Now wait a minute. Isn't there "no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)? Sure. But as far as the Muslim murderers of Rasheed Masih and others like them are concerned, they are merely helping him along to make his free decision to convert to Islam. In general, a system that mandates the institutionalized discrimination of dhimmitude for those who remain non-Muslim within the Islamic state has a broad and expansive idea of what constitutes "no compulsion."
"Muslims Murder Pakistani Christian with Axe Blows," from Compass Direct, March 22:
MIAN CHANNU, Pakistan, March 22 (CDN) -- Six Muslims in Khanewal district, southern Punjab Province, killed a Christian with multiple axe blows for refusing to convert to Islam this month, according to family and police sources.The six men had threatened to kill 36-year-old Rasheed Masih unless he converted to Islam when they grew resentful of his potato business succeeding beyond their own, according to Masih's younger brother Munir Asi and a local clergyman. The rival merchants allegedly killed him after luring him to their farmhouse on March 9, leaving him on a roadside near Kothi Nand Singh village in the wee hours of the next day.
The Rev. Iqbal Masih of the Mian Channu Parish of the Church of Pakistan said Rasheed Masih was a devoted Christian, and that both he and his brother Asi had refused the Muslims' pressure to convert to Islam.
"As the Christian family strengthened in business and earned more, the Muslim men began to harbor business resentment, as Muslims are not used to seeing Christians more respected and richer than them," the pastor said. "That business rivalry gradually changed into a faith rivalry." [...]
"Our continuous denial to recant our faith and convert gradually turned into enmity," Asi told Compass. The FIR further states, "Both the Muslim men [Rasool and Asif] were not only inviting them to Islam but hurling threats of dire consequences and death on them for the last six months in case they refused to convert."
Police said Rasool - a radical Muslim who along with Asif had threatened to kill the brothers if they did not convert, according to Asi - called Rasheed Masih to his farmhouse ostensibly to purchase potatoes on March 9, and that Rasheed went to it by motorbike at about 5:30 p.m. Waiting for Masih there, police said, were Rasool and Asif with an axe, Amjad and Kashif with iron rods and the two unknown Muslims with clubs.
They began striking him as soon as he arrived, police said. [...]
According to the FIR, when Asi and two Christian friends went to the farmhouse when Masih failed to return after a few hours, they were stunned to hear Masih shrieking as they witnessed him being beaten and struck with an axe. [...]
At press time the Muslim suspects were at large even though police have filed a case strong enough to apprehend and prosecute them, Asi said. He appealed for assistance from Christian rights groups and politicians, as his family is still receiving death threats in a bid to intimidate them into withdrawing the case, he said, and they feel powerless in comparison with the influence and wealth of the Muslim suspects.
"The six men had threatened to kill 36-year-old Rasheed Masih unless he converted to Islam when they grew resentful of his potato business succeeding beyond their own, according to Masih's younger brother Munir Asi and a local clergyman. The rival merchants allegedly killed him after luring him to their farmhouse on March 9, leaving him on a roadside near Kothi Nand Singh village in the wee hours of the next day.
The Rev. Iqbal Masih of the Mian Channu Parish of the Church of Pakistan said Rasheed Masih was a devoted Christian, and that both he and his brother Asi had refused the Muslims' pressure to convert to Islam.
"As the Christian family strengthened in business and earned more, the Muslim men began to harbor business resentment, as Muslims are not used to seeing Christians more respected and richer than them," the pastor said. "That business rivalry gradually changed into a faith rivalry." [...]"
Somewhere, there is a PC fallacy that all religions are the same and that all people are the same. Somewhere, there is someone trying to sell someone else the Brooklyn Bridge.
Pakistan: Muslims murder Christian with axe after he refuses to convert to Islam
...............
For a split second, reading this, I thought this was an update on the story of the Pakistani Christian who was set afire and his wife raped by police for refusing to convert to Islam. The I realized it was a fresh horror.
more:
"As the Christian family strengthened in business and earned more, the Muslim men began to harbor business resentment, as Muslims are not used to seeing Christians more respected and richer than them," the pastor said. "That business rivalry gradually changed into a faith rivalry."
...............
How often have we seen *this*? From the "Pact of Umar", which mandates that no Infidel may have a house higher than that of local Muslims, and must ride a donkey or mule when Muslims go on horseback, to the discriminatory "Bumiputra System" of "modern" Malaysia, where Indian and Chinese businesses are compelled to take Muslim Malay "partners", and the universities give admissions preference to Muslim students—where, despite being both in the majority and in political control, Muslims seem to lag behind their Infidel fellows—you find this same resentment from Muslims.
Due to many factors—including a disdain for productive work (believing it fit only for slaves), a reliance on "Jizya" (protection money) and foreign aid, "inshallah" fatalism, Shari'ah bans on proper business loans, and more—even oppressed Infidels at times become more prosperous than their Muslim neighbors.
Then, that "business rivalry" doesn't just *gradually change* into a "faith rivalry"—it is already an example of the resentment that Muslims feel everywhere when those who are not the "best of people"—Muslims—Jews, Christians, Hindus, secularists—prosper.
And that resentment leads, almost inevitably—to violence. Riots, assaults, and murder. The "Religion of Peace" in action.
"Rights groups reject fatwa allowing Saudi women to work as maids: Academics say domestic work is 'humiliating' for KSA nationals," from Arab News via Kipp Report, March 21 (thanks to Twostellas):
Saudi academics and lawyers have rejected a fatwa allowing Saudi women to work as maids, saying such work is 'humiliating' for them.
As General Kiyaani of Pakistan, a known Islamic terrorist heaven and a known participant in global nuclear technology proliferation (Google A Q Khan) is here, shamelessly making his Washington rounds to beg for more 'jizya' payments, as though the $17.5 billion given to Islamabad so far is not enough, with his "taqqiya presentation" and lies, one wonders if dhimmi Senators, Congressmen, Obama and Hillary will have the 'audacity' to dress down the general on his nations abysmal human rights record, and interrogate Kiyaani on Pakistan's genocide of Christians, Women, Gays and other minorities.
US TAXPAYERS, STOP FUNDING ISLAMIC TERRORISTS SUPPORTER PAKISTAN, HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE SLAUGHTER OF 3,000 AMERICANS (AND OTHERS) ON 9/11, ?
Off Topic, but...
Here is a fun little article, about America militarily
defending Gaza, from Israel. Good times.
http://debka.com/article/8657/
I think we have unofficially switched sides, or are going to start backing Islam, against Israel.
Thanks Obama. (you shmuck.)
I don't put anything past anyone named Rasool...
Six axe wielding Muslims to one unarmed Christian.
Yep, that sounds about right. I believe the odds were 5 to 1 at Lepanto.
Unfortunately for Rasool and the gang, Rasheed outsmarted those peace lovin' Muslims and died a martyr's death. No, he won't get the brothel in the sky but he will be delivered safely to Jesus, whom he stood up for and refused to reject, and all Rasool and the guys are left with is their still crappy potato business.
C'mon guys, this had nothing to do with Rasheed converting to Islam, did it. But Islam sure came in handy, with those convenient verses about killing the infidels where you find them and smiting their necks.
You Muslim men are frauds.
"resentful of his potato business succeeding beyond their own"
Perhaps this wouldn't have been as likely if they weren't prostrating themselves towards their Arab superiors 5 times a day, and their children head banging in the local madrassas 24/7.
We can hardly blame these brainwashed barbarians for killing a man who was not only a Christian, but who was more successful than they are.
The nerve of that uppity infidel!
OT, but just another example of how primitive these freaks really are:
From the Huffington Post today:
A Bangladeshi laborer was beheaded and his head burnt in a kiln by bricklayers hoping to make sure their bricks were a deep red, according to reports.
The 26-year-old man had been killed under orders from the brick-field's owners, who had been told by a fortune teller that a human sacrifice would result in redder bricks.
"They said the owners were unhappy as the brick-field was not producing reddish bricks despite enough heating," said Golam Sarwar Bhuiyan, a local police chief.
"A fortune teller then suggested that the brick-field needed a human sacrifice."
Four men have been arrested in relation to the murder, which took place in a remote area of Northern Bangladesh.
Red bricks are worth a premium in the area, as it is believed to show they have been baked properly.
These Pakistani Muslims are only doing what they know best, that is to emulate mo/allah, the ideal man, killing, looting, raping, invading, threatening, intimidating, lying, cheating, etc., etc.,.... After all they to please mo/allah so as to enter the paradise to enjoy those (w)hoories.
Once again we re-visit the scene of the crime.
The same crime.
With out money (or a vested interest) Christian's will be side-lined and ultimately expunged by the Pakistani regime.
These people can't and wont negotiate with the West because they don't have to.
They have a bomb, a rather powerful one at that.
And so do their more acceptable neighbours, and here's the catch, India is a responsible Country.
So whilst we (the west) continue to be embroiled in Afghanistan, the religious fanatics of the God-forsaken Pakistan run amok because they know their time isn't up untill they become the issue. Then and only then will they consider the rights of christians.
Another fine example of no compulsion in religion, courtesy of the religion of peace and tolerance.
How can we waste time with this kind of information when there are Jews to castigate.
Frankly.. I'd rather lambaste some Jews for buying oranges that rightly belong to Moslems who fled in 1948, than listen to some whiny story about Christians being killed.
(sarc/off)
It's the same old thing.. MSM shut up about these horrific things..but let one of them Jews do anything to make a story, and we have all the commentators saying how vile, nasty, thieving, and evil the Jews are.
I believe that we're heading into a new dark age. We read about what's happening in Pakistan. Yes.. but now let's imagine this happening all over the United States.... not now of course..but in a few years...
What will the MSM say.. deranged person murders family of five who refused to buy halal meat at a stand... or .... unknown assailant screaming Allahu Akbar blows up subway filled with riders on Friday afternoon...
Nation joins mayor in mourning 2,000 people who were deprived of their constitutional rights (life) by assailant who appeared 'disturbed' and 'angry'.
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Joseph Stalin
What Stalin couldn't see because of his megalomania was that in a million deaths, you'll find a million different stories of broken hearts and loved ones left behind. And what we have to remember about Rasheed Masih's tragedy is that it has been repeated countless millions of times over through the 14 centuries of Islam's existence.
Reference is being made to your column in the Jihad watch about the article Muslim men killed Christian man because of refusing to convert to Islam. Your article is a reservior of information,facts and knowledge. Although, I have not been raised up in Pakistan but my parents alluded me always that before Zia's rule, Muslims and Christians always lived in harmony. So from where this bellicose group of people have emerged? It looks that this group has implacable hatred against impoverished minority.This is a palpable sense of loss.
This is an act of horrifying bestiality. The authorties must do something concrete and bring affability between these two groups.They need to measures congruent with the seriousness of the situation. I am fully aware that not all Muslims are bad these are some black sheeps who are doing such atrocious acts. Personally, I have reasonable number of Muslims friends from around the globe. I know they cannot go into paroxysm of rage.
Not all Muslim countries have blasphemy laws. It is beyond my understanding that why a country need such laws where Muslims have massive population.Religious confirmty is indispensable at the moment.It is my earnest prayer to Almighty that He protect,defend the fatherland of my parents.
Praying for Pakistan to overcome such problems.
If you can't beat them, kill them. What a novel form of competitive business practices. Apparently the Muslims would rather continue eating rotten potatoes. Sometimes it takes a bit to find the bright spots in all this mess but if you look hard enough, it's there.
In Islam, the only thing that ever seems to grow is the graveyard.
In Islam, the only thing that ever seems to grow is the graveyard.
Dude, that should be a tee shirt!
muhammad (prophet from hell) was an evil barbarian, too.
Are there forum rules for posting here?
Don't practice taqiyya!
From post above...I am fully aware that not all Muslims are bad these are some black sheeps who are doing such atrocious acts.
Yes, and isn't it interesting that there seem to be so many of these 'black sheep'...They are all over the place, and almost all of them quote Quran and Mohammad to justify those atrocious acts you mention...And isn't it interesting that they all read the same books, listen to the same experts (Imams) and pray in the same mosques...But of course not all of them are bad...It's just that some of them misunderstood something the Imam said, or something they read in one of Allahs books...It's just that there are so many of them...How is it possible that this many Mahoundians misunderstand Islam?
Need to know the rules before I play the game.
JIHAD WATCH PROHIBITION:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Taqiyya
What a schnook...sorry I asked...
Not all Muslims are bad but Islam is.
What's a "schnook"?
I need to know what a "schnook" is before I can post a response!
"Don't practice taqiyya!"
LOL I thought that was funny.
"Not all Muslims are bad but Islam is."
Which Muslims are not bad? Can you pinpoint them with sufficient reliability for our safety?
In an earlier thread, fellow JW reader Kinana of Khaybar posted statistics from a poll of Pakistanis, the results of which showed that up to 80% of Pakistanis supported death for blasphemy (among other similarly extremist positions). Now, let us consider these Pakistanis in horrific news stories like the one this article is about. Are we to conclude with ironclad certitude that whenever we see Pakistani Muslims axing Christians to death, or burning them to death, or doing similarly barbaric things, that they must be part of that ~80% who were conjectured by the poll compilers/analysts to exist? The more reasonable assumption -- at least for those who have been truly digesting the full horror of Muslims as documented on this mountain of sickening, grotesque, ghoulish, horrible, terrible, alarmingly deadly data about Muslims called Jihad Watch -- is that we cannot make such artificial distinctions; and that, there will come times and occasions in the future, even near future, when such distinctions will cost us untold lives. Indeed, they already have been costing us lives, repeatedly, since the mainstream PC MCs follow roughly the same artificial distinction that so many Jihad Watchers seem to, and that artificial distinction has precisely allowed the deadly Muslims the access they needed to mass-murder in their various attacks. The many more attacks plotted that were interdicted in time, were interdicted often by sheer luck. It is madness to continue to ignore the swamp from which the terrorists pullulate, and keep flitting madly about whacking only the moles who come into our radar as sufficiently visibly "extremist" according to an artificial distinction, as though any given Muslim who has no ostensible criteria that fit the profile of an "extremist" cannot be one in hiding, or become one in a fit of SJS. When the risks get sufficiently deadly, a society has the right to protect itself proactively through preventative measures.
Early on in Pakistani history. The Christians were treated reasonably well. After all Pakistan was allied with the USA. They couldn’t afford to have this alliance broken by inter faith intolerance. Especially against the Christians. As the years went by, the pakis figured out that the Americans will not defend Christians in foreign lands, even in Muslim countries. Their attitudes changed and they went back to being true Muslims by demanding Christians be dhimmis again. They had to abide by sharia laws. As the persecution against Christians increased the pakis noticed that the jiyza from the USA was also increasing. It didn’t matter who was in the white house whether Reagan, Bushes, Clinton, or Obama. It seems that the USA protests against ill treatment of Christians were very weak and it was done more to please those American Christian fundamentalists. That's where we are today, the more money we give the more abuse Christians and other minorities get. Go figure.
"...simpleton more to be pitied than despised..."
I can pinpoint two of them, Hesperado. My wife, whom I love very much, suffered from cancer last year, which, fortunately, has been completely eradicated from her body and which has a very small probability of ever coming back. The medical center where she was treated had two black-American Muslim women on the staff, one was a nurse and the other was the chief receptionist in the cancer ward where my wife had her chemotherapy. They each wore the hijab as a sign of their faith. These two women were the mod of kindness to my wife (and to me). The nurse was as compassionate and caring as any nurse could be. Her demeanor and capacity for sympathy were stellar. The receptionist was a very pleasant woman who time and time again made every effort to accomodate my wife respecting various appointments, which were quite numerous.
I think you know by now quite well what I think of Islam. I find it awful. It was founded by a clever but very warped man and so many of its doctrines are putrid, truly terrible. BUT, I would continiue to insist that there are many Muslims who, while confused about religion, are in their daily life not only harmless but wonderful human beings. The two I mentioned above are cases in point I believe.
Now, you asked about "our safety." I cannot know for certain that these two women I have mentioned, and so many other Muslims like them, wouldn't ultimatley choose their religion over everything, but, damn it, I have to consider the distinct possiblity that their humanity would ultimately triumph over their creed. At least in some cases I'm pretty damn certain it would-----like the two black-American Muslims that were so deeply kind to my wife.
Ah, life is complex, no, and ordinarily does not allow for simple answers to life's many problems? Welcome to life, eh?
"Model of kindness," Hesperado, not "mod of kindness." How the hell that happened I don't know.
Are there forum rules for posting here?
There are apparently no explicitly specific posting rules here. The best posters can do, apparently, is heed the statement that is posted at the head of each Comment section:
NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
The problem with these guidelines is that all those terms describing what "stand a chance of being deleted" -- off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying -- are vulnerable to subjective interpretation, and only Jihad Watch readers who have been here a long time and have witnessed various deletions of comments, as well as various bannings of commenters from posting at all, can begin to glean what subjective interpretation the Jihad Watch staff may use. While there is an advantage to having relatively vague guidelines, given the complexity and labor involved in moderating multiple comments and trying not to trample on freedom of expression while unpredictable occasions arise that at times acutely test that freedom, I think it would help to supplement the guidelines quoted above with some more specific rules. This may necessitate a bit of artificiality, but I think it would be worth it.
For example, recently the issue of proselytization in comments threads came up when one or more posters were posting quite a few comments that could be reasonably argued to at least smack of proselytization. One of the Jihad Watch staff posted a comment that sounded like a vague warning to cool it. The proselytization continued, then finally died down, all the while accompanied by a meta-debate about the issue of what constitutes proselytization and whether it should in fact be forbidden at Jihad Watch comments. The artificiality I have in mind would be a formal Jihad Watch rule that each commenter gets, say, 3 free passes for 3 proselytization comments as defined by the Jihad Watch staff -- one per thread (not three in one thread). After that, further proselytization comments by them will be deleted. If more than two deletions occur, the poster will be banned. (This example is just using proselytization as an example; I am not advocating that it be applied necessarily to proselytization per se, but to any kind of comment that is agreed exceeds usefulness and free speech.)
However, all in all, it seems to me that Jihad Watch comments have been admirably well-behaved, and the Islam apologist troublemakers we have had (whether Muslims or non-Muslims) while exceedingly annoying also tend to provide spectacles of the bankruptcy of pro-Islam thought; tend to galvanize many anti-Islam Jihad Watchers to sharpen their critical swords; and tend to provide some entertainment value.
And I thought Islam was the religion of peace(TM).
For several centuries, the followers of Islam have never know peace....and they never will...only misery and death..
Islam...feel the love?
These Muslims - viciously indulging their base human appetites of envy, resentment, greed, cruelty, spite and the will-to-murder, toward their helpless Christian neighbour who happened to be achieving a degree of material wellbeing and was thus calling into question the Islamic maxim that Islam confers worldly success while non-Muslims are 'losers' - could find a total justification of all their wickedness in the Muslim scripture and Muslim 'spiritual' writing.
Qur’an:9:123 - “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
They were doing *exactly* as the Sufi Muslim 'saint', Sirhindi (1564-1624) urged Muslim rulers to do to non-Muslim subjects:
Excerpt from letter No. 163:
"...The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs.
"One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims...
"The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur.
"They should constantly remain terrified and trembling.
"It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam...".
In Muslim countries where there are non-Muslims present, every bullying thug who is a Muslim can be as cruel as he likes (up to and including rape, torture and murder) to the non-Muslims and feel totally justified in so doing, because after all, he is merely obeying the command to 'let them find harshness in you' and to impose the allah-ordained 'humiliation' due to the evil kafir; furthermore, Islam is set up expressly to program *every* Muslim to behave like a bullying thug toward non-Muslims.
The Religion of Cruelty. The Religion of Resentment.
The Religion of Bullies, Thugs, Rapists, Sadists and Murderers.
Gravenimage
nice analysis. You've really covered all the bases.
I would add that the attack upon the Twin Towers was a classic example of the same envy and spite: the same attitude of 'how dare the non-Muslims, who are supposed to be the "losers", have the tallest buildings in the world!' 'How *dare* they have a building taller than anything Muslims have!'
So if the non-Muslims *do* have something good, anywhere in the world, especially anything bigger or better than what Muslims have, even if it be as humble a thing as a potato farm that is doing a bit better than the Muslim-owned potato farm next door, this is viewed as a mortal offence against the way the world *ought* to be...and the Muslims set out to do allah's work and bring the infidel down to a fitting state of humiliation.
Way back, Dominic nailed this attitude thus:
'Was it not that great man George Bernard Shaw who said - and I may be misquoting here, so please check it out for yourself:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself."
'The latter half of the quote seems to me to sum up the moslem worldview.
'Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 25, 2006 11:34 PM
Seems to me that JW goes to lengths to claim "in the interest of free speech" and then immediately restrict it and state that there will be no "free speech."
In a little side hallway that ran to his out of the way in the basement area back room office a professor of mine had a poster on the door that read, "There are no Wops, Kykes, Fags, Niggers, etc. in this hallway...it is a free speech zone."
Crochety old fart he was, I never asked him what it really meant by it...perhaps he was highlighting the hypocrisy of people pretending freedom when there really was no freedom, as long as things go the way they want them to they are fine with the illusion.
What do you think that old professor meant by it?