Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

msnbc.com news services
updated 12/3/2010 9:56:26 AM ET 2010-12-03T14:56:26

Cleric offers reward to kill Christian woman

Case of Pakistani convicted of blasphemy against Islam has attracted international attention

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40490458/ns ... tral_asia/

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A hardline Pakistani Islamic cleric has offered a reward to anyone who kills a Christian woman convicted of blasphemy against Islam.

Maulana Yousef Qureshi made the announcement Friday at a rally in the northwestern town of Peshawar.

He said his mosque would give $6,000 to the person who kills Asia Bibi.

"We will strongly resist any attempt to repeal laws which provide protection to the sanctity of Holy Prophet Mohammad," Qureshi told a rally of hardline Islamists.

"Any one who kills Asia will be given 500,000 rupees in reward from Masjid Mohabat Khan," he said referring to his mosque.

While Qureshi is not believed to have a wide following, comments by clerics can provoke a violent response and complicate government efforts to combat religious extremism and militancy.

Bibi was sentenced Nov. 8 to hang for insulting Islam's Prophet Mohammed. She and her family say the charge is baseless.

[denizaksulu]

If I may butt in; It is should be 'fanatical/extremist Muslims in the UK are calling for Sharia Law'.


The average Moslem doesnt give a piastre. Safer not to generalise.

Surely the focus of discussion, if there be willingness to recognize that there are various opinions on it, should be on the effectiveness of 'Sharia Law' and those who abide by such, as opposed to the effectiveness of the 'Secular (and other) Laws' We of the West are required to abide by.

Whereas the 'Sharia Laws' are viewed by US as harsh, they are written into the lives of the people that believe in them and rely on them for guidance.

The observance of those laws, ensures that the moral standards of the people who obey them are following the tenets of the written word of the Qur'an and the teachings of Islamic scholars.

Non compliance can result in serious punishments which are abhorrent to US. (and no fun for those who are subjected to them).

OUR Laws are somewhat different, they are subject to constant changes, they ARE designed to ensure that our conduct should also be morally acceptable and there are punishments for failure to comply.

BUT, the punishments are often (FUN for those subjected to them).

So the question IS, "Which is the more effective".

A cursory glance at the crime figures of the Western societies in comparison to those of the East (particularly where 'Sharia Law' is practised) leaves ME in no doubt.

Others may have different opinions, at least let us discuss them in a civilized manner.

Considering the frequency of hand amputations in the countries that follow Shari'a Law, I can't see it acting as a deterrent to others. It only stops the amputee who has had both hands 'surgically removed'.

[Me Ed]

Christian woman faces death for blasphemy

By NBC's Carol Grisanti and Fakhar ur Rehman

ITTAN WALLI, Pakistan – In early November, in the dusty city of Sheikhupura in Pakistan’s heartland, Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian woman and mother of five, was sentenced to death by hanging under the country’s blasphemy laws.

Her crime? She allegedly insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -blasphemy

If it be mandatory to respect the name of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and punishable by death for insulting his name (or tenets) in a country where such is the Law, how does it become so objectionable if a person who breaks the Law, has to face the consequences meted BY the Law ?.

Jesus Christ insulted nobody, yet suffered a far more horrendous fate than hanging.

I suppose that's very easy to say from the comfort of your own liberal democracy.

Since you direct your comment in a manner which appears to be something of a rebuff to my own observations, I feel obliged to respond.

Not too sure about the brevity of yours since I cannot quite see the connection between your reference to 'Liberal Democracy' and MY attempt to illustrate the differences between the tenets of other nations.

If one is NOT prepared to accept that the values of others is equal to one's own, then obviously there is no room for debate on the matter and sarcastic or derisive (among other) remarks are the only contribution one can possibly make to any discussion.

I like to think that MY views are based upon that which I have seen and experienced rather than that which I have been told (or have read in the newspapers), recent events in our (as you put it) 'Liberal Democracy' DO seem to pinpoint just how much falsification we are subjected to on a daily basis, OUR Laws are constantly changed in order to satisfy the whims or accommodate the desires (even among the Clergy) of those who find themselves in positions of power.

Other nations are a little more inclined to maintain their 'Tenets', perhaps it is WE who should be learning from THEM. (IMHO)

So you think its OK to execute apostates in Islamic countries, simply because its the "law of the land" and I should RESPECT these values and think them equal to my own?

I don't think so.

Muslims in the UK are calling for Sharia Law.

Why?

It is because they are not prepared to accept the law of the land or values in the UK are equal to theirs.

As to the first part of your response, I neither indicated nor suggested that I consider it OK to execute anybody (Apostate or otherwise), my opinion is that WE of the West are adamantly opposed to the Laws and Tenets of certain nations which are not in tandem with our own.

As to your reference to 'RESPECT' (and we've had this before) YES, the very fact that those who live and abide by the Laws of THEIR culture and are showing 'RESPECT' (in it's true meaning) for their culture, are worthy of 'RESPECT' from those outside of it, if only for the fact that they are showing such 'RESPECT'.

As to 'Equality', I fear that the examples of 'RESPECT' for the Laws and 'Tenets' of the West, shown by WE of the West, are far less evident than those displayed by the followers of Islam, whether Islam be right or wrong is a moot point BUT, there is no doubt that the followers of Islam have far greater fervour than WE Christians, the lack of tolerance to those of other faiths is a true testimony to that fact, the lack of observance to the Laws and Tenets of Western societies BY it's populations, another.

IF one culture (or society) wishes to make changes to another, it should do so by 'Example'.

The 'Example' the Western powers are displaying at the moment deserve little emulation. (IMHO)

As to the second part of your response, the 'Muslims' would prefer 'Sharia Laws' in the U.K. and are not prepared to accept that the values and Laws there are 'Equal' to their own.

Naturally they would NOT, since 'Sharia Law' is by far superior in ensuring that the conduct of those governed by it, maintain the 'RESPECT' demanded of it. (IMCO)

Abu Hamza bears stark testimony to the folly of stealing other people's property, a lesson for us ALL perhaps.

So Pol-Pot, by your logic if we in the West execute everyone no matter what the crime, then that should reduce crime even more than Sharia and by your reasoning make it superior.

[Schnauzer]

If I may butt in; It is should be 'fanatical/extremist Muslims in the UK are calling for Sharia Law'.


The average Moslem doesnt give a piastre. Safer not to generalise.

Surely the focus of discussion, if there be willingness to recognize that there are various opinions on it, should be on the effectiveness of 'Sharia Law' and those who abide by such, as opposed to the effectiveness of the 'Secular (and other) Laws' We of the West are required to abide by.

Whereas the 'Sharia Laws' are viewed by US as harsh, they are written into the lives of the people that believe in them and rely on them for guidance.

The observance of those laws, ensures that the moral standards of the people who obey them are following the tenets of the written word of the Qur'an and the teachings of Islamic scholars.

Non compliance can result in serious punishments which are abhorrent to US. (and no fun for those who are subjected to them).

OUR Laws are somewhat different, they are subject to constant changes, they ARE designed to ensure that our conduct should also be morally acceptable and there are punishments for failure to comply.

BUT, the punishments are often (FUN for those subjected to them).

So the question IS, "Which is the more effective".

A cursory glance at the crime figures of the Western societies in comparison to those of the East (particularly where 'Sharia Law' is practised) leaves ME in no doubt.

Others may have different opinions, at least let us discuss them in a civilized manner.

Considering the frequency of hand amputations in the countries that follow Shari'a Law, I can't see it acting as a deterrent to others. It only stops the amputee who has had both hands 'surgically removed'.

Very amusing Deniz, perhaps a few weeks of Sharia Law in the US and UK might discourage some of the hundreds of thousands of habitual lawbreakers to rein in a bit.

Who knows, a prolonged period might even produce a society worthy of advocating that other nations should follow their example, which would obviate the necessity of forcing them to do so.

[Schnauzer]

So Pol-Pot, by your logic if we in the West execute everyone no matter what the crime, then that should reduce crime even more than Sharia and by your reasoning make it superior.

My name is NOT Pol Pot , nor do I support the carnage that ensued during his reign (though I have visited Cambodia and can vouch for the integrity of the people who live there) subsequent to his rule.

The fact that you resort to insult 'Prior' to making your inane comments, is indicative of the fact that you do not have the intelligence to engage in a sensible discussion.

Should you not be out in the streets of Belfast making sure that the 'Kerb-Stones' are suitably displaying the colours of the 'Butcher's Apron' ?

[denizaksulu]

If I may butt in; It is should be 'fanatical/extremist Muslims in the UK are calling for Sharia Law'.


The average Moslem doesnt give a piastre. Safer not to generalise.

Surely the focus of discussion, if there be willingness to recognize that there are various opinions on it, should be on the effectiveness of 'Sharia Law' and those who abide by such, as opposed to the effectiveness of the 'Secular (and other) Laws' We of the West are required to abide by.

Whereas the 'Sharia Laws' are viewed by US as harsh, they are written into the lives of the people that believe in them and rely on them for guidance.

The observance of those laws, ensures that the moral standards of the people who obey them are following the tenets of the written word of the Qur'an and the teachings of Islamic scholars.

Non compliance can result in serious punishments which are abhorrent to US. (and no fun for those who are subjected to them).

OUR Laws are somewhat different, they are subject to constant changes, they ARE designed to ensure that our conduct should also be morally acceptable and there are punishments for failure to comply.

BUT, the punishments are often (FUN for those subjected to them).

So the question IS, "Which is the more effective".

A cursory glance at the crime figures of the Western societies in comparison to those of the East (particularly where 'Sharia Law' is practised) leaves ME in no doubt.

Others may have different opinions, at least let us discuss them in a civilized manner.

Considering the frequency of hand amputations in the countries that follow Shari'a Law, I can't see it acting as a deterrent to others. It only stops the amputee who has had both hands 'surgically removed'.

Very amusing Deniz, perhaps a few weeks of Sharia Law in the US and UK might discourage some of the hundreds of thousands of habitual lawbreakers to rein in a bit.

Who knows, a prolonged period might even produce a society worthy of advocating that other nations should follow their example, which would obviate the necessity of forcing them to do so.

I must admit, that law-breakers have a lovely time at Her Majesty's expense.

[Schnauzer]

If I may butt in; It is should be 'fanatical/extremist Muslims in the UK are calling for Sharia Law'.


The average Moslem doesnt give a piastre. Safer not to generalise.

Surely the focus of discussion, if there be willingness to recognize that there are various opinions on it, should be on the effectiveness of 'Sharia Law' and those who abide by such, as opposed to the effectiveness of the 'Secular (and other) Laws' We of the West are required to abide by.

Whereas the 'Sharia Laws' are viewed by US as harsh, they are written into the lives of the people that believe in them and rely on them for guidance.

The observance of those laws, ensures that the moral standards of the people who obey them are following the tenets of the written word of the Qur'an and the teachings of Islamic scholars.

Non compliance can result in serious punishments which are abhorrent to US. (and no fun for those who are subjected to them).

OUR Laws are somewhat different, they are subject to constant changes, they ARE designed to ensure that our conduct should also be morally acceptable and there are punishments for failure to comply.

BUT, the punishments are often (FUN for those subjected to them).

So the question IS, "Which is the more effective".

A cursory glance at the crime figures of the Western societies in comparison to those of the East (particularly where 'Sharia Law' is practised) leaves ME in no doubt.

Others may have different opinions, at least let us discuss them in a civilized manner.

Considering the frequency of hand amputations in the countries that follow Shari'a Law, I can't see it acting as a deterrent to others. It only stops the amputee who has had both hands 'surgically removed'.

Very amusing Deniz, perhaps a few weeks of Sharia Law in the US and UK might discourage some of the hundreds of thousands of habitual lawbreakers to rein in a bit.

Who knows, a prolonged period might even produce a society worthy of advocating that other nations should follow their example, which would obviate the necessity of forcing them to do so.

I must admit, that law-breakers have a lovely time at Her Majesty's expense.

Right on Deniz, I doubt that things are quite as comfortable in those countries that are under discussion here.

[Schnauzer]

This thead is dedicated to those that believe:

1) Islam is a religion of peace.

2) Women are equal in Islam.

3) I got told off by GR!
[/url]

The very fact that you introduce this thread in such a manner, speaks volumes for your capabilities as an unbigoted poster.

It must have been a great disappointment to you that some forumers DID respond, since the invitation is clearly NOT to unless others are ready to join in with your juvenile dissection of the 'Peaceful' tenets of Islam.

Shame on you, you have no country to call your own. (IMHO)

[kurupetos]

This thead is dedicated to those that believe:

1) Islam is a religion of peace.

2) Women are equal in Islam.

3) I got told off by GR!
[/url]

The very fact that you introduce this thread in such a manner, speaks volumes for your capabilities as an unbigoted poster.

It must have been a great disappointment to you that some forumers DID respond, since the invitation is clearly NOT to unless others are ready to join in with your juvenile dissection of the 'Peaceful' tenets of Islam.

Shame on you, you have no country to call your own. (IMHO)

Do you have pets? (dedicated to the old days...)

[Me Ed]

This thead is dedicated to those that believe:

1) Islam is a religion of peace.

2) Women are equal in Islam.

3) I got told off by GR!
[/url]

The very fact that you introduce this thread in such a manner, speaks volumes for your capabilities as an unbigoted poster.

It must have been a great disappointment to you that some forumers DID respond, since the invitation is clearly NOT to unless others are ready to join in with your juvenile dissection of the 'Peaceful' tenets of Islam.

Shame on you, you have no country to call your own. (IMHO)

47 pages in this thread. Count 'em old timer.