| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
More evidence of the oppressive nature of Pakistan's Sharia-based blasphemy law. "Radical Islamic politicians accused of blasphemy," from Asia News, with thanks to DFS:
Islamabad (AsiaNews) – Ashfaq Chaudhry, head of the Islamabad’s chapter of the Pakistan People’s Movement, has accused members of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA, a political alliance of six radical Islamic organisations), including opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman, with blasphemy. Last Wednesday in parliament, MPs for the MMA tore up copies of the Women’s Protection Bill containing verses from the Qur’an. Mr Chaudhry also charged MMA President Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and MMA Deputy Secretary General, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed. In his opinion, their action was offensive to all Pakistani Muslims, and they should be prosecuted under the blasphemy law and receive an exemplary punishment. The infamous blasphemy law refers to Section 295-b of Pakistan’s Penal Code which provides for life in prison for desecrating the Qur’an.Qazi Hussain Ahmad reacted immediately, rejecting the accusations. The MMA president did confirm the protest action against the Women’s Protection Bill, but insisted that the draft legislation did not contain any verse from the Qur’an.
For Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the National Commission for Justice and Peace (an agency of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference), this episode is but another example of how religion is used and abused for personal reasons.
Yes indeed.
Posted by Robert at August 29, 2006 6:18 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
umm i wonder
HOW MANY here on JW would have recieved a life sentence many times over if they were in Pakistan?
Comon... show yourselves and be prepared to be extredited to Islamabad.
Posted by: Churchill1938![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 29, 2006 6:49 AM
What beats me is.. how can a country chirning out terrorists since early 90s (Ramze Yusuf to 7/7 bombers) be a 'ally' against terror, remembering Pakistan was the backbone of Taleban? For more on Pakistan's rolw in international terror and nuclear proliferation, read 'Who killed Daniel Pearl' by Bernard Henry Levy: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971865949/libertyhaven/103-7367464-2037464
Posted by: Alert at August 29, 2006 8:00 AM
#1. Received. I before E, etc. Extradited.
#2. Churning. Taliban.
Good spelling is next to godliness. It makes for a seemlier website.
Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2006 8:25 AM
By that logic it would be blashemous to tear up a copy of 'The Satanic Verses'.
Posted by: PRCS at August 29, 2006 8:55 AM
Blasphemous.
Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2006 9:22 AM
That, too.
Posted by: PRCS at August 29, 2006 10:25 AM
I agree that the blasphemy law is worrisome, but as I read this, it appears to me to be a case in which the law was being used against Islamists. The implication appears to me to be that the law protecting women was citing ways that their mistreatment is authorized in the Qur'an; that's why the Islamists didn't want the law passed.
Blasphemy laws are bad, but if you have them, by all means use them against the Islamists. Until Sharia the Law in Pakistan, introduce bill after bill that outlaws sharia provisions. Of course, those would have to be carefully drafted to avoid being subject to the charge of blasphemy themselves.
Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at August 29, 2006 10:27 AM
Hugh,
Often mispellings are simply typos. As one of the worst offenders here, I often re-read a post of my own and wince at the mispellings of even simple words due, not to ignorance, but to typing with fat fingers. Besides, there is no spell-check on the site and unless I type it first in Microsoft Word and then cut and past, the typos are unavoidable.
However, the spelling of Taliban/Taleban is not standardized. "Taleban" is the spelling most used in British English, especially by the BBC. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm
Even CNN often uses the "Taleban" spelling. See:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/05/22/afghanistan.hindu/
This also applies to other organizations:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/taleban.htm
I'm sure there is a "correct" spelling in Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi but as of now, Taleb/Talib is not standardized in English.
Posted by: Provoslavni at August 29, 2006 10:47 AM
Typos are NEVER "unavoidable." Perhaps it's reliance on SpellCheck that softens one's own mental spell checker.
Or, perhaps it's due to the commenter's rush to be the first post... ;o)
Posted by: Know Your Enemy at August 29, 2006 11:17 AM
It seems to me that the only things these idiots can do is accuse each other of blasphemy, of not being 'muslim enough' or apostate altogether and other similar things. Trading accusations takes the place of discourse or any semblance of an exchange of ideas.
They just call each other apostates and witches if they don't agree? Idiots!
Does the free world still think that conversations and discourse will make progress with any of those in power in these Islamic nations?
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 29, 2006 11:59 AM
Churchill: "life sentence"?
As in "having it forcibly removed", maybe.
Now, all religions might well have their lunatics, casting about the aspersion of "witch", "heretic" and so forth - Pat Robertson springs to mind. But only in the ummah, it seems, does anyone actually think something might "get done" about it.
Blood for the moon god.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at August 29, 2006 12:28 PM
Hugh, - stop being so pedantic !
Some of us actually are posting whilst sitting 3 feet away from a potential Jihadi who might slit our throats if they see what we post. So it's a choice between spellchecking and slit throats.
Which would you choose, oh great one !
Posted by: Churchill1938 at August 30, 2006 4:31 AM
Gosh, I hope they don't find out that I used one as toilet paper!
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 30, 2006 5:11 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)