Jesus (pbuh) in the Koran; Nazarenes, Paul and Christians
Posted 10 March 2003 - 03:41 PM
Once again the Thruth is relative. After your personal Death,
maybe the you will know the Thruth.
My personal higher Beeing is Malok, also known as Baphomet or Baal.
Only other Names for the Lord, are you able to imagine this?
This is the Truth, not your fanatic beliefs:D
BTW. In my bookshelf the Bible stands right beside the Quran.
Both books are worth to read.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 03:48 PM
PAKISTAN: The Blasphemy Law In Pakistan And Its Impact
(Ed. note: In July's issue of Human Rights SOLIDARITY Naeem Shakir has given an in-depth analysis of the origin and the impact of the law. The second part consists of vivid accounts of how Christians are being victimised under such tyrannical law.)
Since I have been involved as a defence lawyer in high profile cases about blasphemy, I have painfully experienced the tyrannical nature of this law. Apart from the accused, the lawyers, and even judges are not safe in this highly vulnerable situation. Before winding up I would like to give a few examples of blasphemy cases against Christians.
" Conversion from Islam to Christianity is in itself a cognisable offence"
Tahir Iqbal was a Christian convert from Islam. He had suffered from paralysis. The lower part of his body had been paralysed rendering him invalid. He could not walk. He could not stand even. He used a wheel chair. He was an engine mechanic in the Pakistan Air Force. His conversion to Christianity had annoyed Muslims. He lived in the southern part of Lahore close to a mosque. The Muslim cleric in charge of that mosque finally decided to teach him a lesson. He got a case of blasphemy registered against him on 7 December, 1990, alleging that "when he recites 'Azaan' (call for prayer) early in the morning in the mosque, Tahir Iqbal feels infuriated and starts abusing Prophet Mohammed at the top of his voice, imparts anti-Islamic education to children who come to him for tuition, has defiled Holy Quran by underlining with green marker, and thus has seriously injured our religious feelings."
He was arrested by the police on blasphemy charges and that's all. He was doomed. Despite his physical inability, he was not bailed out. As earlier stated, justice has been subjected to sectarian affiliations. A very crude example may be cited of Tahir Iqbal. The sessions judge who dismissed his bail application on July 7, 1991, passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before me that the petitioner has converted as Christian. With this admission on the part of petitioner's counsel there is no need to probe further into the allegations as contained in the FIR because learned DDA has disclosed that charge has already been framed and the accused is facing trial. Since conversion from Islam to Christianity is in itself a cognisable offence involving serious implication, I do not consider the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail at this stage".
Though it is needless to comment, it may be mentioned that no law in Pakistan has yet been framed which makes conversion from Islam to Christianity a cognisable offence. The case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on July 21, 1992, before the Sessions Court. When I as the defense lawyer, appeared in the court I was informed by the State Counsel that the accused had died in the jail the previous night. Tahir Iqbal was poisoned to death in jail under a conspiracy about which he had informed all authorities concerned beforehand. He was killed because he had embraced Christianity.
Innocent People Seeking Asylum
Chand Barkat, 28, a bangle stall holder in Mangle Bazar, Karachi was charged with blasphemy by a co-bangle vendor because of professional jealousy. Arif Hussain used to sit beside him for selling bangles in the bazaar. He did not tolerate women going to Chand Barkat, a Christian, for buying bangles. One day Arif warned him to quit that place as otherwise he would teach him a lesson. Chand Barkat did not leave the place. Arif involved Chand Barkat in a case of blasphemy on October 8, 1991, alleging that he used derogatory language against Prophet Muhammad and his mother. He was charged under Section 295-C. Chand Barkat was acquitted by the Sessions Court for want of evidence.
Gull Masih of Faisalabad was charged under section 295-C for using sacrilegious language about the Prophet and his wives on December 10, 1991. The complainant Sajjad Hussain, had a quarrel with him over repair of a street water tap. Out of this quarrel had emanated the blasphemy case. Gull Masih was tried under the blasphemy law and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, Sargodha, on November 2, 1992. This death sentence created a commotion. Human rights organisations and the Church agitated against the death sentence. We filed a criminal appeal in the High Court against the judgement of the Sessions Judge. Gull Masih was bailed out neither by the Sessions Court nor by the High Court. I moved an application for early hearing in the High Court but it took two years for the final hearing. The appeal was heard by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which held that it was a case of no evidence and thus set aside the death sentence and acquitted Gull Masih. It became difficult for Gull Masih to come out of jail as religious fundamentalists had warned of dire consequences. He had to be kept under tight security. Later, in order to save his life, arrangements were made for his exit quietly. He is now in Germany on asylum.
Winning Heaven by Killing Blasphemer
Naimat Ahmar 43, a Christian teacher and a poet and writer of Faisalabad, was butchered by Farooq Ahmad, a young member of a militant religious group (ASSP) on the premises of office of the District Education Officer, Faisalabad, at 10 a.m. while on duty. The religious zealot killed him because the deceased had reportedly used highly insulting remarks against Islam and Prophet Mohammed. No case of blasphemy was registered against the deceased. He was not tried by any court. The young religious extremist, as briefed by his organisation, took the law in his own hands and killed the poet, writer and teacher, leaving behind a widow and four children. The killer was charged with murder. He made a confession. He was garlanded in jail by religious clerics. The statement of the killer was published in the press that by killing a blasphemer he had won heaven.
The trial court sentenced him to fourteen years
Posted 10 March 2003 - 03:58 PM
Some Questions to Ask Those who Claim that Pakistan's Blapshemy Laws Are for Equal Protection of ALL Religions!
1). Often Campaigners against Blasphemy law are told that the law is actually a Colonial
law and that all religions are protected under the blasphemy law. This is not accurate. The 1860 law has been modified in 1926 and then in 1986 when criminal law was Islamicised. The blasphemy law is an anachronism in the Western countries, it remains on the statute books but is not severe or barbaric in the way Islamic blasphemy laws are today. Moreover, the Blasphemy law in Pakistan provides different and less severe punishments to Blasphemy of other
religions in the country. Equal 'protection'?
2). The blasphemy law in European countries distinguishes between outrageous attack on Christ and Christianity and reasoned criticism. Why is that the blasphemy law in Pakistan makes no such distinction and does not even clearly define the 'crime' it seeks to punish by death?
3). Why does Pakistan have the harshest blasphemy law in the world?
4). How does Blasphemy law and similar 'offending religious sentiments law' square with freedom of statement?
5).Has this indescribably harsh law made Pakistan a better place?
6). Why is it that Pakistan seems to have become a land of blasphemers? Why wasn't it the case in the first 40 years of its existence?
7). Why no action is taken against those Pakistanis those who say insulting things about other religions? - Ameer Hamza of Lashkar-i-Taiba has written an extremely derogatory book
about Hinduism? Why wasn't any action taken against him?
8). A few years ago, Prof. Tahirul Qadiri, a Lahore-based Islamic scholar, was declared a blasphemer by so many ulema (Islamic scholars) and Khabrain newspaper published all these statements prominently. But no case was registered against him and no trial took place? Why? (This is a question for mullahs as well.)
9). Brelvis and Deobandis are the most numerous Muslim sects in Pakistan. Brelvis say that Deobandis are blasphemers against the prophet of Islam. Syed Sabir Hussain Shah Bukhari wrote in Islamabad-based Urdu daily newspaper called Ausaf ( Sept 15, 2000) that the Deobandi elders in their books such as Tahzeerun Naas, Baraheen-i-Qataya and Hifzul Eeman have committed flagrant blasphemies against Allah and his prophet. Why is it that no action is taken against Deobandis?
(The mullahs who got the case registered against Yunis Shaikh are Deobandis.) (This too is a question for the mullahs.)
10). The supporters of this law say that this law has been enacted to make sure that the people don't take lynch the blasphemy accused. If that is the case then why was Hafez Sajjad, a pious Muslim, lynched in Gujranwala in 1994? He was taken out of police station and literally lynched.
11). According to Karachi-based Urdu weekly Takbeer (January 15, 1998), Aga Khanis have nothing to do with Islam. They are outside the pale of Islam. In fact, they are blasphemers against the prophet and they have committed this offense on the Internet. Why is it that no action has been taken against them?
12). The Muslims call the prophet of Islam rehmatul lil aalameen (mercy for the this world and the hereafter) but even an unintentional misstatement about him does not leave room for mercy and forgiveness. Why? 13). On April 21, 2000 General Musharraf amid fanfare announced a procedural change to the blasphemy law. From now on, the no blasphemy case will be registered unless the deputy commissioner investigates the matter. The mullahs protested against this change and the general capitulated. On May 16, 2000 he announced to restore the old procedure. "As it was the unanimous demand of the ulema, mashaikh and the people, therefore, I have decided to do away with the procedural change inthe registration of the FIR under the blasphemy law," said the general at the PAF base upon his return from Turkmenistan. How many ordinary people had protested against the change?
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:11 PM
If only Patience had reacted by posting a similar message about the New Testament how you would have felt.
But he didnt, because obviously, he is more civilized and cultured than you are or will ever be.
And no, I am not Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jew.
I dont need labels. If at all I need to choose a label, I'd choose Humanist.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:14 PM
There are at least 1.6 million Christians in Pakistan, agnostic.
Get real. Why can't you post facts and reply to facts? Instead, you enjoy in ifs and maybies.
I just got real, pal.
FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1998
Christians Blast Anti-blasphemy Law in Pakistan
Special to The Christian Science Monitor
When a Roman Catholic bishop killed himself recently to protest Pakistan's use of the death sentence for those found to have insulted Islam, he focused world attention on the country's tough blasphemy laws.
In this largely Muslim country, the law prescribes the death penalty for those charged with insulting Islam or its prophet, Muhammad. Largely ignored when it came into effect 14 years ago, the law has been strictly enforced in the past four years, thanks to the rise of militant Muslim groups.
Bishop John Joseph committed suicide May 6, outside a court in Punjab province, which had sentenced to death a fellow Catholic, Ayub Masih, charged with blasphemy.
Some Christians worry a US measure might provoke Muslim militants.
Almost one week later, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill requiring the president to impose sanctions on countries that deny freedom of worship. The bill is being considered by the Senate. The State Department called on Pakistan to repeal the blasphemy law.
But some leaders from Pakistan's small Christian minority are worried the US measure might provoke Muslim militants into harsher actions. "It's possible that a backlash here would be stronger," says a Christian missionary, who asked not to be named.
Human rights activists say the accusation against Mr. Masih was based on testimonies from complainants rather than evidence collected through independent police investigation.
Pakistan's human rights commission says that several other non-Muslims also have been sentenced under the law amid dubious circumstances. "The provision [for blasphemy] is known to have been widely abused. It has provided a handle to fanatical sentiment and has served as an instrument for mischief and personal malice," a commission report stated.
Pakistan's government defends the law, noting that no one convicted of blasphemy has been put to death. Pakistan's law minister, Khalid Anwar, agrees the law has been abused. "People for personal enmity do try and file false cases," he said.
Critics of the law argue that the social climate is hostile to non-Muslim minorities. Officials, requesting anonymity, said they have taken steps to improve enforcement of the law, asking police to verify evidence thoroughly before charges are made.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:26 PM
These typical cultists have the thin skin of every deranged cultist, who threaten to murder at the mere mention of lies mohamette the pork facker wrote. Islam is a con job, the coran is false, and mohamette (PTUI) was a liar, from page one, to the last verse, it's a lie, and all the mullahs are murderers. And murderers love liars because it does not accuse them of murder, so they can pretend to be clean while they're covered in pig feces and dog slime.
Death to islam...!
The first lie of islam is the same lie all false religions use: "The bible was changed over the years."
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:32 PM
I also have no problem with beast saying whatever he wants to say. That
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:36 PM
The bible is banned in islamic countries. The mere possession of it is a death sentence. You don't recognise the bible anymore than you recognise the prophets. You're a dog. And like dogs, you think mohamette the porker was a prophet, while he's just a liar and a homosexual. And you say like a hypocrit, that it makes no difference wether the bible is changed or not...! Get this in your head; the bible was NOT changed. Moron.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 04:50 PM
Pakistan was part of India once and as the Germanys have united and as the Vietnams have united and as the Koreas are trying to unite, we too shall unite one day. We in India have no quarrel with Pakistanis. We disagree with the Wahhabi corruption of Islam that Pervez Musharraf and his gang of bandicoots are fostering.
Agnostic, you want to help the pakistani people? Then let's eradicate islam from pakistan, and you will have got rid of the pestilence that oppress them. Anything else you want to do is useless waste of time and money.
Do you know that there are more Muslims in India than the whole population of Pakistan? That our Muslims decided to stay back in a secular country instead of immigrating to an Islamic one when our country was so cruelly partitioned in 1947? Pakistan is an artificially created state and will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. There is no Pakistan. What exists is a Punjab, a Sindh, a Baluchistan, a Pakhtoonistan, a NWFP, etc, all artificially held up together by the anti-Indian hatred of the mullahs.
Not only Islam, but all religions must be banished to the dustbin of history.
We have a saying in South India, the fountainhead of rationalism in the subcontinent, that says" If you see a priest and a snake approaching, kill the priest first."
It doesnt matter if it is a padre, or a mullah, or a swami, or a rabbi.
All religions are evil.
Good night. And if there is a god above, may he/she/it forgive you for what you said about the Koran.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:31 PM
So why are all of the Moslem nations against the existence of a Jewish nation?
To be more accurate, why are the Muslims so against the Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, or whatever? Do they think God does not enjoy diversity?
Why do the Muslims want to be the problem and not the solution?
Posted 10 March 2003 - 06:36 PM
This is the truth, and all men must accept it. Though we can't change all of islam in one day, the leaders who understand this must first obey, and agree to stop fighting against the truth, to let it come to the people. Mohamed did read the bible, and brought his interpretation of it to the people, but now the people must receive the true word of God, and leave behind what is false.
Posted 10 March 2003 - 07:12 PM
This is really much more of a political issue than a religious one. When Israel was created as a country, the people already living there were totally displaced. Essentially, there were totally thrown off of their land with no regard by the rest of the world. These people happened to be Islamic, and so the rest of the Islamic nations stick up for their brothers in the faith. If the US had gone into Rome and kicked out the Vatican to give the city to the Muslims, then wouldn't all the Catholics be up in arms? But again, this is really more political.
So why are all of the Moslem nations against the existence of a Jewish nation?
I like this saying. Often times, the priest is far more dangerous than the snake. Wasn't it Marx who said "Religion is the opiate of the the masses"? As much as I dislike it, you have to admit that it is a useful tool for keeping the sheep in line.
" If you see a priest and a snake approaching, kill the priest first."
Posted 11 March 2003 - 12:47 PM
Posted 11 March 2003 - 03:21 PM
Well said. I've always been the wolf. Most people are willingly stupid; they choose to be led around because they're not nearly strong enough to live their own lives. They swallow religion's pills and stand in line for more, content to remain "comfortably numb". However, there are always those among them who can't or won't buy into it. There are the individuals, those who are keen enough to shed the chains of herd mentality and be their own people.
Sheep? Yes. Tigers? No.
That's like praising Zimbabwe for being peaceful because it hasn't conquered Europe yet. You're peaceful because you're weak, not because you choose. Meekness is the result of being too cowardly to stand up for your self; nirvana is the result of inner peace. The sheep simply need a sheapherd...otherwise, they'd be lost, since obviously they can't guide themselves. But, the wolves need no guidance...they can run free.
They are called sheeps because of their peaceful nature. That doesn't mean they're not lions at heart. And that doesn't mean they can be denied jsutice. On the contrary, meekness is the result of inner peace. It's not because people are stupid that they do not rebel against injustice, it's because the Lord has ordered us to submit
Posted 11 March 2003 - 04:45 PM
Posted 11 March 2003 - 05:15 PM
Originally posted by beast
Everyone in his right mind hates violence. That's why the meek shall inherit the earth. When the king rises, the meek will be lions with teeth of iron and they will devour the whole earth. Like a flood the congregation of the righteous will rise suddenly, like an enemy to burn the whole earth with fire and violence. To establish the just law once and for the rest of time.
Sounds something similar to the scorched-earth policy?
Hopefully all the righteous will enter into the ark before it's to late!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users