikey?

-AM said - What are you rambling about?

Read your own post after mine...I suppose you think yours is the epitome of arguement?

"Refute or don't post."

-MUHAMMADBEAR told AM - I think you mean rebut.

Refute is too high a standard to impose.

-AM - I didn't write it... Abu did...

But I agree with you.

I'd rather rebut valid points, answer valid inquiries, than read insults and return them.

-ABU LAHAB said to AM - Refute: verb (used with object), -fut⋅ed, -fut⋅ing.
1.to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2.to prove (a person) to be in error.

Again, I said islam was the cause of your idiocy. Refute the fact or don't post gibberish in response.

-REACHER said to AM, re AM's insults to Muhammadbear and Freebird - Stop that Micheal, that is beneath you, you can string a better response other than childish mockery. Or can you ?

-EHCANADIAN told AM -(quoting him) 'for a riot to occur there has to be a startting point and focus that cause the emotion to rise which in turn causes the riot to occur.'

With these people in pakistan however it is never a riot over free speech or the rights of human beings,

instead every single case in pakistan involves a large group of muslims forming a small army and charging on masse into the villages of non believers

on the unproven charge that they desecrated the Quran or blasphemed against their prophet.

The people may of [sic: have] had raw emotion of anger but they knew before hand exactly what they were going to do and they acted out on it with or without the help of raw emotion.

-MO FOE told AM - #1-The LA riots were not based on unsubstantiated claims of anything. They were in reaction to what they thought was an travesty of justice when the cops who beat Rodney King were found not guilty. I'm not justifying a riot; I'm just saying there's no claims that are unsubstantiated in that case.

#2-Calling the blasphemy laws very existence into question is indeed relevant to the discussion here. Blasphemy laws are not part of a free, civilized society.

And riots are not at all in proportion to any of the claims made.

#3-I personally don't give a shit about the "Holy" Koran, and I think that anybody can do anything they want to their own property.

They could take a dump on it, pulverize it and inhale it, eat it and excrete it, roll joints out of the pages, or any number of things, and, that would be protected behavior in a free society.

-AM replied - (quoting) "They were in reaction to what they thought ..."

Their perception of the issue clouded their thinking and they rioted.

What would they have done had the LAPD been regularly blowing up 10 and 20 of their people as they tried to target what the LAPD "thought" was a bad guy?

Now what if the LAPD did that four or five times?

What would the African American community there have done in response to that?

-MUHAMMADBEAR told AM - It's irrelevant.

The topic is about a troop of ignorant Muslims whose own superstitious fears have incited them to behave irrationally and express themselves through violence and intimidation.

What does this possibly have to do with violence in LA?

-AM replied to MB - Everything.

I have heard more than one person on this blog talk about "when we've finally had enough" in respect to whatever they think they are going to do at that point.

I imagine the people in Pakistan are feeling a lot of frustration about what is going on,

and like those in LA "They were in reaction to what they thought ..."

I am not justifying it, I am just saying there are extenuating circumstances that I feel are aggrevating the situation and making it worse.

-MUHAMMADBEAR replied to AM - Actually, you are trying to justify it by arguing (rather poorly I might add) that this particular troop of Muslims is driven to this by despair caused by years of prejudice.

In fact, the only extenuating circumstances aggravating the situation and making it worse (as opposed to those extenuating circumstances aggravating the situation and making it better) are the draconian blasphemy laws and the regressive Muslim gene.

Repeal the blasphemy laws and learn not to impose your ridiculous beliefs on others. That will alleviate the situation.

-AM replied - I am not justifying it. Period.
And that death penalty for blasphme does need to go... but it isn't causing this problem...

You are oversimplifying the situation...what is happening on their borders now is aggrevating the culture in a bad way.

Once this Afghanistan thing is over in a few years things will return to normal and it will go back to the India Pakistan tensions over Kashmir again.

Genetic insults aside, if you can keep from making them I can keep from returning them. Then we can just go back and forth on the issues alone with no need to insult...

Capiche?

-MUHAMMADBEAR told AM - Perhaps you should bear the insults in mind when you make monkey remarks to Abu Lehab.

Troop is the correct collective noun to apply to people as well as primates by the way; so there was no insult.

-MRSJ asked AM - AM, please tell me how you can 'desecrate' a piece of paper?

I can understand 'destruction of someone else's property' - if you steal my Bible and rip it to shreds, I'd demand you buy me another and clean up the mess, but desecrate?

Surely that implies some aspect of veneration, which is dangerously close to idolatry, if not actually so.

God does not live in a book.

-HESPERADO said - AM is correct:

the death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan is not *causing* these problems:

it is one symptom of a larger problem: the puritanically obsessed fanaticism and supremacist xenophobia and hatred-of-the-Other that infects the souls of Muslims. That blasphemy law is merely the official formal label put on the diseased content of Islam in that particular country. Take away that label and you would still have the disease.

-MO FOE told AM - Yep, Abdullah, justifying is exactly, precisely what you are doing.

The only problem here is blasphemy laws themselves and what seems to me idolatry regarding your "holy" book. It's a book! Get over it!

-EH CANADIAN replied to YOM AL JUMAH - yom u seem to not know what the word blasphemy means. Blasphemy is to desecrate or mak fun of a religious deity. to make fun of a rapist and the devil is not blasphemy.

-PATHOSLOGOS told YOM AL JUMAH - (quoting from YAJ's posting above) - "for some reason they keep descrating copies of te Quaran...and they are repeat offenders "

Hey, be fair now -- it only occurs when toilet paper is short in supply.

-ICESTAR told YAJ - "Bull.

You have to believe in order to blaspheme.

The Quran is PAPER, it is paper record of the most evil and vile ideology ever invented by any human being on the face of the earth."

END of first part of my record of original comments for this article.

Second part of my record of original comments to this article: including another long exchange with the Mohammedtroll, AM.

FREEBIRD said- These blaphemy laws are nothing more than an excuse for barbarians to do what they do best which is act like the animal barbarians they are. If not for the intervention of the West natural selection would have assured the destruction of these sub humans. It's to bad the West feels a need to interfere with nature instead of letting it take its course. It is my belief the West should allow them to render themselves extinct as nature intended.

GREATICON said - That's quite a list [i.e. the list of cases in the posted article], just want to get even with anyone just say he committed blasphemy.
This is also a way to kill your competition or anyone you are jealous of.
These vile muslim thugs have created totally barbaric laws to subjugate the non-muslims. Its getting worse for the minorities in pakistan as the state is complicit with the muslims. Mohammedans are barbaric as their pedophile slave master and the saga of violence continues, while the non-muslim world bows to these thugs.

GRAVENIMAGE said - And then there was the factory owner and his assistants, murdered by a mob of his own workers. His apparent act of "blasphemy" was laying an old calendar--which featured Qur'an verses--*on a table*. One of the workers saw this, and got up a mob of other workers and beat the men to death.

Was the factory owner a Muslim? The story was unclear--certainly the mob considered him--through the miracle of "Takfir"--to have lost his standing as a Muslim by way of his "blasphemy", which made him fair game.

Of course, it also seems from the story that the factory owner had not paid his workers--which would seem to imply either a disagreement with them, or that he was in financial trouble--either of which would likely have angered them.

How common is this? What appears at first blush to be a "blasphemy" case so often turns out to be a business disagreement, a rivalry, or a coveting of the victims' business, or house, or goods, or livestock, or marriageable daughter.

These pious workers, after murdering the factory owner and guards, apparently burned the factory to the ground. That might make it somewhat problematic for them to get their back wages, or to enjoy further employment on the premises.

But at least the sanctity of the Qur'an and Prophet are secure--and I'm sure the crazed revenge felt good at the time, at least to such barbarians as these.

AM said - (quoting from posted article) 'No evidence or witness was presented. They were just detained on a ‘presumption of guilt,’"

Sounds like most of the articles posted by Robert and peppered with his bias and opinions ....no credible witnesses or evidence needed... just a flash in the pan and the ambulance chaser, salivating, is on the scene with pen in hand, and his publisher on hold....

Did it excite you as well? Good AD campaign.... but wait, he'll sell you all about it....for $18.95 a pop.....Chaching!

What is for real and what is for sale?

-FREEBIRD told AM - If you think this crap isn't happening you are fooling yourself. Of course you do know better but we wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of our little pislamic fantasy now would we?
-AM said - Oh, it is happening alright.

I was only pointing out that the spin and bias it is painted with here has a commercial incentive driving it...despite the attempt to have it seen as "done with noble intent."

There is a dollar sign in front of everything first, last, and in the middle...

-FREEBIRD replied to AM - If it is really happening then where is the spin and bias. The only spin and bias here is by muslims trying to cover the blood trails of islam.

Face the facts that your co-religionists do not have the same view as you and they use your un-holy as their reasoning. If christians were doing the same things and using christianity as their excuse you would come unglued (as would I).

The fact of the matter is the article is telling the truth, that these events did take place, they are quite common, and carried out by a bunch of barbarians in the name of a barbaric religion.

You can't dispute that with facts so don't even try. You cannot justify these actions at all.

-AM said - our problem is you pile all Muslims on top of that minute number committing crimes and label them "same" No. Wrong.

Where is your blogg screaming against Timothy Mcveigh? How about the one on Eric Rudolph? They were two Christian extremists... but you don't feel anything similar between you and they, do you? becasue what they did was not sanctioned in any way by Christianity... even though they both did it based on their faith ... McVeigh visited the Waco religious compound and then took revenge for his "co-religionists" Rudolph was abiding by his interpretation of Christianity. Were they both the rule? No.

No one is my "co-religionists" if they engage in criminal behavior. They are just criminals.

I don't need to dispute with the correlation you are making between me and criminals. There is none.

-FREEBIRD told AM - (quoting him) 'Your problem is you pile all Muslims on top of that minute number committing crimes and label them "same" No. Wrong. '

No you are wrong. I believe you were specifically excluded and you are a muslim are you not? Here is what I said: "Face the facts that your co-religionists do not have the same view as you ", there for I do not include "all" muslims. Wrong again Mikey, as usual.

Mikey Said:
'Where is your blogg screaming against Timothy Mcveigh? How about the one on Eric Rudolph? They were two Christian extremists... but you don't feel anything similar between you and they, do you? becasue what they did was not sanctioned in any way by Christianity... even though they both did it based on their faith... McVeigh visited the Waco religious compound and then took revenge for his "co-religionists" Rudolph was abiding by his interpretation of Christianity. Were they both the rule? No.'

I don't believe those you mentioned had hundreds or thousands joining them.

Why don't you try to find some example thats relevant.

-MRSJ told AM - Neither men [McVeigh, Rudolph] were motivated by religion. The Bible does not contain verses telling people to commit acts of atrocity.

And in any case, they were caught, tried, found guilty and imprisoned. So what is there to blog about?

-AM told MRSJ - (quoting her) "The Bible does not contain verses telling people to commit acts of atrocity."

Mrs. J I respect you so I won't call you on this one. There are in there simliar verses and chapters that extremists could use, though the two people I mentioned didn't quote verse and chapter, they did what they did based on their faith.

-MRSJ told AM - Timothy McVeigh described himself as agnostic. His motivation, as I understand it, was to incite rebellion against what he saw as a tyrannical government because of the events at Waco. Rudolph described his motivation as political.

Although Islam encompasses the political as well as the spiritual, mainstream Christianity does not.

Because someone who commits a crime is a Christian, it doesn't automatically follow that the crime was committed because they are (or purport to be) Christian.

-AM replied - (quoting MrsJ) "Because someone who commits a crime is a Christian, it doesn't automatically follow that the crime was committed because they are (or purport to be) Christian."

This is what I have been trying to get you and others to see and say and realize for a long time.

-MRSJ replied to AM - I'm well aware of that, AM, but where your argument falls down is that the very people who commit those crimes insist they do it because the Koran or a cleric, imam or ayatollah mandates it.

If a Muslim cabbie short changes his passenger, then in all likelihood, he isn't doing so because of Islam.

However, if he then declares that he is a jihadist who kills innocent civilians because he wants Islam to be supreme, I think we can safely say that he is committing a crime because of Islam.

-EPISTEMOLOGY chipped in, to AM - That's right. People who commit crimes and happen to be Christians, Jews, Hindus or whatever never do these things on behalf of their religion, but jihadists always commit their crimes in the name of Islam.

That's the difference.

-HESPERADO observed, re. AM - AM's tap dancing and obfuscating fireworks tactic of argumentation is maddening. He shoots one distracting firework -- Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist, then when he's called on that, he shoots another, equally specious squib into the mix.

And he keeps firing off one after another, creating a radiating web of misleading subpoints, all managing to avoid the refutations of his supposedly original point.

He won't ever sit still for a discussion about one point.

It is both a wily tactic on his part, and a reflection of his demonic state of mind.

-WELLINGTON told AM - Let's see again. Over 13,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. How many Christian terrorist attacks since then? Imagine if you had ten ideologies, numbered 1 through 10, and ideology 6 produced 99% of the violent adherents out of these ten ideologies. Wouldn't you properly, obviously suspect that there must be something wrong with ideology 6? And so it is with the odd man out among religions---------Islam, which people worldwide are becoming heartly tired of by more millions every year. Surely even you can see that suspicions (actually convictions) lurk everywhere that Islam, down to its very core, is really screwed up.

-PULSAR said to AM - I am glad you have taken the time to remind people of Timothy Mcveigh..but as to him taking action based on faith...you hint at him being a Christian extremist.

This is specious on a variety of levels. One is that if McVeigh was a Christian at all, his Christianity played no part in his avowed motives for his mass murder.

"Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, tradition, theology, and legal superstructure mandating warfare against non-Muslims.

This does not mean that all Muslims are violent or terrorist, but it is a key justification used by radical Muslims to recruit and motivate terrorists. Until there is a large-scale renunciation of violent jihad and dhimmitude by Muslims, religious violence will continue. It is simply wishful thinking, or worse, to deny this."

-AM said to PULSAR - 'They are not acting on Islam when they commit crimes. Even the fiqh of the matter states that they are not Muslim when they are in the act of the crime...they are not my "co-religionists."

I don't need to justify their acts...I condemn them as criminal and don't condone them and neither are they condoned under Islam.

-ZONIEKAFIR said to AM - But dullard.

Don't you at least admit that you are living your own private brand of mohametanism and that, yes even though the scholars may agree with you, the nasty quran verses are contextual to a particular time and a particular war, the rank and file often have a more crude understanding which allows and even motivates towards this kind of crime.

Otherwise said, why did Pak make such a blasphemy law with a death penalty in the first place?

I nabifically note that they believe this is in compliance with mohametanism and they think that their scholars must surely agree.

nabi ZK (pbum)

...seeing the difficulty the nabi has even with the concept of Gravity you should give a pass when I, nabific beyond all possible explaination, express difficulty with various mohametan or non mohametan forms of theology...

-KAFFIRKANUCK to ZK - Oh great nabi, you forgot that the OIC of Pakistan also claims oversight over all who disagree with their interpretation, which immediately makes Zombie MK as good as an apostate, and as a good muslim should turn himself in to face fatwa.

-AM replied to ZONIEKAFIR - (quoting him) "the rank and file.."

You mean the part that has to be expressed in sci. not. of the "rank and file?"

"why did Pak make such a blasphemy law with a death penalty..."

I'll take "Politics and Democracy" for 500 points.

(Probably the same way Pakistan Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif had his convictions for hijacking and terrorism expunged in order to clear his way to run for President....or the way our own Republicans expunged the 1972 cocaine possession felony arrest record of G.W. to pave his way to run for President.... Democracy, if they all agree then anything is possible...)

-ZONIEKAFIR told AM - Disingenuous. Evasive. Sorry.

Had to say it.

Don't you think the law in Pak is even a little bit informed by their understanding of mohametan religion? Just asking if there is possibly some context here.

As far as rank and file goes, over there it was not difficult to assemble a large crowd for this kind of festive mayhem. Happens frequently.

Scientific notation does not enter into these calculations my friend.

The nabi was, however, careful to use the word "often" to indicate that this is not viewed as universal behavior on the part of all mohametan devotees.

-AM replied to ZK - My bad...you make a good point. It is their interpretation of it and I would have to chase down why they think that...and that's a little above my rank in life to handle.

In Pak they do have this serious issue with CIA drone bombers killing 10 to 20 civilians indiscriminantly when they are shooting at what the "think and hope" is the terrorist they are targetting.

What kind of riots would have happened in LA if the police had shot and killed 10 to 20 African Americans while trying to take Rodney King down? Then while the officers were on trial the LAPD continued to make regular forays into the area and blow up 10 and 20 more at a time...yeah, I am stretching it... but it's the mood over there now I feel that is driving this issue...never heard of it happening like this in the last twenty years.

I appreciate the "often" and not the "universal" that most others here use.

Hope you have a great weekend.

-MOFOE said to AM - You keep forgetting that while the numbers of Muslims who actually kill and commit violence are a small minority, the Muslims who support imposition of Sharia law and the idea that Islam should rule the world IS HUGE!

Survey after survey find that the majority (or huge percentages) of Muslim populations support imposition of Sharia, the return of the global caliphate, and the idea that Islam should rule the world. Depending on where they are taken, mileage varies, but percentages range from 87% of Palestinians to something like 40% of British Muslims.

That is hardly a microscopic number. And that Islamic supremacism is what we oppose, in all it's forms, violent and non.

-AM replied to MOFOE - I understand where you are coming from but you also have to admit it is a survey. Some of those of Americans had like 45% saying we should nuke holy sites.

See what I mean? Consider they are surveys...

Oppose whatever you want, that's freedom...

-MO FOE said to AM - Thanks for the permission.

Your example is terrible and I would oppose those people too. But, if the numbers are true, then I wouldn't dream of claiming that those people represents a microscopic minority, however.

-DUMBLEDORESARMY told ZONIEKAFIR - ZK - I am coming to the conclusion that people like AM know damn well what Islam is all about. All he, and other spin-doctors who come here are doing, is LYING: flat out lying, in order to run interference for the jihadis for just a little longer.

-AM said to DDA - No, you really do miss the meaning, don't you?

There is no justification anywhere in the religion for loosing one's temper and gathering a mob and attacking innocent people... even if they are under suspicion.

In the Sharia there is a legal system just like we have here, judges, lawyers, trials, authorities, criminal prosecutions, defendants...it all breaks down and none of it works when you have a mob of people hell bent on committing violence.

They were not acting as Muslims, and they were not acting based on following any of Islam, there is no Sunnah for what they did, there is no justification in Hadiths for what they did, they are all criminal in that riot. Period.

Spin it any way you want in your response...I am not telling a single lie

Or do you think that you can prove that I am? Be my guest...

-YANKEL told AM - There is no doubt in my mind the Qur’an is a fetish book.

It is revered not so much for any inspiration it may or may not contain, intended to ennoble the human heart; rather it is fetishized as an object.

Its verses are sacred not on the basis of their power in leading men to God, but simply because they are part of a collective fetish: thus the notion of desecration becomes a sure cause for violence in its defense.

While any expressed doubt concerning its veracity quickly rises to the notion of blasphemy, an offense punishable by death.

Hope for reform of Islam in this situation of course is slim to non-existent, because it involves the destruction of the fetish, which is the heart of this religion.

Consider also the black fetish stone located in the Ka’aba in Mecca, which is a focus for the Muslim religious impulse.

Muslim prayers are even directed toward it, and of course these prayers are forms. Individuality is quashed even during the most personal act of prayer."

Read the whole magnificent article here:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=...

-ABU LAHAB replied to DDA's posting - (quoting): "AM knows damn well what Islam is all about. All he, and other spin-doctors who come here are doing, is LYING: flat out lying, in order to run interference for the jihadis for just a little longer."

100% FACT!

-KAFFIRKANUCK said to AM - (quoting him) "What’s for real?" - You ain’t. You’re a figment of your own imagination.

"What’s for sale?" - Not your soul, you’ve already given that to your moon god.

You perpetually dismiss things without proof and vanish from the difficult questions.

Here you switch again to making note of an older isolated incident by persons belonging to a cult, and the other, as has been pointed out to you before, was definitely not a Christian, and whose act of Terrorism was not in the name of religion.

Just because you claim that the criminals who commit crime in the name of islam are not acting on islam doesn’t make it so.

Try and go telling that to their face and see how long you last.

-KAFFIRKANUCK continued, to AM - And you still haven’t managed to answer my question from past posts, which is timely once again because this page deals with the much uncivilized fallout from the application of islam:

The question, as always, remains the same, “…if your argument that the vestiges of colonialism is to blame for all the ills in the Islamic states, then why are the former non-islamic colonies prospering?”

Please try to explain how these regions have failed to prosper after having been freed from the evil yoke of democratic influenced imperialism.

-AM said to KAFFIRKANUCK - (quoting) "The question, as always, remains the same, “…if your argument that the vestiges of colonialism is to blame for all the ills in the Islamic states, then why are the former non-islamic colonies prospering?”

Where you come up with this pontifical premise escapes me...as well as the lunacy of even asking such a question. There are so many social, economic, and political variables to a question like that it is laughable to think any one person would even be stupid enough to attempt to answer it.

LIke the people who state, "We can send a man to the moon, but we can't cure for the common cold!"

That is not a logical comparison, a moon shot has quantifiable variables that probably number less than twenty thousand. The other, the common cold, has billions of variables.

So you presume that I should know the answer to a question like that? Or even worse, that I implied I knew.

-AM said - "On a simpler subject, consider:

With a strong central goverment there is control.

Without a strong central government there is civil unrest.

Now, in a nut shell, what happens when you destroy a strong central government?"

-KAFFIRKANUCK replied - Confederation.

But that would preclude the existence of civil society, something islam is incapable of having without rigid control and simple explanations.

-AM - You get the mess we caused in Iraq...

-ABU LAHAB told AM - (quoting him) 'AM: You get the mess we caused in Iraq...'

Yeah, I'd hate to blame Iran or the sunni-shia split.

/sarc

You utter, brain dead imbecile.

-FREEBIRD told AM - I think Abu Lahab was referring to the problems since the invasion and in which case he is spot on.

The main problem in Iraq has been 'sectarian' violence and Iranian interference via assisting the Shia. Abu is right and once again you are wrong Mikey.

-FBIRD continued - What the hell does veteran status have to do with this argument? You have made multiple references to it today. Whats wrong Mikey islam got you down. don't worry, you could apostasize and be free. Of course if you do that you would have to leave your community or suffer the consequences, but hey you got yourself into that mess. I wish you luck!

-ABU LAHAB told FREEBIRD - Hey freebird,

When Mikey gets agitated he becomes more random and unhinged. Anyone would when they've spent so much time banging their head off the floor and starving themselves.

-FREEBIRD told ABU LAHAB - You're right Abu, but you have to admit it is fun to watch such a meltdown. He made a mistake joining that death cult and he knows it. Now he is trying to assuage his misgivings any way he can.

-AM said - Defend your ego any way you need to, it's a free country.

-ABU LAHAB told AM - AM, your insults are very childish, did Friday prayer go less than hellishly today? Is poor mo-boy pouting? No riots to enjoy? No kids to molest? No wife to beat? "

END of second part of my record of original comments for this article - dda.

Third part of dda's record of the original comments for this article: more to-ing and fro-ing with the Mohammedtroll, AM (Abdullah Mikail).

AM (quoting another poster) - ' I know a team of about 30 Naval Special Ops...'

No, you don't, but you can use Google and you are a compulsive liar.

If you're suggesting that the US dabbled in other contries politics....WOW! So does everyone else, we just do it on a wider scale.

Anyway....I'm ex-Army. This once again proves your lack of mental capacity caused by your cultish practices

U.N. Security Council resolution 1441. For the incredibly stupid in the forum (that would be you, AM) it was a United Nations SC resolution, supported unanimously, that made the US the World cop and forced us to depose Saddam.

Please stop changing the subject to support your drivel.

Stay on topic. Pakistan.

-CHAMP said to AM - "BIGOT"?! ...lie alert!

No bigotry spoken here, since Islam is not a race -- it's an ideology. Using the race card does not work on this forum, because JW posters are fully aware of this lying, lame-o tactic.

As to Abu having thick lips...well, I hope so.

Since thin lips are very unattractive and unkissable, and thick lips are, well, you know -- then I do believe that you've just given Abu a complement, ahaha!

Knuckle draggers? ...sounds more like your ancestors.

Yes, you are a compulsive liar.

-BOAKAI NGOMBU said -request for info Abdul, so i guess OT

what must the local mosque do about these supposed perpetrators, whom you and other may condemn as criminals?

-YANKEL said - Anyone wanna guess how much CAIR is paying the arab-muhammadan-wannabee to troll this website? There's no doubt in my mind that the slave of allah is getting paid for his slavish and foolish posts.

-MRSJ said to AM - Is this fixation with money [revealed in one of his postings early in the comments thread - dda] from a new crib sheet issued by your mosque?

It's Friday innit?

- DUMBLEDORESARMY said to FREEBIRD - Freebird: Occam's Razor says that our 'friend' the Mohammedtroll or Dementor, 'Abdullah Mikail' is fully cognizant of, and supports, Islam's drive toward a global theocratic sharia despotism, and all that that would entail; but his job here is to Deny and to Lie in order to keep as many Infidels as possible unaware of it, until it is Too Late. He's running interference.

-AM said to DUMBLEDORESARMY - What in the world are you talking about?

Please do tell, as I need some late afternoon entertainment and this does sound entertaining.

-DUMBLEDORESARMY replied to AM - You know perfectly well. I'm just applying Occam's Razor. Your behaviour here is quite readily accounted for by the simple assumption that you are merely throwing sand.

-CHAMP told AM (re Mr Spencer, and selling books) - I would rather purchase a book presenting the Truth about Muhammad than to sell my soul to the devil himself by following after this evil crime lord -- which is exactly what you've done, nimrod.

-AM said - Champ you are so cute when you type little flamers like that!

-ABU LAHAB told AM - Again, you have no position to argue from, no basis to refute so you fly off into a childish tantrum.

Champ didn't flame you, she stated a choice she's made of two options.

The more you do this the weaker you look. You've surpassed kitten weak on this forum.

-CHAMP said to ABU LAHAB - Thx, Abu!

-AM told ABU LAHAB - She posted an insult...are you daft?

-CHAMP said to AM - (quoting him) "She posted an insult...are you daft?"

He isn't daft -- but you certainly are.

99.99% of YOUR posts are insults, AssMouth, so you are not one to talk! ...you can dish it out but you can't take it, eh?

You come on here every single day with both guns blazing and taking shots at Robert, so STFU!

DUMBLEDORESARMY said to CHAMP - Champ - I think when AM wrote of you that you had 'posted an insult' what he was actually doing was accusing you of ...BLASPHEMY. You said allah was satan (which it is, or near as no matter), and that ubul kassim ha-meshugga, alias 'mohammad', was an evil crime lord (which he was).

If this were Pakistan, or Egypt, say, I would bet my bottom dollar AM would be standing next to you howling 'blasphemer! She insulted allah! She insulted the Prophet! Kill the blasphemer! '

-AM said - I don't insult those who don't insult me, and in the rare time it happens by mistake I apologize for it right then and there,

So if you are seeing something ugly it's just a reflection.

-YANKEL said - Oh, so the muhammadan arab wannabee is not just a thug....

he's a SANCTIMONIOUS thug!!

LOL!

"I don't insult those who don't insult me!"

WOW!!!! What a spiritual accomplishment!!! Can I get that religious like you?

"...in the rare time it happens by mistake..."

ROFLMAO!

-CHAMP said to YANKEL - ROFLMAO! ...makes two of us, Yankel! ...my side is splitting from laughter!

-DUMBLEDORESARMY said to CHAMP - Do you notice that AM is starting to make snide, belittling and indeed contemptuous remarks toward the two of us, here, you and I, whom he knows to be women? It's starting to feel rather creepy.

-CHAMP said to DUMBLEDORESARMY - Yes -- his comments are indeed very patronizing and/or condescending towards the two of us, and he treats us like stupid children. I guess it makes him feel superior to disrespect us the way that he does.

Normally words like 'cute', 'dear' and 'sweetie' are terms of endearment coming from my husband, but are very creepy coming from him, and they make me sick to my stomach. His responses to you are equally nauseating.

-AM said to CHAMP - You are such a sweetie...

: )
-CARTOONMOHAMMAD told AM - I, for one, think it's astounding that you can read a report of coreligionists burning people alive because of a rumor and turn it around so that you are a victim as well.

Isn't that what you're saying?

That these reports only serve to make Muslims look bad so that you are being Collectively Punished by the media when it gets reported?

Further, you have the brass to tell us that the Pakistanis involved in these crimes really don't know their Islam which isn't believable at all.

-AM said - Not at all. Read above my opinion on those people.

I am trying to point out their actions have a basis in the poisons of culture and society, not Islam... they are a people under incredible social pressures of war and they are reacting in violence to external stimulous not through the dictates and rules of Islam, yet through the violence and criminal actions of a mob.

It isn't "collective punishment" when my 75 year old mother in law and wife are pulled out of an airport line for an hour and harassed by security... for what? Because they cover? It's little things like that you don't see because you don't suffer them...me, I don't care. My 75 year old mother in law...that pissed me off. And why? Why should they be allowed to harrass an old woman like that?

It is the projection of suspicion onto us merely becaue we are Muslim, and hate groups take advantage of that to the fullest.

-CARTOONMOHAMMED told AM - These crimes are not spontaneous outbursts of violence brought on by a sudden change in social climate.

These mobs are absolutely organized, spurred on by Islamic clerics and supported by Pakistan Muslim police officers.

Secondly, your claim that their rection is culturally-rooted and not religious doesn't hold water.

These outburts against religious minorities have happened periodically throughout the Muslim world throught the whole history of the religion.

-ABU LAHAB said to AM - (quoting him) "My 75 year old mother in law...that pissed me off. And why? Why should they be allowed to harrass an old woman like that?"

Because she fits the profile of a violent and cowardly group who use any means to cause death and damage. You know? Those moslem scumbags.....

I would ban anyone 'covered' from flying. It's a stupid, dark ages way to dress.

-CHAMP said to AM (quoting him) - "So if you are seeing something ugly it's just a reflection" ...uh sorry, my reflection disagrees.

-CHAMP replied to AM (quoting his line) - "I don't insult those who don't insult me"

Bull! ...you took the first shot by insulting Robert. There is no mention of you in this headline, and yet you were the first one to leave a comment attempting to undermine him -- AGAIN. Your bull is really stinkin' up the place.

-AM said to CHAMP - No, dear, its not a cheap shot... Robert and I have discussed this once before... it is just an expensive reality.

Chaching $18.95 a pop...all day long he'll sell you all about it.

If he were true to his word of "nobility" he would do this for free...

But what is real is free, and what is for sale is for sale.

Ask him if he does guest speaking for free? See what he says..

-HESPERADO said to AM - There's nothing necessarily immoral about getting paid for a noble cause. It is a reflection of a puerile and simplistic mind that would think so.

-CHAMP said to AM - Straw Man Alert!

If that's your chief complaint about Robert, then you are really grasping at straws; add to the fact that you undoubtedly purchase many books yourself. Do you own any books?

O, and speaking of books, how much did you spend on your Qur'an?

Based upon your criticism of Robert, then I assume you got it for Free, right?

No! ...then that makes you a hypocrite.

Seriously! How many books do you own? And how much did you pay for your Qur'an? What, it wasn't 4Free? Gotcha!

Well then, only a fair and balanced man would spend an equal amount of time writing and complaining to the publishers of the Qur'an -- requiring that they GIVE their filth away.

-DUMBLEDORESARMY said to AM - I am very happy to pay Mr Spencer in order to have the privilege of reading his books. I did a PhD. It necessitated reading mountains of literature produced by academics. Mr Spencer's writing is lucidity itself - a very, very rare gift among modern scholars.

-CHAMP said to DDA- Agreed, DDA, there is no compulsion to buy any of Robert's books. People buy them because they CHOOSE to.

Unlike Muslims, who are constantly cramming Islam down our throats.

-CHAMP told AM - AssclownMoonbat --

You've been attempting to discredit Robert for years over his book sales, when I and countless others are grateful for his courage in bringing the Truth about Muhammad to the forefront, along with his other books.

And evil men like you only feel threatened when brave men like Robert expose Muhammad and Islam for what it truly is -- EVIL.

Why someone would side with evil is mindblowing, but that's exactly what you've chosen to do, and I'm sick and tired of assholes like you who would love to see evil (Islam) take center stage.

And you dare to point the finger at Robert when he's the one speaking the truth about Islam & Co, and he's also trying to preserve our freedoms -- while you're a mouthpiece for evil! ...you vile excuse for a human being.

Cute, eh? ...stupid comeback.

-AM said - You're still cute when you flame like that. : )

-AM - Nope. Just cute...

Ugly is as ugly does...

-DUMBLEDORESARMY said - (re 'ugly is as ugly does') And that is why I absolutely detest and despise sharia. It is Ugliness codified.

-MO FOE said - Aren't Muslims supposed to not be idolaters? So, who cares when ink and paper gets "mistreated"? Wouldn't that be treating the Qu'ran as an idol?

-CHAMP said - AM offers us a prime example of what Islam has to offer: Idiocy, Insults and Lies.

His contribution to JW is vital, because he demonstrates the evil and toxic effects that Islam has on a persons heart, mind & soul.

Garbage In -- Garbage Out! ...'nuff said

-ICESTAR said to AM - What is the point of your post?

Vigilante mob murder isn't due process nor is it justice.

People are being MURDERED on rumor alone. Rumor that could possibly been a set up to eliminate Christians who decline to convert/revert to Islam.

ABU LAHAB said - Blasphemy = victimless crime.
-AM - Blasphemy = self victimization

What do I care? If you want to victimize yourself, go ahead.

MRSJ said - You know, I'm not entirely convinced that the blasphemy law has anything to do with these outrages. The penalty in Pakistan is way over the top, but rarely does the due course of law take place.

We have a Christian blasphemy law in the UK - but you never see hordes of pitchfork-wielding Christians burning down houses and murdering people or burning them alive. Non-Christians entering a Christian cafe are not stabbed and beaten for drinking out of a cup in there. It's a tradition in Christian churches not to wear a hat if you're male, but if you forget, there isn't a cadre of priests ready to gouge out your eyes before beheading you. The vicar might respectfully request that you remove your head covering, but that's all.

No, we Christians write letters to the editor, email the BBC or phone a radio station. Sometimes we even demonstrate by congregating with a few placards and if really riled, we might even sing some hymns. Admittedly, I know a couple of people whose singing might be considered being close to criminal (that's a joke, BTW) but as far as I know their attempts to make music haven't actually killed anyone. A few of the more committed start a blog.

So, that's two countries that have a blasphemy law. One is Christian and the other is Muslim. Anyone spot the difference?

CGEM said - Isaac Azimov and the Foundation Trilogy.
MRSJ said - Yep, good one. I went to a Science Fiction convention more years ago than I'd care to remember, and there was a fancy dress competition - the winning entry was 3 women in basques and suspenders who went as the 'Foundation Trilogy'. :-)

ICESTAR said - Don't you have to actually believe something to blaspheme it?

Blasphemy laws should apply ONLY to believers.

What these laws are actually is the silencers of free speech.

Why are Muslims so afraid of criticism?

Why did Mohamed execute those who criticized and dissented even while he was alive?

VANS said - You'd think allah could take care of the blashpemers without the help of humans. Me thinks the quran is an idol. Poor muslims souls don't even realize they are pagans!

SORROW said - It is a pretty standard trap. If a non-Moslem states that he does not believe that Mohammed is a prophet sent by God, he could be deemed to be engaging in blasphemy by an Islamic authority.

TRUS said -" Islam is a satanic religion. the proof is in the ecstatic glee with which the followers not only cause death, but drag it out and revel in doing it with the most pain and blood possible. It almost makes one wish that heaven would provide live broadcasts of muslims in their eternal agony. However, it is even more satisfying to know that while they will scream out in pain and hate...the sound will not penetrate the walls of Heaven, and we, and many of their victims, will be oblivious to their agony."

END of final part of my record of the original comments to the posted article - dda.