Pakistan: Lahore High Court upholds death sentence for “blasphemy”

One of the strongest demonstrations of Sharia as a defective and unjust system is how its cruel and unusual provisions serve especially to exploit the vulnerable in society: those who, for any number of reasons (including Sharia’s own marginalization of women and non-Muslims), are not in a position to schmooze or buy (see: diyya, or blood money) their way out of trouble.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are exactly such a weapon — a “wild card” up the sleeve, to be played wherever the accusing Muslim feels the need to keep someone in line, or remove an obstacle or inconvenience.

All such initiatives, most notably those by the OIC to stifle free speech based on accusations of “Islamophobia,” operate in the same spirit. The end result, should those measures succeed in the West, will be the same climate of fear and intellectual subjugation as in Pakistan, sold on a platform of “tolerance” and “respect.”

“Tolerance” and “respect,” or else, of course.

Such laws are clearly, fatally flawed by nature, and by those very defects, lend themselves to further abuses.

“LHC upholds death for blasphemy accused,” by Rana Tanveer for the Express Tribune, September 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday confirmed the death sentence handed down to a blasphemy convict and ordered that he be hanged till death.

This is the second case of its kind in the country when the death sentence of a blasphemy accused has been confirmed by the LHC since inception of the blasphemy law.

An Additional District and Sessions Judge Lahore on May 27, 2002 had awarded Wajihul Hassan death sentence for allegedly uttering blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and other prophets. He was also accused of hurting religious sentiments of the complainant – Senior Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi.

Allam Iqbal Town Police registered an FIR against Hassan under sections 295-C (use of derogatory remarks in respect of Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), 295-A (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 298-A (use of derogatory remarks in respect of holy personages).

The session judge had awarded him death sentence and Rs0.2 million fine under section 295-C, 10 years’ imprisonment and Rs50,000 fine under section 295-A and two years’ imprisonment and Rs20,000 fine under section 298-A.

According to the complainant – Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi – who had got Ahmadis declared non-Muslims by the Supreme Court, some unknown persons had been wiring him frequent letters carrying blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and other prophets.

In the FIR he alleged that although the letters did not contain names of the senders, he was sure that Wajihul Hassan was behind these letters. He alleged that Wajihul Hassan was a Muslim but later converted to Christianity and was using derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The complainant could not produce any of these letters before the police and mentioned in the FIR that he had burnt all the six letters.

Just in case blasphemy doesn’t get him, Qureshi seems to hope apostasy will.

During the course of investigation, however, he handed over seven such letters to the authorities attributing them to accused Hassan. He also said that Nawaz Butt and Hassan are names of the same person.

During the trial, the complainant produced 10 prosecution witnesses to buttress his case against the accused. The witnesses said they had seen Hassan uttering blasphemous remarks.

Counsel for Hassan, Advocate Parvaiz Aslam Chaudhry, strongly rejected the prosecution story, saying that on the basis of extra-judicial confession of witnesses before the trial court, an accused could not be awarded death sentence.

He told The Express Tribune that in his statement under section 342 of CrPC his client had denied uttering any blasphemous remarks. He quoted Hassan as saying that he was a Muslim and believed in the last Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and never dared to utter or write any blasphemous remarks….

In a civilized country, it wouldn’t matter if he intended to or actually did so.

He said by birth he is a Muslim and never converted to Christianity. He said the complainant deliberately named him as Murshad Masih to strengthen his stance but it was not his name. They intend to file an appeal against the LHC order before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Chaudhry claimed that the motive behind registration of FIR was that complainant Qureshi had a grudge against former Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) chairperson Asma Jahangir.

A grudge involving the Human Rights Commission? Most ironic.

Hassan and his father Safdar Hussain were employees at the office of Asma, he claimed, adding that Qureshi tried to use Hassan against Asma but over his refusal he implicated him in the case….

Danish Motoon book without reprints of individual Motoons isn't good enough for the OIC
Pakistan holds government worker for his role in NYC jihad car bomb plot
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Not that this is at all on topic–it isn’t. I just can’t help saying that I can barely stand to read anything littered with (pbuh) speed bumps.

    I suppose that if a real Muslim forgets to say (pbuh) after Mohammed’s name he could find himself in the same predicament as the accused in this article.

  2. says

    Here, yet again, we are offered yet another example of why Islam is wholly incompatible with Western values.

    An ominous marker of any totalitarian regime is a set of laws under which a citizen, more accurately a subject, can be charged criminally at any time and/or on no basis. Such laws are intended to keep subjects wary and on guard at all times such that no mischief against the state can be generated. In other words, “peace.” Stated differently, peace to the leftist means no opposition to the state.

    In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.

    Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey’s penal code which criminalizes behavior which “offends Turkishness.” Similarly with Pakistan’s infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of “blasphemy.” [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]

    In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.

    The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are intended so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.} First, the void-for-vagueness doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the due process clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, criminal law can become a standard-less trap for the unwary.

    Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine curbs the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes. Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which state agents may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each agent to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine the activities of state agents to the letter of the law.

    Third, the void-for-vagueness doctrine discourages judges from attempting to apply sloppily worded laws. Like anyone else, judges often labor without success when interpreting poorly worded legislation.

    Finally, the void-for-vagueness doctrine seeks to avoid encroachment on 1st Am. freedoms, such as freedom of speech, expression, petitioning of grievances. Because vague laws cause uncertainty in the minds of average citizens, some citizens will inevitably decline to take risky behavior that might land them in jail. When the vague provisions of a state or federal statute deter citizens from engaging in certain political or religious discourse, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to ensure that protected expression is not suppressed. For example, a law that prohibits “sacrilegious” speech would simultaneously chill the freedoms of expression and religion in violation of the void for vagueness doctrine.

  3. says

    Islam! This coin which men find counterfeit! The religion of peace that is far from virtuous. The religion that brings bewitching grace into the heart to destroy. The faith that comes with murderous intent in rhythms measureless and wild. I would have you know I think Islam were the complotter of the deed and doer of the deed save in so far as the actual killing. Had you had eyes I would say alone you murdered him in the name of Islam.

  4. says

    One of the things that I don’t personally get about Islam is the desire to elevate Muhammad to such a revered status to the extent that to defame him could mean death BUT we are told we can never invoke his name to intercede on our behalf. The reasoning being that Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David and so on are all dead men and have no power or authority to do much of anything. Prayer is to be issued directly to God without any need for intermediaries. If this is the case, then I understand honoring such a figure but defamation?

    I could almost see Christianity enforcing blasphemy laws concerning Jesus as they see him as being God, unless they’re heretics dabbling in Arianism.

    In any case, Muslims should look critically at our approach to blasphemy. Placing the prophets beyond all criticism despite being mere mortals defeats the purpose of embracing absolute monotheism. We have strict guidelines in place to prevent us from worshiping these gents but every day I find myself very nearly worshiping both Abraham and Muhammad in the tashashud. Murdering someone because they question this or even the mere threat of murdering someone for questioning God’s prophets is beyond grotesque.

    It’s not as if all powerful deities or dead men need defense from mortals.

  5. says

    Senior Advocate Muhammad Ismail Qureshi seems a real wonder, brave and upright.
    That will teach you to be appropriately obedient the next time a person of such majesty and tender sensibilities ask you to rat on your boss.
    We hear the oddest tales about the Pakistani legal profession, who obviously are more bloodthirsty than you would suspect, not least in this case also from Lahore . Those who dare defend the accused deserve every respect.

  6. says

    Ah yes, Mohammed. Can’t say anything critical of him even though he was a pedophile and, in essence, a murderer. Control freak and fraud too. This near worship of Mohammed by Muslims, a repulsive man in so many ways, is itself enough to dismiss Islam as a religion worthy of respect, towards which I personally extend it none.

    And again we can see that with regard to freedom of speech and Islam, there is no compatibility. A society can be suffused throughout by freedom or Islam but never by both at the same time. Islam is a great enemy of freedom and freedom is a great enemy of Islam. No wonder so many Muslims are afraid of and despise liberty. No wonder so many non-Muslims who have real knowledge of Islam and cherish freedom have come to despise Mohammed’s creed as well as Mohammed himself.

  7. says

    I wonder, I only wonder if there is an Arab expression for scratching your ear and pulling your beard thoughtfully before licking a fingertip and turning over the page in the Quran. Or perhaps there is no blessing in it?
    All the Arab words and phrases throughout the daily life of the Faithful are another successful aspect of Arab imperialism.

    Slightly OT: I remember the politicians of the long gone German Democratic Republic who could compress “Deutsche Demokratische Republik” to one syllable: “Tschmblik”, it impressed me mightily.

  8. says


    Prepare yourselves NOW (mentally/physically) for Brutal Warfare. I seek the peaceful disolution of islam in America and the U.K but dont see it happening. Just the opposite, in fact.

    This is the latest attempt of islamic “outreach” in the U.S. They want Sharia Law, period!


  9. says

    I’ve listened to defenders of Islam say to my face that it is corrupted and politicized and they couldn’t imagine a God that demanded death for apostates. They want rainbows and unicorns and butterflies and toss the rest, Allah be damned? Misunderstanders of Islam, valuing life over death. Best to keep that kind of thinking to themselves. They’ll live longer.

  10. says

    We are hearing that “yes, but this is not Islam” and that in the West most Muslims are moderate and tolerant.

    Muslims in Western countries are reaching such influence that they are materially and substantially changing the character of their host society.

    It is no longer good enough for Muslims in the West just to be “tolerant and moderate”. They must actively speak against the transgressions done in the name of their ideology which they bring with them.

    Unfortunately we do not hear these voices, instead we hear manufactured voices of victim hood. I think the absence of these voices, voices that should be a daily chorus, that is the single most damning indictment of Muslims in the West. It is no longer good enough and nor should non-Muslims tolerate it any more.

  11. says

    Gerb. How about those moderate Indonesian mohametans killing ethnic Chinese in mass numbers. Or the recent dustup in West Timor? You never did answer if these crimes were included in your statistics on the amazingly low crime rate in mohametania.

    So what if you live in your own private islam? It doesn’t change the ugly face of mohametanism one bit. Who cares if you wouldn’t kill blasphemers and apostates? The rules, as apparently understood in Lahore, say kill them. If you just don’t personally go along with that well then congratulations to you, I, nabi ZK (pbum), suppose. But it doesn’t change the others that do or the texts, or that most excellent example, aka insane camel, that tell them to do it.

    So you are obsessed with the oneness thing? How utterly profound! But Gerb, Tawhid would be a lot more tolerable without the example set by that afore mentioned insane camel (may pig poop be upon him-spit).

    Lastly, the nabi (pbum) could not give two Courics about mohametan rules for putting (pbuh) and (swt) on people, like who gets a (pbum) and who gets a (swt) and if it’s punishable by death to omit the same, etc., etc.

    However, do not omit the (pbuy)when addressing this nabi or prepare to suffer the total rejection of the ZK in this world and even worse, possibly a lot worse, who knows, in the world to come, if any. So there mohametan! Suck it up!

    nabi ZK (pbum)

  12. says

    Islam is a brittle system. Its mechanisms operates smoothly enough provided the number of distractions or challenges are few, explaining why Muslim leaders, following Mohammed’s example, do not allow dissent. They understand that should dissent enter and certain age-old practices questioned, the vibrations could be devastating. Akin to a top-loading washing machine whose load has become unbalanced: the machine begins to make very loud noises and very strange movements which increase in intensify to the point that the machine stops.

    Today, Islam is one the march; it has an certain undeniable confidence about itself. But its marching forward into the camps of the infidels carries great risk. Its votaries (to use Churchill’s descriptor of Muslims (The River Wars, 1899)) are being exposed to ideas that had never been heard in a 24/7 Muslim culture.

    Now in the usual case, Muslims, like those in other parts of the world when they too are exposed to the truth, will simple ignore it. As Churchill once said, many people trip over the truth at various points in their lives, but most simply get up, dust themselves off, and go about life’s journey as if nothing had ever happened. So too with Muslims. To many the well thought-out criticisms about Islam coming from the West will simply go over their heads.

    But not every Muslim will react this way. Some might actually think about the comments and begin to ask questions. Which is the very last things the mullahs and imams want them to do. And some of those questioners might be Muslim women who, because of photos, videos, DVDs, the internet and so forth, get to see how women in other parts of the world, notably the West, are treated. And they might begin to ask questions. Again, the last thing the mullahs and imams want.

    Because of Islam’s inherent attribute of brittleness, and its inability to take an intellectual punch, Islam is incapable of dealing with and absorbing the shock of new knowledge in the hands of its votaries.

    Interesting times are a’coming, that’s for sure.

  13. says

    @ GerbilTea

    “Yeah, I don’t see a peaceful dissolution of Islam anywhere it has already taken root.”

    Islam took root from 622 AD to around the late 15th Century. Then the roots withered and died. Why? Wars of resistance combined with the inherent weaknesses of Islam.

    History will repeat itself. It often does. And centuries after you and I are dust, Islam will become a minor cult once more, practiced in impoverished, backward areas of the world, and muttering to itself about the second ‘Golden Age’ that was unaccountably lost – just like the first time.

  14. says

    It just boggles my mind that this sort of thing still goes on in this century. Where is the mercy and forgiveness? What kind of society can it be, where they not only make a case out of it, but ask the man to pay with his life? Good grief.

    Lord, have mercy.

  15. says

    The strict rule of Shari’ah and it’s open displays of punishment, is meant to maintain order.

    The crime itself is secondary. For that reason, the punishment rarely fits the crime.

  16. says

    From comments…

    Author Profile Page Channe | October 2, 2010 1:13 PM | Reply

    I just wish Christians and Jews would shut up and step down so secular atheists like myself can actually try and prevent radical Islam from taking over the world.

    It’s annoying – like having a dumb dog constantly by your side while trying to take on a bigger, meaner dog. Muslims are not going to be afraid of Christians and Jews because, frankly, Islam is a more organized, logical, and overall more solid religion.

    The only logical counterpart to Islam is secular-agnosticism and unfortunately guys like myself here in the West are surrounded by lukewarm faithed Christians and Jews who don’t even believe in their faith but hate Islam enough to try and invoke the Bible as a battle cry.

    Islam is the only religion left which still has the power and ideology necessary to attract the younger masses of people, and if you don’t want it to take over you Christians and Jews need to realize that it is us secular free thinkers who need to take the helm at this point and time.”

  17. says

    So many of the above comments just reconfirms my conviction that America, the leader of the free world, will eventually need a President who does what President Reagan did back in 1983 when he referred to the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Islam is the ultimate evil empire and those who dismiss this claim are either liars or fools. Another Reagan is what is necessary to insure that man’s best disguised form of evil of all time does not destroy liberty.

    And count on the clueless in the West to not grasp this reality at all. After all, the greatest enemy of freedom is not Islam. No, it’s the second greatest enemy. The greatest enemy is ignorance of Islam by those in the West.

  18. says

    For some reason, maybe the overdose of Islam since the Zia-ul-Haq regime, a section of young Pakistanis is increasingly going apostate. Most of them are taking the atheist path (“all religions are pooh-bah!”). The trend is still undergound but very much there, and alarming enough for the Paki gov’t to mull over passing a law mandating death for apostasy. That was in 2007 but the law wasn’t passed, perhaps because the US would have gotten seriously annoyed and the flow of $$$ might have slowed down. This trend to reject Islam may be the reason why the Pak establishment is so paranoid about apostasy. Anyway, if you want to get someone out of the way permanently, blasphemy works just as fine as apostasy. And what the courts let go, the mobs doth take over. The mere accusation makes you a goner.

  19. says

    Oh yes. Logical. And the Sun sets in a muddy pond at the end of the world. Alexander went there believe it or not. That’s so totally logical.

    nabi ZK (pbum)

    ….hey…that’s like PEACE be upon me…the nabi reserves the right to control the meaning of my acronyms…that is all…

  20. says

    Its not so much another Reagan that the US needs against the second coming of this Islamic enemy, but another John Quincy Adams. Reagan knew nothing about Islam, whilst the likes of John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had that vile death cult of evil pegged.

  21. says

    What did Muhammad ever do to deserve his PBUH. From the contents of the Quran, Sunnah and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah MHBFC (May he be forever cursed) would seem to be more appropriate.

  22. says

    Sharia law claims worldwide jurisdiction. Muhammad’s doctrine of taysir frees Muslims the obligation of enforcing Sharia law until there are enough Muslims (in numbers or in power) to enforce it socially. The global jihad is working to establish enough Muslims in power and in numbers to declare a caliphate and enforce Sharia law over the whole world. Sharia law is in opposition to our Constitution and Bill of Rights (i.e. individual freedoms), but to stop the encroachment of Sharia in-effect we need to define jihad crimes as hate crimes against non-Muslims and prohibit/prosecute separatist systems of law.

  23. says

    sallahu aleyhi wa sallem or “(Allah’s) peace be upon him” is an honorific that we use, among others, to show a great deal of respect to Muhammad, Jesus, David, Abraham, Moses etc. Similarly, you may find subhana wa t’ala for Allah. These honorifics are not required, per se, but they afford the believer additional blessings each time they say them. It is highly recommended though not wajib/fard (obligatory).

  24. says

    There are many people for whom pbuh doesn’t mean “peace be upon him”. Many have their own special phrase for those letters, most of which are not endearing. It makes having to read pbuh much more palatable.

  25. says

    Excellent post, FScarn!

    Void-for-vagueness should be also an argument against the whole of Islam. Or Valid-only-when-enough-clarity a condition to believe and practice it.

    Democratic laws can be changed, clarified, when there is controversy over them. But Islamic laws are immutable for all time. Only the interpretation of them may vary.

    But the Islamic Holy texts are of necessity incomplete. And furthermore highly vaque, ambiguous, self-contradicting. And there are many different interpretations in the Islamic world.

    As the difference between the behavior of so-called radical and moderate Muslims shows. The so-called moderate Muslims claim the radicals misunderstand Islam. And Robert, to my immense amusement, often pokes fun about that. When he shows yet again behavior by Muslims, in Islamic countries, or by terroristic or wife-beating Muslims etc, that contradicts squarely the explanations of Islam by Muslims and Islam-apologists.

    Just because of the apparent and proven ambiguity, vagueness and incompleteness Islamic holy texts are long overdue to serious updating. But stubbornly Muslims prohibit changing one iota of Quran and Hadiths.

    This alone should make the laws of this religion/ ideology, as you say, void.

  26. says

    Exactly. And death sentence for blasphemy against Mohammad is clearly against the tenets of Islam. And so is terrorism. So why don’t Muslims protest these gross distortion of Islamic doctrines, instead of crying about trivialities like cartoons? Seeing, the Muslims not bother about such perversions of the Koran, it is difficult for me to believe that they even care about the sanctity of their religion.

  27. says

    Jesus is the Living God, and has complete and total power, authority, and intercession.

    You’re so screwed-up, a product of Islam, which is a hoax and a lie. Pity you, brainwashed by a 1400-year-old lie, invented by a psychopath hate-filled mass-murdering pedophile slave-owning Warlord.

  28. says

    I mean, I *guess* so? I’ll go quietly to court and…


    *takes the opportunity to flee while they’re busy looking behind rocks and trees…*

    Nah, I’m kidding. They’re much more interested in dealing with shirk than anything else. Exposing disbelief is to Islam as baseball is to America. I’m screwed.

  29. says

    I had a discussion with my mrs. last night about Islamic law sweating what we would consider minor “infractions” but neglecting big picture issues like, I dunno, theft. It came up because I was talking to her about the caning in Aceh as she is Acehnese. She tells me that the shari’a police in Aceh will definite hover around you if you show PDA or you’re not wearing shari’a compliant clothing (as a woman, anything goes if you’re a man) but robbery? traffic accidents? Have fun trying to get the police there to do anything about those incidents. You’re better off not reporting them, she tells me, because they’re likely to EXTORT you.

    For example, if they find marijuana (very good pot in Aceh… ahem, so I hear) or pornography they confiscate it for themselves. While this isn’t unheard of in America, the corruption is just everywhere in Aceh. BUT at least there’s no miniskirts!

  30. says


    Prepare yourselves NOW (mentally/physically) for Brutal Warfare. I seek the peaceful disolution of islam in America and the U.K but dont see it happening. Just the opposite, in fact.”

    I challenge you to fisticuffs!

    Yeah, I don’t see a peaceful dissolution of Islam anywhere it has already taken root. Trying to excise members of a monotheistic faith is a fool’s errand, it strengthens the resolve of the believers. If you’re going to be “rid” of us then you will have to produce convincing arguments against us and trust me, there’s plenty of those. Preparing for open warfare in America, where we represent less than 2% of the population, is probably misguided at best.

  31. says

    Precisely why the rest of the world has a difficulty respecting Islam. Coz, Muslims themselves don’t respect the Koran. They don’t protest against human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam, but cry about cartoons. Terrorists and dictators dragging Koran down the mud is not so much of a problem as cartoonists.

  32. says

    Would somebody please explain to me how anybody could possibly imagine that Pakistan (or any Muslim country, for that matter) could be considered an ally of the US?

    Other than pure wishful thinking, of course…

  33. says

    “It just boggles my mind that this sort of thing still goes on in this century.”

    They don’t live in this century. They are still stuck in the 7th.

  34. says

    Buraq said:

    “History will repeat itself. It often does. And centuries after you and I are dust, Islam will become a minor cult once more, practiced in impoverished, backward areas of the world, and muttering to itself about the second ‘Golden Age’ that was unaccountably lost – just like the first time.”

    And blaming the Joooos…………..

  35. says

    “Islam took root from 622 AD to around the late 15th Century. Then the roots withered and died. Why? Wars of resistance combined with the inherent weaknesses of Islam.”
    I read something interesting somewhere about the Cordoba period in Spain. Many Muslims claim that the Cordoba period was one of great enlightenment for Muslims as there was a significant period of intellectual growth etc etc. Someone else had responded that the intellectual growth happened IN SPITE of the Islamic Majority. That human nature does what it always does… people start to resist the corruption and suppression of freedoms that Islam produced during that time period.

    I wish I could find the article as it states it more succintly than I could with more details.

  36. says

    History sometimes repeats itself, but history is also littered with civilizations that have risen and are now gone forever. Solzhenitsyn made the famous quote “Should one point out, that since ancient times, a decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end.” Political correctness and so-called peaceniks have corroded our courage, and there’s another priceless Solzhenitsyn quote that sums up the West perfectly in its dealings with Islamic savages – “The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.” Until, and unless, we grow a spine and ditch the political correctness and moral cowardice of slandering as bigots and racists those who criticise Islam, our civilization will go the way of countless civilizations and be turned into dust by the barbarian at the gate and all too often within.

  37. says

    “Islam is a more organized, logical, and overall more solid religion.”
    I guess everyone’s allowed an opinion…but there is absolutly no truth to these claims. Islam operates under a threat and motivates its followers through fear and sexual gratification. Logic is not part of the Islamic experience; independent thought, creativity, and egalitarianism are not allowed. It’s a cult–there’s no exit.

    Islam is the only religion left which still has the power and ideology necessary to attract the younger masses of people,
    Huh? Islam does not grow by attracting, it is an offensive ideology that is spread by violent force. If Muslims were allowed to walk away today without being killed, probably half of them (or more) would. It sounds like you’re a prime candidate for conversion.

  38. says

    Its not so much another Reagan that the US needs, but another John Quincy Adams. Reagan knew nothing abnout Islam, whilst the likes of John Quincy Adams, Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had it pegged.