Pakistan's envoy to U.S. accused of blasphemy, could get death sentence

"Anyone found to have uttered words derogatory to the Prophet Muhammad can be put to death."

Did anyone notice this derogatary remark from none other than Aisha, Muhammad's child bride?

“Verily, *your* Lord (Allah) is ever quick to fulfill your whims and desires”
Baby Aisha (Bukhari 7.62.48)

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/03/muhammad-and-adoptions-mahomet-et-les.html

anyone found to have uttered words derogatory to the Prophet Muhammad can be put to death.

'The future must not belong to those who insult the Prophet of Islam'...Rasool Barack Obama to the UN...

It's sharia...

The allegations against Rehman ... are being brought by Muhammad Faheem Ahkter Gill, a 31-year-old businessman who owns a marble business in the city of Multan.

And who has 'lost his marbles' to Islam, clearly!

Clown!

According to Pakistan's blasphemy laws, anyone found to have uttered words derogatory to the Prophet Muhammad can be put to death.

'The future must not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam'...Rasool Barack Obama to the UN

It's sharia...

Testing

Well, this should be interesting, since it not only involves an Ambassador, but also involves an AmbassadorESS! Perhaps they'll put the, "ess" to death, and Islam will finally have reached a sort of, "modern gender-equality".//

I wonder if any of the gals over at PuffHo will be screeching about this "case".
____________________________________

Oh, never mind - they won't.

Well, this should be interesting, since it not only involves an Ambassador, but also involves an AmbassadorESS! Perhaps they'll put the, "ess" to death, and Islam will finally have reached a sort of, "modern gender-equality".//

I wonder if any of the gals over at PuffHo will be screeching about this "case".
____________________________________

Oh, never mind - they won't.

"I had been striving to get a blasphemy case registered against her since 2010, but in vain." -

You can't get to be a bigger moron than the brain dead Islamic bunch. It is impossible. Somehow the Kuran fixes their neurological nit-work in a manner that is hard to comprehend.

I don't think "Sherry Rehman" consider herself to be a less of a Muslim than the moron who is accusing her of a pile of horse parc called "blasphemy". She aint coming out of Islam in a hurry and she is equally brain dead moron.

Anti-blasphemy, Western socialist elites banning blogs, websites, and organizations from anti-sharia messages is happening in 2013. Just today the Gates of Vienna blog went down without warning. EDL website has been hacked on numerous occasions. It will take a mass organization of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Gays, Nationalists, etc) to protest on the streets of Western nations. London, Paris, Brussels, NYC would be great starting points. This is a non-partisan, non-gay issue. It's about preserving Western sovereignty, culture, borders, language, customs. If enough people show up to protest, it will be picked up by the media at best or filmed by independent videographers and uploaded to Vimeo, Youtube, etc. As a middle age Christian, I don't want to see Western nations taken over by Sharia law and Islamic beliefs....seventh century oppression and misogynistic practices. There is a worldwide movement to usher in chaos so the New World Order (global elites) can unify and role the world via totalitarian, socialist, and communitarian style government. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it today.

Comments seem to be working, but from over here it's super slooow...

Anti-blasphemy, western socialist elites banning blogs, websites, and organizations from anti-sharia messages is happening in 2013! Just today, the Gates of Vienna blog went down without warning. English Defence League and British Freedom websites have been hacked on numerous occasions. It will take a mass organization of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Gays, Nationalists, etc) to protest on the streets of Western nations. London, Paris, Brussels, New York City would be great starting points. This is a non-partisan, non-gay issue folks. It's about preserving Western sovereignty, culture, borders, language and customs. If enough people show up to protest, it may be picked up by the media at best or filmed by independent videographers and uploaded to Vimeo, Youtube, etc. As a middle age Christian, I don't want to see Western nations taken over by Sharia law and Islamic beliefs....seventh century oppression and misogynistic practices. There is a worldwide movement to usher in chaos so the New World Order (global elites) can unify and role the world via totalitarian, socialist, and communitarian style government. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Anti-blasphemy, western socialist elites banning blogs, websites, and organizations from anti-sharia messages is happening in 2013! Just today, the Gates of Vienna blog went down without warning. English Defence League and British Freedom websites have been hacked on numerous occasions. It will take a mass organization of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Gays, Nationalists, etc) to protest on the streets of Western nations. London, Paris, Brussels, New York City would be great starting points. This is a non-partisan issue folks. It's about preserving Western sovereignty, culture, borders, language and customs. If enough people show up to protest, it may be picked up by the media at best or filmed by independent videographers and uploaded to Vimeo, Youtube, etc. As a middle age Christian, I don't want to see Western nations taken over by Sharia law and Islamic beliefs....seventh century oppression and misogynistic practices. There is a worldwide movement to usher in chaos so the New World Order (global elites) can unify and role the world via totalitarian, socialist, and communitarian style government. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Remarkable that NBC is even reporting this story.

Anti-blasphemy, western socialist elites banning blogs, websites, and organizations from anti-sharia messages is happening in 2013! Just today, the Gates of Vienna blog went down without warning. English Defence League and British Freedom websites have been hacked on numerous occasions. It will take a mass organization of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Gays, Nationalists, etc) to protest on the streets of Western nations. London, Paris, Brussels, New York City would be great starting points. This is a non-partisan issue folks. It's about preserving Western sovereignty, culture, borders, language and customs. If enough people show up to protest, it may be picked up by the media at best or filmed by independent videographers and uploaded to Vimeo, Youtube, etc. As a middle age Christian, I don't want to see Western nations taken over by Sharia law and Islamic beliefs....seventh century oppression and misogynistic practices. There is a worldwide movement to usher in chaos so the New World Order (global elites) can unify and role the world via totalitarian, socialist, and communitarian style government. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Anti-blasphemy, western socialist elites banning blogs, websites, and organizations from anti-sharia messages is happening in 2013! Just today, the Gates of Vienna blog went down without warning. English Defence League and British Freedom websites have been hacked on numerous occasions. It will take a mass organization of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Gays, Nationalists, etc) to protest on the streets of Western nations. London, Paris, Brussels, New York City would be great starting points. This is a non-partisan issue folks. It's about preserving Western sovereignty, culture, borders, language and customs. If enough people show up to protest, it may be picked up by the media at best or filmed by independent videographers and uploaded to Vimeo, Youtube, etc. As a middle age Christian, I don't want to see Western nations taken over by Sharia law and Islamic beliefs....seventh century oppression and misogynistic practices. There is a worldwide movement to usher in chaos so the New World Order (global elites) can unify and role the world via totalitarian, socialist, and communitarian style government. It will be the end of western civilization as we know it.

Speaking of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was hiding, I just saw the film Zero Dark Thirty. For the most part, this film brilliantly managed to avoid two equal and opposite forms of obnoxious subtext one usually finds in films with a political and military theme: leftist and right-wing didactic agendas. This kind of film is typically either 1) a leftish criticism of America, portraying the system and all but a few noble loners as venal, evil, stupid, and criminal; or 2) a tacky vehicle for conservative patriotic American yahoo-ism. Zero Dark Thirty (like the writer's earlier film, The Hurt Locker) avoids both annoying agendas, and also avoids presenting a stupidly "balanced" picture of the various players.

The CIA people and the special forces soldiers are certainly not glorified, but neither are they presented as a largely cynical bunch, or as an equal mix of good and evil. For the most part, those involved are portrayed as bright and competent and working hard to get a truly needed job done. In particular the special forces soldiers chosen for the raid are well presented. Without them or their military gear being glorified, and without making them look like superhuman supersoldiers or monomaniacal ninja warriors, they are presented as one would realistically expect to find the top-level American special forces soldiers chosen for the bin Laden raid -- soldiers who have survived the most difficult selection and training process of perhaps any soldiers in the world, and who have a great deal of experience in the field -- their personalities all give off a convincing modest aura of being bright, competent, reasonably humane, and down-to-earth, without any military mysticism or exaggerations of who they are. These are intelligent high-level professionals with imagination, skills, and executive responsibility in the field; this kind of man is not Hollywood's beloved rogue, go-it-alone romantic individual too pure to be part of "the system," but neither are these soldiers faceless members of a mindless rank and file troop. They are strong individuals who work as part of a highly coordinated team. They are certainly not portrayed as having Rambo personalities, i.e., mythical superhuman arrogant simpletons for America.

This is a film that is patriotic in a very quiet, modest, realistic way. There is no triumphalism or American chauvinism in this film, nor on the other hand are there the trite self-flagellations of conscience over how terrible America allegedly is (such as one constantly finds in idiotic self-centered Hollywood films incapable of mustering any realistic sense of proportion in their evaluations of America's activities in the world). No, in this enjoyable film there is just the impressive effort of a lot of imperfect but often fairly decent people working as a team and driving with deadly seriousness toward the goal of getting bin Laden.

The film also doesn't exaggerate the size of the egos or inject lots of pointless personal conflicts such as fatuous Hollywood loves. The people involved are portrayed as for the most part capable of some professionalism and as working reasonably well as a team. The writing does not annoy by portraying top level people as if they were less competent and businesslike than children. So often in such films, dumb Hollywood writers who seem to have no more maturity or knowledge of how the world works than do average 10 year olds project that total ignorance into a film's imagined top level leaders and operators. As stupid as top level leaders sometimes are, they are nowhere near as stupid as Hollywood often is. People working at the lowest levels in the post office on a bad day are more businesslike and competent than the American leaders, executives, and operators portrayed in many a typical Hollywood flick with military and political themes. In Zero Dark Thirty, though, the writing portrays people as having a reasonable minimum of seriousness and intelligence and the ability to avoid at least the most egregious forms of childishness most of the time. An exciting and excellent film.

(Addendum: Is the film politically correct on the subject of Islam? I'd say it sidesteps that issue. Which is more than one can say about a lot of films today, which actively promote PC lies about Islam. Nowhere does this film do that. There is one scene that someone might deem PC on Islam, but as with the rest of the film, the writer avoids pushing stupid agendas. The brief scene in question shows a man who we see is a Western, white, middle-aged, native-English speaking desk-bound white collar type. We see him first praying in his office on a prayer rug on the floor, Islamic prayers. Next we discover he is some sort of intelligence professional in the C.I.A. and has hold of some of the purse strings for funding projects. There are no words during the scene or at any other time in the film claiming that bin Laden is a fake Muslim, or that he has hijacked Islam, or the like, there was no PC interpretation laid over the brief scene at all. It simply showed a fact -- a Muslim working in the C.I.A. And there are indeed Muslims working in the C.I.A. So while I wasn't in love with that short scene, because one could interpret it in the PC way, it didn't bother me too much, because it could also be interpreted in other ways. The writer does not impose a point of view or have characters spouting PC lies about Islam.)

Speaking of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was hiding, I just saw the film Zero Dark Thirty. For the most part, this film brilliantly managed to avoid two equal and opposite forms of obnoxious subtext one usually finds in films with a political and military theme: leftist and right-wing didactic agendas. This kind of film is typically either 1) a leftish criticism of America, portraying the system and all but a few noble loners as venal, evil, stupid, and criminal; or 2) a tacky vehicle for conservative patriotic American yahoo-ism. Zero Dark Thirty (like the writer's earlier film, The Hurt Locker) avoids both annoying agendas, and also avoids presenting a stupidly "balanced" picture of the various players.

The CIA people and the special forces soldiers are certainly not glorified, but neither are they presented as a largely cynical bunch, or as an equal mix of good and evil. For the most part, those involved are portrayed as bright and competent and working hard to get a truly needed job done. In particular the special forces soldiers chosen for the raid are well presented. Without them or their military gear being glorified, and without making them look like superhuman supersoldiers or monomaniacal ninja warriors, they are presented as one would realistically expect to find the top-level American special forces soldiers chosen for the bin Laden raid -- soldiers who have survived the most difficult selection and training process of perhaps any soldiers in the world, and who have a great deal of experience in the field -- their personalities all give off a convincing modest aura of being bright, competent, reasonably humane, and down-to-earth, without any military mysticism or exaggerations of who they are. These are intelligent high-level professionals with imagination, skills, and executive responsibility in the field; this kind of man is not Hollywood's beloved rogue, go-it-alone romantic individual too pure to be part of "the system," but neither are these soldiers faceless members of a mindless rank and file troop. They are strong individuals who work as part of a highly coordinated team. They are certainly not portrayed as having Rambo personalities, i.e., mythical superhuman arrogant simpletons for America.

This is a film that is patriotic in a very quiet, modest, realistic way. There is no triumphalism or American chauvinism in this film, nor on the other hand are there the trite self-flagellations of conscience over how terrible America allegedly is (such as one constantly finds in idiotic self-centered Hollywood films incapable of mustering any realistic sense of proportion in their evaluations of America's activities in the world). No, in this enjoyable film there is just the impressive effort of a lot of imperfect but often fairly decent people working as a team and driving with deadly seriousness toward the goal of getting bin Laden.

The film also doesn't exaggerate the size of the egos or inject lots of pointless personal conflicts such as fatuous Hollywood loves. The people involved are portrayed as for the most part capable of some professionalism and as working reasonably well as a team. The writing does not annoy by portraying top level people as if they were less competent and businesslike than children. So often in such films, dumb Hollywood writers who seem to have no more maturity or knowledge of how the world works than do average 10 year olds project that total ignorance into a film's imagined top level leaders and operators. As stupid as top level leaders sometimes are, they are nowhere near as stupid as Hollywood often is. People working at the lowest levels in the post office on a bad day are more businesslike and competent than the American leaders, executives, and operators portrayed in many a typical Hollywood flick with military and political themes. In Zero Dark Thirty, though, the writing portrays people as having a reasonable minimum of seriousness and intelligence and the ability to avoid at least the most egregious forms of childishness most of the time. An exciting and excellent film.

(Addendum: Is the film politically correct on the subject of Islam? I'd say it sidesteps that issue. Which is more than one can say about a lot of films today, which actively promote PC lies about Islam. Nowhere does this film do that. There is one scene that someone might deem PC on Islam, but as with the rest of the film, the writer avoids pushing stupid agendas. The brief scene in question shows a man who we see is a Western, white, middle-aged, native-English speaking desk-bound white collar type. We see him first praying in his office on a prayer rug on the floor, Islamic prayers. Next we discover he is some sort of intelligence professional in the C.I.A. and has hold of some of the purse strings for funding projects. There are no words during the scene or at any other time in the film claiming that bin Laden is a fake Muslim, or that he has hijacked Islam, or the like, there was no PC interpretation laid over the brief scene at all. It simply showed a fact -- a Muslim working in the C.I.A. And there are indeed Muslims working in the C.I.A. So while I wasn't in love with that short scene, because one could interpret it in the PC way, it didn't bother me too much, because it could also be interpreted in other ways. The writer does not impose a point of view or have characters spouting PC lies about Islam.)

Speaking of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was hiding, I just saw the film Zero Dark Thirty. For the most part, this film brilliantly managed to avoid two equal and opposite forms of obnoxious subtext one usually finds in films with a political and military theme: leftist and right-wing didactic agendas. This kind of film is typically either 1) a leftish criticism of America, portraying the system and all but a few noble loners as venal, evil, stupid, and criminal; or 2) a tacky vehicle for conservative patriotic American yahoo-ism. Zero Dark Thirty (like the writer's earlier film, The Hurt Locker) avoids both annoying agendas, and also avoids presenting a stupidly "balanced" picture of the various players.

The CIA people and the special forces soldiers are certainly not glorified, but neither are they presented as a largely cynical bunch, or as an equal mix of good and evil. For the most part, those involved are portrayed as bright and competent and working hard to get a truly needed job done. In particular the special forces soldiers chosen for the raid are well presented. Without them or their military gear being glorified, and without making them look like superhuman supersoldiers or monomaniacal ninja warriors, they are presented as one would realistically expect to find the top-level American special forces soldiers chosen for the bin Laden raid -- soldiers who have survived the most difficult selection and training process of perhaps any soldiers in the world, and who have a great deal of experience in the field -- their personalities all give off a convincing modest aura of being bright, competent, reasonably humane, and down-to-earth, without any military mysticism or exaggerations of who they are. These are intelligent high-level professionals with imagination, skills, and executive responsibility in the field; this kind of man is not Hollywood's beloved rogue, go-it-alone romantic individual too pure to be part of "the system," but neither are these soldiers faceless members of a mindless rank and file troop. They are strong individuals who work as part of a highly coordinated team. They are certainly not portrayed as having Rambo personalities, i.e., mythical superhuman arrogant simpletons for America.

This is a film that is patriotic in a very quiet, modest, realistic way. There is no triumphalism or American chauvinism in this film, nor on the other hand are there the trite self-flagellations of conscience over how terrible America allegedly is (such as one constantly finds in idiotic self-centered Hollywood films incapable of mustering any realistic sense of proportion in their evaluations of America's activities in the world). No, in this enjoyable film there is just the impressive effort of a lot of imperfect but often fairly decent people working as a team and driving with deadly seriousness toward the goal of getting bin Laden.

The film also doesn't exaggerate the size of the egos or inject lots of pointless personal conflicts such as fatuous Hollywood loves. The people involved are portrayed as for the most part capable of some professionalism and as working reasonably well as a team. The writing does not annoy by portraying top level people as if they were less competent and businesslike than children. So often in such films, dumb Hollywood writers who seem to have no more maturity or knowledge of how the world works than do average 10 year olds project that total ignorance into a film's imagined top level leaders and operators. As stupid as top level leaders sometimes are, they are nowhere near as stupid as Hollywood often is. People working at the lowest levels in the post office on a bad day are more businesslike and competent than the American leaders, executives, and operators portrayed in many a typical Hollywood flick with military and political themes. In Zero Dark Thirty, though, the writing portrays people as having a reasonable minimum of seriousness and intelligence and the ability to avoid at least the most egregious forms of childishness most of the time. An exciting and excellent film.

(Addendum: Is the film politically correct on the subject of Islam? I'd say it sidesteps that issue. Which is more than one can say about a lot of films today, which actively promote PC lies about Islam. Nowhere does this film do that. There is one scene that someone might deem PC on Islam, but as with the rest of the film, the writer avoids pushing stupid agendas. The brief scene in question shows a man who we see is a Western, white, middle-aged, native-English speaking desk-bound white collar type. We see him first praying in his office on a prayer rug on the floor, Islamic prayers. Next we discover he is some sort of intelligence professional in the C.I.A. and has hold of some of the purse strings for funding projects. There are no words during the scene or at any other time in the film claiming that bin Laden is a fake Muslim, or that he has hijacked Islam, or the like, there was no PC interpretation laid over the brief scene at all. It simply showed a fact -- a Muslim working in the C.I.A. And there are indeed Muslims working in the C.I.A. So while I wasn't in love with that short scene, because one could interpret it in the PC way, it didn't bother me too much, because it could also be interpreted in other ways. The writer does not impose a point of view or have characters spouting PC lies about Islam.)