Mentally ill Briton accused of claiming to be Prophet Mohammad sentenced to death: Pakistan

[Scott]

Many of the posts are deleted and are never seen by members. Be aware that there are those that feel we are completely overboard in our protection of a religious view that they find reprehensible and we are accused of being too PC.

Members are entitled to their opinion. The language they chose to express that opinion and the context will determine whether a post remains or doesn't remain and whether a warning is issued or not issued.

Please stay on the topic of this thread, which is about an individual accused of a religious crime.

[Steely Dan]

The context in which I considered Pakistan being nuked was somewhat tongue in cheek, but clearly hypothetical, in that it might actually reduce human suffering. On a practical level prevailing winds may take out somewhere useful, if blowing anywhere other than toward Afghanistan..An even better case could be made for nuking North Korea, but I digress.

To return to the nub of the issue, the life of the prophet Mohammad is well documented, without going into details I would speculate that were it possible to travel back in time and swap the original Mohammad with the 2014 version the world would be a better, saner place now, and the original would be shipped off to the Hague quicker than you could say Assad.

Such talk would gt you killed in much of the Islamic world, and I dare say you would get little support for clemency from UK based Muslims; Have any UK based Muslim spokesmen made such an appeal?

Finally insults and appeals for censorship are in effect an attempt to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on everyone, they amount to a global lesse Mus-jesty law and have to be opposed tooth and nail if freedom of speech means anything.

In reference to the Pakistani blasphemy laws, a leading Pakistani human-rights lawyer Asma Jahangir, said they were instituted by Pakistani dictator General Zia ul Haq in the 1980s, "as a pretext for waging war in Afghanistan and adopting an aggressive stance towards India. By advancing a more orthodox version of Islam, he was able to hold on to a repressive regime and quell any opposition".

I am sure you are aware that the application of blasphemy laws is more often than not used as a tool in personal disputes/politics and efforts to revise the laws are mired in political power fights, not upon religious principles. Some Islamic scholars have highlighted that in fact there is no foundation in the Koran or Hadith justifying blasphemy laws.

In my opinion the laws on ‘Free Speech’ were never intended to provide cover for hate speech. Such abuse of Free Speech is a nightmare for governments to be able to censor/prosecute, no matter a persons’ political or religious persuasion. In the small world of TV the rules are fairly clear and are exercised are the discretion of the Mods. I have to admit I sometimes do not understand why some of the OTT posts are not removed.

General Zia ul Haq may have legislated the blasphemy laws, he may even have used them for his own ends, but in the main I believe it was due to pressure from Islamists that brought about the law.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Rawalpindi,-British-citizen-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-30131.html

As the link explains one governor and one government minister have been killed due to their attempts to get the law abolished. Thus far around 1000 people have been charged under the law, half of them being Christians or Ahmadi Muslims, hugely over representing their share of the overall population.

If, as you state 'some' Islamic scholars state there is no foundation in Islamic scripture justifying blasphemy laws, where are they now to explain to the Pakistani government how they have misunderstood their own religion? Perhaps whilst they are at it they should also contact the OIC about dropping their defamation of religions campaign, which amounts to nothing less than attempting to introduce an international blasphemy law.

We are all Mo Asghar.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/05/speak/

Edited January 28, 2014 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

The context in which I considered Pakistan being nuked was somewhat tongue in cheek, but clearly hypothetical, in that it might actually reduce human suffering. On a practical level prevailing winds may take out somewhere useful, if blowing anywhere other than toward Afghanistan..An even better case could be made for nuking North Korea, but I digress.

To return to the nub of the issue, the life of the prophet Mohammad is well documented, without going into details I would speculate that were it possible to travel back in time and swap the original Mohammad with the 2014 version the world would be a better, saner place now, and the original would be shipped off to the Hague quicker than you could say Assad.

Such talk would gt you killed in much of the Islamic world, and I dare say you would get little support for clemency from UK based Muslims; Have any UK based Muslim spokesmen made such an appeal?

Finally insults and appeals for censorship are in effect an attempt to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on everyone, they amount to a global lesse Mus-jesty law and have to be opposed tooth and nail if freedom of speech means anything.

In reference to the Pakistani blasphemy laws, a leading Pakistani human-rights lawyer Asma Jahangir, said they were instituted by Pakistani dictator General Zia ul Haq in the 1980s, "as a pretext for waging war in Afghanistan and adopting an aggressive stance towards India. By advancing a more orthodox version of Islam, he was able to hold on to a repressive regime and quell any opposition".

I am sure you are aware that the application of blasphemy laws is more often than not used as a tool in personal disputes/politics and efforts to revise the laws are mired in political power fights, not upon religious principles. Some Islamic scholars have highlighted that in fact there is no foundation in the Koran or Hadith justifying blasphemy laws.

In my opinion the laws on ‘Free Speech’ were never intended to provide cover for hate speech. Such abuse of Free Speech is a nightmare for governments to be able to censor/prosecute, no matter a persons’ political or religious persuasion. In the small world of TV the rules are fairly clear and are exercised are the discretion of the Mods. I have to admit I sometimes do not understand why some of the OTT posts are not removed.

General Zia ul Haq may have legislated the blasphemy laws, he may even have used them for his own ends, but in the main I believe it was due to pressure from Islamists that brought about the law.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Rawalpindi,-British-citizen-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-30131.html

As the link explains one governor and one government minister have been killed due to their attempts to get the law abolished. Thus far around 1000 people have been charged under the law, half of them being Christians or Ahmadi Muslims, hugely over representing their share of the overall population.

If, as you state 'some' Islamic scholars state there is no foundation in Islamic scripture justifying blasphemy laws, where are they now to explain to the Pakistani government how they have misunderstood their own religion? Perhaps whilst they are at it they should also contact the OIC about dropping their defamation of religions campaign, which amounts to nothing less than attempting to introduce an international blasphemy law.

We are all Mo Asghar.

The Head of the OIC said in 10/2012 that the OIC has ceased the diplomatic push for blasphemy laws after it was rejected by the UN. At the time he accepted the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a non-binding 2011 U.N. General Assembly resolution against religious intolerance provided a sufficient basis for U.N. member states to take legal action.

[howerde]

There has been a lotin the papers here and things are not quite as portrayed, as there seems to be some family members getting their hands on his pharmacy business, it was someone who was being evicted from one of his propertys who made the fist complaint, he also belongs to a minority(ahmadi) sect which are persecuted in Pakistan.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[7by7]

Does claiming to be someone who was arguably mentally ill automatically render the claimant likewise mentally ill? And does sentencing said person to death render those who imposed the sentence also mentally ill?

Whilst I agree that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are outdated and they, and other states with similar laws, should join the rest of the world in the 21st century and allow tolerance and freedom in religion, to say that the founder of Islam was 'arguably mentally ill' is ridiculous; unless you believe the same of all prophets, saints etc.

He claimed to have visions and to have been spoken to by God.

So did, among many others, Abraham and Moses.

Do you consider them to have been 'arguably mentally ill' as well?

Edited January 29, 2014 by 7by7

[Naam]

If Britton has an ounce of care for its citizens which they don't then they have the power to over turn this sentence

And how does that work then?

As far as I know, we gave Pakistan independence in 1947.

brushing up your history knowledge would be an advantage.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[Steely Dan]

Does claiming to be someone who was arguably mentally ill automatically render the claimant likewise mentally ill? And does sentencing said person to death render those who imposed the sentence also mentally ill?

Whilst I agree that Pakistan's blasphemy laws are outdated and they, and other states with similar laws, should join the rest of the world in the 21st century and allow tolerance and freedom in religion, to say that the founder of Islam was 'arguably mentally ill' is ridiculous; unless you believe the same of all prophets, saints etc.

He claimed to have visions and to have been spoken to by God.

So did, among many others, Abraham and Moses.

Do you consider them to have been 'arguably mentally ill' as well?

The irony here is that merely discussing the Prophet Mohammad in anything but the most deferential terms would be considered blasphemous in much of the Islamic world. Indeed one of your moderate Muslims Liberal democrat candidate and member of the Quilliam foundation Maajid Nawaz has received death threats and a 20,000 strong petition for him to step down in light of his tweeting of a satirical Jesus and Mo cartoon. This is the response in the UK, elsewhere embassies might well have been burned down and people killed in riots.

With regards to your question, well seeing visions is not an automatic indicator of insanity, but I think you know this is not what I was driving at. Here is what Wikipedia has to say, I refer to the section titled Psychological and medical condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

With regards to Abraham and Moses, the latter gave orders to slay worshippers of the Golden Calf contrary to the commandments he claimed to have received. You are welcome to argue murder or insanity as you see fit, but when was the last time anyone was sentenced to death for blasphemy for criticizing either Jewish or Christian prophets.

[BigC]

settle down guys

No one said that this person was executed, only that he was sentenced to death

I am sure the British government is just a aware of these news as you all are and is taking steps to mitigate the situation

But be assured that the well being of the commonwealth is much more important than the fate of one idiot.

yes i agree maybe Pakistaan is sending out a message.

Still never liked the country never will. England is pathetic when it comes to protecting its own country it only protects other countries for politicans and corpation's benifts.

Well at least if England does not have the death penalty then we can send people we dont like to Pakistaan to do our dirty work

[BigC]

The context in which I considered Pakistan being nuked was somewhat tongue in cheek, but clearly hypothetical, in that it might actually reduce human suffering. On a practical level prevailing winds may take out somewhere useful, if blowing anywhere other than toward Afghanistan..An even better case could be made for nuking North Korea, but I digress.

To return to the nub of the issue, the life of the prophet Mohammad is well documented, without going into details I would speculate that were it possible to travel back in time and swap the original Mohammad with the 2014 version the world would be a better, saner place now, and the original would be shipped off to the Hague quicker than you could say Assad.

Such talk would gt you killed in much of the Islamic world, and I dare say you would get little support for clemency from UK based Muslims; Have any UK based Muslim spokesmen made such an appeal?

Finally insults and appeals for censorship are in effect an attempt to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on everyone, they amount to a global lesse Mus-jesty law and have to be opposed tooth and nail if freedom of speech means anything.

In reference to the Pakistani blasphemy laws, a leading Pakistani human-rights lawyer Asma Jahangir, said they were instituted by Pakistani dictator General Zia ul Haq in the 1980s, "as a pretext for waging war in Afghanistan and adopting an aggressive stance towards India. By advancing a more orthodox version of Islam, he was able to hold on to a repressive regime and quell any opposition".

I am sure you are aware that the application of blasphemy laws is more often than not used as a tool in personal disputes/politics and efforts to revise the laws are mired in political power fights, not upon religious principles. Some Islamic scholars have highlighted that in fact there is no foundation in the Koran or Hadith justifying blasphemy laws.

In my opinion the laws on ‘Free Speech’ were never intended to provide cover for hate speech. Such abuse of Free Speech is a nightmare for governments to be able to censor/prosecute, no matter a persons’ political or religious persuasion. In the small world of TV the rules are fairly clear and are exercised are the discretion of the Mods. I have to admit I sometimes do not understand why some of the OTT posts are not removed.

General Zia ul Haq may have legislated the blasphemy laws, he may even have used them for his own ends, but in the main I believe it was due to pressure from Islamists that brought about the law.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Rawalpindi,-British-citizen-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-30131.html

As the link explains one governor and one government minister have been killed due to their attempts to get the law abolished. Thus far around 1000 people have been charged under the law, half of them being Christians or Ahmadi Muslims, hugely over representing their share of the overall population.

If, as you state 'some' Islamic scholars state there is no foundation in Islamic scripture justifying blasphemy laws, where are they now to explain to the Pakistani government how they have misunderstood their own religion? Perhaps whilst they are at it they should also contact the OIC about dropping their defamation of religions campaign, which amounts to nothing less than attempting to introduce an international blasphemy law.

We are all Mo Asghar.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/05/speak/

with laws like that and Iligal wars being fought in Iraq and Aphganistaan we might as well move over the border ans Pakistaan is now a terrorist ground.

If any muslims are going to plan another attack then i guarnetee that is shall come from Pakistaan considering thats where Osama was hiding quite peacefully.

There again whats in it for the west ???? Thats where the real question is.

I am sure if they saved a girl witha gun shot wound on a bus then they can save him but this is where it gets complicated. Do we really want to take anpther mentally ill man who claims to be god into our mentel health system, pay for him, give him benfits then he shall say that he hates England because it is un Islamic

Feed him to his own people if he believes he is god then death penality should not be a problem for him. Maybe he shall come back on easter sunday unless the other one beats him too it.

[Somtamnication]

Once again it shows the intolerance of Islam.

[simple1]

Once again it shows the intolerance of Islam.

Once again, punishment for blasphemy is not in the Koran, but in Sharia Law (refer URL below). Within Pakistan it has been stated many times the Blasphemy Laws are utilised for the oppression of minorities and in many cases manipulated for personal disputes. The judgements are issued in the Lower Courts and there has been a push by some potiticians to take away the power of the Lower Courts in this matter or to rescind the Blasphemy Laws.

Pakistani politicians/leaders have a very fine line to tread as attempts to change the law often esculates violence by the extremists with hundreds of deaths, assasination, plus many are reliant on the votes of Muslim conservatives/extremists to stay in power. All in all a very challenging, corrupt and dangerous environment for the Islamic moderates.

http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/

Edited January 30, 2014 by simple1

[sms747]

Once again it shows the intolerance of Islam.

Once again, punishment for blasphemy is not in the Koran,

That's what you might claim but many muslims think this verse includes blasphemy:

Regarding the punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Hence, it is only Islam that gives 3 different options for blashphmy and apostacy punishment in addition to death.

lovely, three choices of punishment, how forgiving and compassionate is that! Of course they never seem to go for the cutting off or exile, it's always kill kill kill.

Edited January 30, 2014 by sms747

[JeffreyWitty]

Actually he can't be the Prophet Mohammed because I am.

Nonsense! You can't be because my neighbor's dog told me she was!

[simple1]

Once again it shows the intolerance of Islam.

Once again, punishment for blasphemy is not in the Koran,

That's what you might claim but many muslims think this verse includes blasphemy:

Regarding the punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Hence, it is only Islam that gives 3 different options for blashphmy and apostacy punishment in addition to death.

lovely, three choices of punishment, how forgiving and compassionate is that! Of course they never seem to go for the cutting off or exile, it's always kill kill kill.

So you're an expert on interpreting the above quote from the Koran in the context of blasphemy? There are many Islamic scholars /Muslims who counter your ascertion, I provided a URL link above as an example, two ohers below, there are many other examples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/need-to-oppose-blasphemy-_b_836290.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/20/islam-ghamidi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws

[Steely Dan]

Simple1 wrote

The Head of the OIC said in 10/2012 that the OIC has ceased the diplomatic push for blasphemy laws after it was rejected by the UN. At the time he accepted the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a non-binding 2011 U.N. General Assembly resolution against religious intolerance provided a sufficient basis for U.N. member states to take legal action.

The OIC did not stop campaigning to silence free speech, they simply changed tack. Incidentally President Zia's legislation was not some random isolated event, but part of a trend by Islamists in asserting their beliefs, which has been ongoing since the fall of the Shah of Iran and oceans of oil money bolstering the Wahhabis.

(CNSNews.com) – The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/religious-tolerance-resolution-backed-obama-administration-aligns-islamic-bloc-s#sthash.NkRuwKtl.dpuf

Same aims, leveraged by thinly veiled threats of terrorist activity.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Steely Dan

[Mosha]

If Britton has an ounce of care for its citizens which they don't then they have the power to over turn this sentence

And how does that work then?

As far as I know, we gave Pakistan independence in 1947.

Yep got the British out, then followed them all the way to Blighty.

[BigC]

If Britton has an ounce of care for its citizens which they don't then they have the power to over turn this sentence

And how does that work then?

As far as I know, we gave Pakistan independence in 1947.

Yep got the British out, then followed them all the way to Blighty.

Well looks like he came to England

Abused our system then went back to paulista he should stay there and have death

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[simple1]

Simple1 wrote

The Head of the OIC said in 10/2012 that the OIC has ceased the diplomatic push for blasphemy laws after it was rejected by the UN. At the time he accepted the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a non-binding 2011 U.N. General Assembly resolution against religious intolerance provided a sufficient basis for U.N. member states to take legal action.

The OIC did not stop campaigning to silence free speech, they simply changed tack. Incidentally President Zia's legislation was not some random isolated event, but part of a trend by Islamists in asserting their beliefs, which has been ongoing since the fall of the Shah of Iran and oceans of oil money bolstering the Wahhabis.

(CNSNews.com) – The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/religious-tolerance-resolution-backed-obama-administration-aligns-islamic-bloc-s#sthash.NkRuwKtl.dpuf

Same aims, leveraged by thinly veiled threats of terrorist activity.

You can put your spin, but I read the comment by OIC as a warning of possible consequences as a result of the decisions made, not that OIC is threathening acts of terrorism. To my knowlege OIC has little direct influence on radical Islam, but I understand they do endeavour to assist international efforts for putting in-place negotiated settlements/legislation/policies to combat Islamic terrorism.

[sms747]

Once again it shows the intolerance of Islam.

Once again, punishment for blasphemy is not in the Koran,

That's what you might claim but many muslims think this verse includes blasphemy:

Regarding the punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Hence, it is only Islam that gives 3 different options for blashphmy and apostacy punishment in addition to death.

lovely, three choices of punishment, how forgiving and compassionate is that! Of course they never seem to go for the cutting off or exile, it's always kill kill kill.

So you're an expert on interpreting the above quote from the Koran in the context of blasphemy? There are many Islamic scholars /Muslims who counter your ascertion, I provided a URL link above as an example, two ohers below, there are many other examples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/need-to-oppose-blasphemy-_b_836290.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/20/islam-ghamidi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws

what you or I , or the more moderate imams might say (in public) is not the issue. Those courts in Pakistan interpreting Islamic belief are the issue and it's a medieval one and IMO a correct interpretation of their faith, they are just being 'good' Muslims as they understand it.

The Huffington post and the Guardian are just western liberal rags that pander to islamic barbarity like this and try to say -ooh this is nothing to do with islam, it has everything to do with islam, so get used to it.

Edited January 30, 2014 by sms747

[simple1]

Once again, punishment for blasphemy is not in the Koran,

That's what you might claim but many muslims think this verse includes blasphemy:

Regarding the punishment for blasphemy in Islam, it is mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Hence, it is only Islam that gives 3 different options for blashphmy and apostacy punishment in addition to death.

lovely, three choices of punishment, how forgiving and compassionate is that! Of course they never seem to go for the cutting off or exile, it's always kill kill kill.

So you're an expert on interpreting the above quote from the Koran in the context of blasphemy? There are many Islamic scholars /Muslims who counter your ascertion, I provided a URL link above as an example, two ohers below, there are many other examples.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salam-al-marayati/need-to-oppose-blasphemy-_b_836290.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/20/islam-ghamidi-pakistan-blasphemy-laws

what you or I , or the more moderate imams might say (in public) is not the issue. Those courts in Pakistan interpreting Islamic belief are the issue and it's a medieval one and IMO a correct interpretation of their faith, they are just being 'good' Muslims as they understand it.

The Huffington post and the Guardian are just western liberal rags that pander to islamic barbarity like this and try to say -ooh this is nothing to do with islam, it has everything to do with islam, so get used to it.

Info was requested to provide some info on who is claiming the the blasphemy laws are not supported within the Koran. Examples given, then instantly dismissed. As well you have completely ignored the political complexities in Pakistan in regard to the Lower Court rulings, that were briefly outlined to provide some context

You obviously did not read the content in the example articles nor the first URL provided. They cover the voices and efforts of the Islamic moderates who oppose the blasphemy laws on ethical and religious grounds and the subsequent suppression/killings of moderates.

Edited January 30, 2014 by simple1

[jackr]

He may be 'British', but he's not a Briton.

[harryfrompattaya]

And 10 years later the find out it was true......Same case as Jesus.....

What was left of the story was the mental ill Briton was a Christain

[7by7]

He may be 'British', but he's not a Briton.

Only those who have nothing but Celtic genes can make any claim to being a Briton.

My surname suggests I have Anglo Saxon ancestry; so I'm definitely not a Briton; I am British, though.

[Thongkorn]

he is not the Masai Hes a very naughty boy

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[mmh8]

No I think he was claiming to be Moham Mad the Mad donkey, very different kettle of bacon, ops sorry "fish" They are all mad as hatters anyway, believing in a non existent being that no one has ever proven exists and following the teachings of a crazy guy who supposedly lived in a small tribe in the middle of a desert a long time ago who happen to hate everything and everyone who was different to him including women... and by the way very misguidedly hated pork.

Has anyone ever proven he did'nt exist. Its all very well being atheist, but that is no reason to spout creationism / anticreationism theory. People beleived in the higgs boson for years

[folium]

He may be 'British', but he's not a Briton.

So who does qualify?

Who are you to define someone's nationality?

[folium]

he is not the Masai Hes a very naughty boy

Masai? What are Kenyans doing in Pakistan?