Pakistan: Muslims murder Christian after he refuses to renounce Christianity and embrace Islam

Muslim apologists -- for example, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Distinguished Professor of Somethingorother -- love to quote 2.256: "There is no compulsion in religion." They tend to leave it at that, knowing full well that unwary Infidels will take that statement and interpret it in a way most favorable to Muslims, and in a way that Muslims, over the past 1350 years, clearly have not.

The incident above is one of thousands or tens of thousands that occur annually, whenever Muslims are in a position, in Muslim-dominated lands, to mete out their own Islamic punishment, or the state itself, observing the Shari'a, metes it out, to non-Muslims or to Muslims who dare to leave Islam.

How many hundreds of millions of non-Muslims, living over the past 1350 years, have had to endure the choice of being killed, or instead instantly converted or, where they met the criteria of being monotheists and thus considered, as Christians and Jews, to be "People of the Book," Ahl al-Kitab, at least permitted to stay alive, and without the need to convert to remain alive, but subject, as dhimmis, to lives of such worry, such physical insecurity, such possiblities for daily degradation and humiliation, and such onerous financial burdens as the Jizyah (see, for example, S. D. Goitein's prefatory words to "A Mediterranean Society"), that many, over those 1350 years, felt "compelled" to convert to Islam to escape the burden of enduring the condition of being treated as dhimmis.

So what does that phrase 2.256 -- "there is no compulsion in religion" -- really mean to Muslims, over time (some 1350 years) and through space (everywhere that Islam came to dominate, and Muslims to rule)?

Never mind CAIR and Nihad Awad, newly-invted as a "loyal American" who "cares about his country." No, let's leave it up to the "moderates" who with grave mien offer their "moderate" and "respectable" views.

Go ahead, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Distinguished Professor etc.

And you too, Vali Nasr, apparently now a consultant to -- or have you managed to get on the staff of -- Richard Holbrooke?

And what about such Bright Young Reformers as Mustafa Akyol, the Turk who thinks the way to proceed is through "sola scriptura" (forsooth, another Calvin, another Zwingli, come to judgment) by throwing out the Hadith and Sira, and leaving just the Qur'an, the inoffensive Qur'an, as the contents of the Deen. What does he make of 2.256 and how Muslims have, over 1350 years, interpreted that statement that seems, on its face, so terribly encouraging to unwary Infidels?

Let's hear from them, and all the others still bending logic, and twisting the evidence, as they try to do the impossible: to successfully defend Islam from its best-informed critics.

W

After his son refused to recite the Islamic conversion creed, three Muslims known locally sprayed bullets at his chest, killing him instantly.

So, how's the criminal prosecution going?

This is NEWS! It may not merit the front page, but it DOES merit coverage.

Let's monitor the NYTimes, Wash. Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and yes, even FCN, and witness who (if anyone) gives this story print and/or airtime.

But I thought that "there is no coercion in religion". I guess the Qur'an wasn't referring to Islam in that verse.

Christians are murdered and nobody cares. A islamist feels insulted and the MSM fall over themselves to report the story. I am so tired of this. To all the islamist pieces of human excrement that call themselves "martyrs" while they die in the embrace of evil as they murder innocents, look to Patras Masih for what a true martyr is, i.e., one who does not recant his love of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ even at death's doorstep, one whose exercise of free will does not spread evil. I am certain Mr. Masih is now in much better place walking with our Lord. I can't speak to where islamist "martyrs" go.

The population of heaven has increased. Watch out, Pakistan. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.

"He was told he would not be killed if he abandoned Christianity and "embrace Islam."" --from the article.

Standard jihad policy as laid out in the Quran, hadith, and Islamic law: Invite the non-Muslims to embrace Islam, and, if they refuse to submit to Islam (9:5) or Islamic rule (9:29), kill them.

In light of Islam's many policies along the same lines, i.e., involving ways of compelling non-Muslims to embrace Islam, I've often thought that the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion (deen)" attributed to Muhammad and "Allah" was, at least in some of its recited contexts, entirely sarcastic and intended to be understood as such by Muhammad's inner circle of companions. For example, one of the contexts in which Muhammad reportedly recited the "no compulsion in religion" phrase was in making a threat in a message to the Khaybar Jews, shortly before he invaded them.

On the other hand, maybe it is a sincere sentiment, albeit a preposterous one in light of Islam's actual policies and contents, i.e., little more than a litany of compulsion and coercion. Islam among other human-invented ideologies would certainly not be unique in having glaring internal contradictions.

Yet, in the same spirit in which Ayesha once said to Muhammad, "I see that your Lord (Allah) rushes to meet your desires," I suspect that if Muhammad and his inner circle of companions had existed, all of this "Islam" and "Allah" business was an inside joke. This is the way it is in modern-day cults, in that those at the top know the whole thing is a scam, and talk about this with each other, but do not, except on rare occasion, let this type of communication slip to the common members of the flock. It is difficult to believe that Muhammad himself--who reportedly said, in the early Meccan days, that he wanted to bring a saying by which the Arabs would rule over the non-Arabs and the Muslims would rule over the Muslims--had a sincere belief in the Islam that he promulgated. [Credulity is stretched beyond the limit, also, in regards to "revelations" whereby Allah allegedly personally intervened to gain Muhammad marriage to beautiful women, and stepped in to ensure that Muhammad could have as many wives and slave girls as he (Muhammad) wished. To top it off, Allah jumped in on Muhammad's behalf, threatening his existing wives for their objections to his unscheduled romps with slave girls]. It is difficult to believe that the inner circle, and Muhammad himself, did not know this was all a conscious scam. Once underway, all had a vested interested in maintaining the illusion.

On a larger scale, there is now a similar dynamic with almost all adult male believing Muslims who apparently take their Islam seriously. That is, whether or not Islam is believed to be true, the benefits of maintaining a show of adherence, and the penalty for publicly deviating from or abandoning adherence altogether, are such significant forces of compulsion that these Muslims must maintain Islam, whether they like it or not. Muhammad in the hadith once said to a man "Embrace Islam." The man objected, "I dislike it." Muhammad pressed him, "Embrace it, even though you dislike it."

But I digress...

"Christians have expressed concerns about the alleged refusal by local police to investigate these cases. Police had no comment, although Pakistan's government has made clear it wants to crackdown on Islamic extremism." --from the article.

Not surprising, since there is no penalty in the Quran for killing a non-Muslim, and certainly no penalty for following verses such as 9:5 and 9:29, which order the killing and subjugation of those who refuse to embrace Islam or accept the full and detailed terms of Islamic rule. As the Quran says, the non-Muslims will have "no protectors on earth," apart from what is beneficial to the promotion and maintenance of Islam.

Correction to my above post:
“he wanted to bring a saying by which the Arabs would rule over the non-Arabs and the Muslims would rule over the non-Muslims”...and the non-Muslims would pay them jizya.

"Patras Masih was shot because he refused to recant his faith in Christ, and died from gunshot wounds on December 3 in Karol village, his family said."

Mohammedan martyrdom seekers, take note: The above is a demonstration of martyrdom. Notice, this man killed no one. This man harmed no one.

This man was killed for his refusal to embrace a "religious" creed whis was antithetical to the creed in his heart.

Muslim martyrs= yet another oxymoron.

Anybody noticed something?

A whole bunch of Mohammedtrolls are frantically throwing sand in the thread immediately previous to this one - the thread discussing a story *also* from Pakistan, about Mohammedan males who cut off a woman's ears and nose in order to punish her for her parents' refusal to marry her off to one of them, and who are now, in accordance with what constitutes the Islamic idea of justice, to have their ears and noses cut off for so doing (rather than, as one non-Muslim poster suggested, being forced to cough up the money for the lady's plastic surgery bills, as well as going to prison).

But they're all staying well away from this thread.

Funny, that.

As of today, not a single mainstream media outlet has reported this story. I'm not holding my breath.