Quote:

A 24-hour strike organised by Sunni Muslim clerics is taking place across Pakistan to protest against possible changes to blasphemy laws. Rallies were staged in Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta after Friday prayers.

The government has distanced itself from a bill to change the law, which carries a mandatory death sentence for anyone who insults Islam. Rights groups say the law is often used to persecute religious minorities. The legislation returned to the spotlight in November when a Pakistani Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death.

Although no-one convicted under the law has been executed, more than 30 accused have been killed by lynch mobs. All this puts Pakistan's coalition government in an extremely difficult position. If it leaves the laws intact, it risks tarnishing the country's image, especially in the West. It wants to present Pakistan as a modern state which is tolerant and moderate. But if it perseveres with amending the law, the domestic backlash from religious conservatives could be severe.

Friday's strike saw businesses shuttered and transport workers walking out in towns and cities across the country. There was no public transport in the southern city of Karachi, where demonstrators blocked traffic as part of the industrial action. The BBC's Ilyas Khan says bus owners in the Sindh province capital may have feared their vehicles could be torched if put on the road. Quetta, the capital of the southern province of Balochistan, also ground to a halt.

One Sunni cleric in Islamabad warned in his Friday sermon that any change to the blasphemy law would happen "over our dead bodies".
The strike was held to protest against a private member's bill submitted to parliament. It seeks to amend the law by abolishing the death sentence and by strengthening clauses which prevent any chance of a miscarriage of justice.

The bill has been drafted by a member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party and by a former Information Minister, Sherry Rehman. This led religious groups, who are demanding that Ms Rehman quit, to conclude the government was behind it. On Wednesday, Pakistan's religious affairs minister told parliament the bill did not reflect government policy.
"I state with full responsibility that the government has no intention to repeal the blasphemy law," Syed Khurshid Shah said. "If someone has brought in a private bill, it has nothing to do with the government."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12097687

 

The thing is it is not the "terrorists" doing the protests, its the rank and file. Anyone else feel that this is the true threat of Islam? Not terrorists but these people.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Actually the fanatical minority who want to change Pakistan to an Islamic Taliban like state is only about 3 or 4 percent as repeated polls have shown.  However I don't know how many are in favor of these draconian blasphemy laws. I'm guessing it's more like 10 to 20 percent or maybe higher but it said it's Sunni Muslim Clerics who protested.

Anyone who thinks someone should be executed just for SPEECH needs to be executed themselves!!

Are those 3 or 4 percent the ones with the guns?
Did you intend that to be a paradox-like statement?

I think it's good that some people are willing to protest against this barbaric law. It's sad, though, that some people then have to protest against that protest.

I think they should break the law down piece by piece, or they'll risk anarchy or a coup d'etat.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Actually the fanatical minority who want to change Pakistan to an Islamic Taliban like state is only about 3 or 4 percent as repeated polls have shown.  However I don't know how many are in favor of these draconian blasphemy laws. I'm guessing it's more like 10 to 20 percent or maybe higher but it said it's Sunni Muslim Clerics who protested.

Anyone who thinks someone should be executed just for SPEECH needs to be executed themselves!!

Take a look at the video through the link if you want to see the numbers protesting. And remember its in 5 cities not just the one shown.

 The majority of Pakis are generally secular but more devoted to Islam than the average American is to Christianity.

I just read in the newspaper that one Pakistane People Party member got killed. The PPP is against the Sharia law.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

lalib wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 The majority of Pakis are generally secular but more devoted to Islam than the average American is to Christianity.

 

You can switch out Pakistan with Muslims and this statement will hold true. The average 'moderate' Muslim is what we call fundamentalist Christians (think Jesus Camp) in the US. Keep in mind that virtually all Muslims are Quranic literalists (the equivalent of Biblical literalists). The main problem is that they are too religious. As these protests demonstrate, they think blasphemy laws are a good thing.

Are you a Muslim or ex-Muslim? I ask because of your name "lalib". 

ex-muslim, nice job picking up on that. For the record it's my name backwards, lalib = bilal

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

uslim or ex-Muslim? I ask because of your name "lalib". 

Thanks. As you know Jesus was a purely MYTHICAL character.  No eyewitness accounts or even contemporary accounts even though there are TONS of historical writings from that era in the Roman Empire but not a word of any Jesus or ANY bible character existing!

Do you think Mohammed actually existed or not?  I guess the odds are better for him but he wasn't a son of god or anything. He was just  a prophet and there have been hundreds of those throughout history.

It seems her is buried somewhere in some building in Mecca? The question is there really a body in there and HOW do we know it's really Mohammed?

P.S. Sorry for the digression but as long as we're talking Pakis it's not too far of a stretch.

 

Well, there is a similar problem with Muhammad. The earliest documents mentioning him are the Quran (which is claimed by Muslims to be revealed by God and tradition claims it was compiled immediately after his death, though textual evidence shows the earliest Quran to be at least 100 years after Muhammad dies) the next documents to mention Muhammad are his biographies, the first of those was written about 100 years after Muhammad (though this text only survives as an edited document 200 years after Muhammad) the last sources that mention Muhammad are the hadith, which are the definition of hearsay. However, given that we know all of Arabia was politically/religiously united within 100 years of the proposed start of Islam, the most likely answer is that there indeed was a revolutionary figure who stirred the Arabs and changed thier identity forever. Unfortuonately, the textual history of Arabia doesn't really start until after Islam, so we have very little idea of what Arabia was like before Islam, except for what Muslims tell us, and given that they call this the 'Period of Ignorance', it's clearly unbiased.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 

Obviously you meant it's BIASED.  So the same problem exists of having no proof outside Islamic text to show that Mohammed is real correct?  What's this about Mohammed's body buried in some building in Mecca? Is that just some random guy they put in there to make it appear like Mohammed? LOL

 

 

I don't know if it showed up on your end, but I used the smiley face with a wagging tongue ( ), so I was being very sarcastic, hehe. They do claim that Muhammad is buried in Mecca, but as far as I know, it hasn't been dug up. Besides, it's not like we would know whether that body was Muhamamd or not. As I said, I think the most likely explanation for the rise of Islam is that there was indeed a very charismatic figure who roused the Arabs into action. Especially since they dominated Arabia so quickly, it is unlikely that it was a slow hodgepodge coalescence of ideas.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

lalib wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 

Obviously you meant it's BIASED.  So the same problem exists of having no proof outside Islamic text to show that Mohammed is real correct?  What's this about Mohammed's body buried in some building in Mecca? Is that just some random guy they put in there to make it appear like Mohammed? LOL

 

 

I don't know if it showed up on your end, but I used the smiley face with a wagging tongue ( ), so I was being very sarcastic, hehe. They do claim that Muhammad is buried in Mecca, but as far as I know, it hasn't been dug up. Besides, it's not like we would know whether that body was Muhamamd or not. As I said, I think the most likely explanation for the rise of Islam is that there was indeed a very charismatic figure who roused the Arabs into action. Especially since they dominated Arabia so quickly, it is unlikely that it was a slow hodgepodge coalescence of ideas.

But this charismatic figure who roused Arabs into action probably had very little in common with the Mohammed they describe in Islamic texts right? In other words the Islamic texts simply fabricated/exaggerated the truth when the story of Mohammed was written?

 

Other than the miracles ascribed to him (splitting the moon, never smelling bad, etc) he was probably similar to how his followers described him. The hadith describe a charismatic, determined man who was good at cold reading people. He ordered assassinations, ordered wars, ordered treaties, accepted whole tribes entering under his authority, forgave those who submitted to him.  The hadith don't make Islam out to be a religion of peace. Muhammad was a warrior prophet and not passive. By the time he died, he had conquered much of Arabia. For the next 100 years after his death, his followers kept on conquering lands until they reached China and Europe, keep in mind slavery and sex slavery was condoned by the Quran. There was no reason for an Arab male not to submit to Muhammad. You got money, war booty, and sex slaves. Claims that Islam is a religion of peace come only after 9/11. Anyone who opens history book (even one written by Muslims) knows that Islam was spread via conquest.

It is supremely ironic that the hadith don't appear to hide much about Muhammad. They describe a warrior prophet from seventh century arabia who thought camel piss was a good medicine.

The only thing I can do at this point is refer you to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

But if you are really interested in the subject, perhaps you could take a further look at the sources Wikipedia uses. It makes no difference to me whether Muhammad existed or not, his teachings are obviously not divine and nor are they moral. 

 

 

Haha, I recently came across Darkmatter's material. It's quite good. I particularly like this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaK6k4oZ20&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL