Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'

[seagypsy]

The Quran provides cover for those who insist the Hadith and Sharia are proper and just implementation of the Quran in public life.

Can you provide quotes from the Qur'an to back up this claim? This is all I ask. Blame the hadith and sharia all you want. But do not credit to the Qur'an what isn't in the Qur'an. Mohammed was a human being capable of making mistakes. The Qur'an actually chastised Muhammed for slaughtering people. Yes, Mohammed technically authored, by proxy, the Qur'an, but in doing so he admits freely that his actions were bad. If modern people want to cherry pick it and ignore these aspects then the blame is on the ones doing the cherry picking, not the Qur'an.

I will concede that modern Islam is defined by most people by far more than the Qur'an but it is defined so in error. I don't know if the people who killed the man were true Muslims or not. But they were true HUMANS.

Also the one true scottsman thing does not apply. You are defining a religion based on popular acceptance of its definition. The fact that a lot of people agree that something is true does not make it true. A lot of people believe and accept that a god exists, this does not make it true. A lot of people used to believe and accept as truth that the earth is flat, that is not true either.

You are simply making an argumentum ad populum in how you define Islam. A lot of people believe that hadith and sharia are valid aspects of Islam, but they are not according to the Qur'an which is the defining authority on what Islam is. Not popular opinion.

 

[spidergoat]

Can you provide quotes from the Qur'an to back up this claim?

Because the Hadith, which Muslims to my knowledge consider as valid as the Quran, is based on interpretations of the Quran, we can say that the Quran is what provides them with their perceived legitimacy.

 

[seagypsy]

Because the Hadith, which Muslims to my knowledge consider as valid as the Quran, is based on interpretations of the Quran, we can say that the Quran is what provides them with their perceived legitimacy.

Hadith is not based on interpretations of the Qur'an at all. Hadith was written 200 years after the death of Muhammed. They are a compilation of alleged eyewitness accounts of Muhammed's words and acts. 200 years after his death. That means they are word of mouth stories passed down through generations. The only criteria they use to determine is a hadith is "authentic" is if they hear the same story from several sources. Well if a story is passed down through generations by word of mouth, it is likely that many people will repeat them.

You could determine by their criteria for authenticity, that alien abduction is real because so many people have come forward telling almost identical stories.. it MUST be true. The internet is a perfect example of how people will repeat stories that sound good without verifying the story. The Qur'an states that repeating details of an occurrence that you did not personally witness is the same as telling a lie. So by the Qur'anic standards the hadith and the promotion of hadith is lying.

Sharia law is legal compulsion of the faith. The Qur'an is very clear that religion is not to be compulsory. So see.... human willingness to accept things out of ignorance is the fault of the human not the invention.

To say that hadith and sharia are part of islam because muslims accept it to be so is the same as saying that the USA is founded on christianity and intended to be a Christian country because a lot of Americans say so. Even though the constitution does not say that at all. There is even evidence that many of the forefathers were not christian.

The thing is, religion does not have as much power as some people like to think it does. If Islam promotes the killing of infidels and Islam controls the mind of the Muslim, then why are Muslims in the USA not participating in killing sprees. They see people disrespect Islam daily, sometimes violently. But they do not light the transgressors on fire, do they. Because THEY choose whether or not to behave in such a way.

Religion does not control the human mind; the human mind controls religion.

 

[spidergoat]

"Honor killing" under growing scrutiny in the U.S.

 

[seagypsy]

"Honor killing" under growing scrutiny in the U.S.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this. Honor killing is not something that is in the Qur'an. If it is, and I am in error, please provide a quote.

The religion you follow is a choice. How you interpret your religion is a choice. Honor killing is a choice. The people who commit honor killings do so because it is in their nature to do so. There are honor killings that have nothing to do with religion. Greed and pride are the motivators, religion is just used as one of many possibly justifications for the act.

They are called "honor killings" because their honor was offended, not their religion. Honor killings happen in non muslim countries as well.

 

[spidergoat]

It is Islamic though.

There is no choice in most Islamic countries about what to believe. To choose to believe something else must be punished by death. The reasons given in this case were specifically Islamic. Few people are of the nature to kill their offspring for no good reason.

 

[spidergoat]

I'll just put this here for reference while you explain how Islam is a religion of peace:


“Prophet, make war on the
unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall
be their home: an evil fate” (Sura 9:73).

“The true believers fight for
the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against
the friends of Satan” (Sura 4:76).

Those that stayed at home were glad that they were left behind by God’s
apostle [Muhammad], for they had no wish to fight for the cause of God
with their wealth and with their persons. They said to each other: “Do
not go to war, the heat is fierce.” Say to them: “More fierce is the heat of
Hell-fire!” Would that they understood! (Sura 9:81)

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads
and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. (Sura 47:4)

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack
them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find
them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry
is worse than carnage. (Sura 2:190–191).

“Fight against such of those
to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last
Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and
do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and
are utterly subdued” (Sura 9:29)

“Muhammad is God’s Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful
to one another” (Sura 48:29)

 

[seagypsy]

"Honor killing" under growing scrutiny in the U.S.

“Prophet, make war on the
unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall
be their home: an evil fate” (Sura 9:73).

Which translation are you using? When I look it up I get

[9:73] O you prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern in dealing with them. Their destiny is Hell; what a miserable abode!

“The true believers fight for
the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against
the friends of Satan” (Sura 4:76).

I don't see any instruction to murder infidels here. I only see a biased opinion of their characters expressed. No more hostile than the biased opinion of Muslims expressed by some on this board.

Those that stayed at home were glad that they were left behind by God’s
apostle [Muhammad], for they had no wish to fight for the cause of God
with their wealth and with their persons. They said to each other: “Do
not go to war, the heat is fierce.” Say to them: “More fierce is the heat of
Hell-fire!” Would that they understood! (Sura 9:81)

Again, I don't see any commands to kill infidels.

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads
and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. (Sura 47:4)

"in the battlefield" suggests conditions for killing the infidel. Meaning that only on the battlefield. If you are in the battlefield you are in a war zone. So if you are in a battlezone and your enemy is there battling you, it is likely you will try to kill them, or be killed trying. So I don't see how this is a problem. It says to bind captives, suggesting that you do not HAVE t o kill them. You can take them prisoner. There are other passages that tell people to be peaceful with their enemy if their enemy lays down their weapon and stops fighting with them. Seems reasonable to me.

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. (Sura 2:190–191).

I bolded the conditions for fighting clearly stated. This passage promotes self defense, not savagely attacking people just because they are unbelievers.

“Fight against such of those
to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last
Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and
do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and
are utterly subdued” (Sura 9:29)

When I look this verse up I find a different passage.

[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

one word variances can really change the meaning of a passage. The quote you offered said fight, the one I quoted says fight back. I don't know which is the more accurate translation.

“Muhammad is God’s Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful
to one another” (Sura 48:29)

This again does not give any commandment to murder nonbelievers.

Also, when quoting a source, be sure that you present the quote in the context of which it was written. Anyone of us could be made out to be a monster based on our own words, if they are quoted out of context.

 

[seagypsy]

It is Islamic though.

There is no choice in most Islamic countries about what to believe. To choose to believe something else must be punished by death. The reasons given in this case were specifically Islamic. Few people are of the nature to kill their offspring for no good reason.

They were not specifically Islamic. Can you honestly not think of any other cultures that holds honor in high regard, absent of Islam? China comes to mind, Japan, and India. Ever heard of a "shotgun wedding"? When pappy catches wind that his daughter is knocked up and hunts down the varmint that knocked her up and demands that he marry her or be shot. Because a good pappy defends his daughter's honor, don't he. You don't hear about it often but it still happens completely absent of Islam. Does Christianity condone it? Nope, but Christians do it.

Honor, pride, ego.... its a helluva drug.

I'll just put this here for reference while you explain how Islam is a religion of peace:

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never claimed Islam or any religion is a religion of peace. I have simply asserted that it does not condone the behavior mentioned in the OP.

 

[spidergoat]

It's all violent rhetoric against unbelievers and I call it dangerous. And what constitutes an attack? In their minds, it could be as simple as any western imposition of non-Islamic principles like humans rights, women's rights, the rights of non-believers, broadcasting a woman with her hair showing, discussing other religions in a positive light, these could be interpreted as an attack. While other passages confirm that non-belief is worse than thievery or other transgressions. Or it could just be a secular attack (in Western minds) against the Taliban.

This again does not give any commandment to murder nonbelievers.

It does justify it, which is why we see all those murders of unbelievers by Muslims.

 

[spidergoat]

They were not specifically Islamic. Can you honestly not think of any other cultures that holds honor in high regard, absent of Islam? China comes to mind, Japan, and India. Ever heard of a "shotgun wedding"? When pappy catches wind that his daughter is knocked up and hunts down the varmint that knocked her up and demands that he marry her or be shot. Because a good pappy defends his daughter's honor, don't he. You don't hear about it often but it still happens completely absent of Islam. Does Christianity condone it? Nope, but Christians do it.

Honor, pride, ego.... its a helluva drug.

I would say Christianity does condone it in a sense, because it treats women like property, not like people who can make their own decisions. It's not that there couldn't be secular reasons for murdering your child, that does happen. But this happens far more frequently among Muslims, because that's the religion. It teaches that moral righteousness is more important than life itself.

 

[seagypsy]

It's all violent rhetoric against unbelievers and I call it dangerous. And what constitutes an attack? In their minds, it could be as simple as any western imposition of non-Islamic principles like humans rights, women's rights, the rights of non-believers, broadcasting a woman with her hair showing, discussing other religions in a positive light, these could be interpreted as an attack. While other passages confirm that non-belief is worse than thievery or other transgressions. Or it could just be a secular attack (in Western minds) against the Taliban.


It does justify it, which is why we see all those murders of unbelievers by Muslims.

If I say Republicans or Democrats are horrible people and say that they don't care about any of us , is that justification for killing them? Should I be held responsible for their murder if someone used my words to justify their act?

 

[spidergoat]

The Quran doesn't just say that infidels are horrible people, it says to fight them. So yes, if you talked about politicians the same way the Quran talks about infidels, you would get a visit by the Secret Service.

 

[seagypsy]

It teaches that moral righteousness is more important than life itself.

IMO, moral righteousness is more important than life itself. But how I define morality is not the same as how others define morality. That was the original question put out there. You are absolutely right, they see their faith as more important that life. We, as Americans, see freedom as more important than life. Though there are many who would prefer to give in and conform than to die. It simply depends on what you fear most. Death or oppression.

How does that famous quote go? "Give me liberty or give me death!"

I don't agree with how they prioritize what is moral and what isn't. but the priorities are set by the human mind, the religion is a reflection of what they hold dear. it is not a cause of it. After all, people do change faiths, and there are christian churches there. It is not ILLEGAL to be christian in Pakistan. Christians are discriminated against there sure. But they are not generally rounded up and slaughtered as you seem to be suggesting that Islam commands. Muslims are discriminated against here, even though the law forbids it, technically. Common observation, through the clouded blurry view of popular media, tells us that we should dislike and distrust them. Their media tells them the same thing about us. If Muslims existed when the bible stories were being passed down there would likely be antimuslim remarks in it. Just as there are justifications for hating Jews in the bible, even if that was not the intent of the authors. The Jewish texts only bash pagans because there were no Christians or Muslims in existence yet.

It is human nature to justify hatred of something that is perceived as a threat, whether the threat is real or not. If a rational reason cannot be found then an irrational reason is found or lies are told. Religion provides an inarguable source of justification, a supernatural being that can destroy you if you disagree.

 

[seagypsy]

The Quran doesn't just say that infidels are horrible people, it says to fight them. So yes, if you talked about politicians the same way the Quran talks about infidels, you would get a visit by the Secret Service.

Political activists cry out to "fight the establishment" all the time. They may get investigated but unless they are actually committing some act of violence or planning to then nothing will happen to them.

Right now the lgbt community is FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT for their right to get married. But I haven't heard any stories of Gay activists violently attacking any politicians. Fighting does not always mean violence.

The violent Muslims you read about enthusiastically use such passages to justify themselves. But the majority of Muslims I know do not interpret the passages as commands for violence.

We as humans interpret our reality in accordance with our own nature. When someone has an experience they are unable to reconcile with their own nature there is usually a psychological melt down. PTSD is a common result of normally peaceful people being forced to do things against their nature. They cannot reconcile it so they crack.

Religion often helps them with the reconciliation process. it offers them shelter from their own acts. Unfortunately, it can be taken too far. and often is. But religion is a tool invented by the human mind. It is neither good nor bad. Responsibility is an attribute of conscious thought. Blame is something to project on something with conscious intent.

If a building collapses and kills the people in it, is it the building's fault? Do we blame the building? No we blame the people who designed it or the people who built it if they didn't follow the designs properly. Or we blame the people who were in charge of maintenance. We don't blame the building itself though.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Religion does not control the human mind; the human mind controls religion.

I think it tends to be a vicious circle. Once you get clerics, principally Iranians, hellbent on murder and mayhem in the name of Mohammad, that circle becomes a ball, and once it starts rolling...well, ask anyone who was there when Khomeini returned from France.

You're right that there are different brands, and the Iranian version except perhaps for Al Qaeda is probably the worst. And it's true that shariah law is not universally implemented and enforced from country to country.

But I also see in what spidergoat is saying how the verses incite hatred. By marginalizing infidels and regarding them as enemies, esp. equating them with Satan, the effect on the (shall we say) weaker minds has to be quite severe. Presumably this is what incites the mobs to show up for public stonings, to satiate themselves, as mere venting of the anger pent up by the language of the verses or at least as a catalyst to other personality issues they probably suffer. How many times, for example, would a wife, whose husband slept with another woman, perhaps think of stoning her everytime she read some of these passages? Then, as soon as someone is up for stoning, that person can go satiate her blood lust.

On a smaller scale you see Islamic practices conferring all kinds of trouble onto women and children by its intrusion into personal lives that seems Byzantine by most other standards. This by itself is what has probably always set them apart from Westerners culturally, at least once we advanced beyond that practice ourselves.

The main players on the stage - Iran and Afghanistan - have replaced the focus previously held by Libya, through hostilities, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as allies. And of course Syria is in a class of its own making.

Obviously Islam is a global religion. But ask any person in the street in any of the above countries what Islam teaches them to do with a Jew, or an adulterer, or a thief and the vast majority will offer some kind of gory punishment.

Even worse, you will find this among wealthier and better educated citizens, the ones who ought to know better, at least as far as being able to read the verses as rhetoric.

While it's true that among educated Muslims, your analysis probably largely applies, I don't think it works for the undereducated ones at all. And it doesn't explain why there, as here (i.e. among Christians), people who should know better are acting like vindictive robots programmed by the repetitive recitation of these kinds of verses.

 

[spidergoat]

I do blame the Bible too, for causing anti-semitism. But that's another subject.

Religion is indeed a product of human nature, but that does not make acts of religiosity entirely a matter of personal responsibility. When a religion creates a totalitarian system like Islam, there is little room for personal judgements. Christians are treated badly in Muslim countries (as are women and homosexuals), and Islam is directly to blame. On that subject, may I point out one example:

Pakistan minister Shahbaz Bhatti shot dead in Islamabad
Shahbaz Bhatti – a Christian critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws – killed by assassins

 

[spidergoat]

Political activists cry out to "fight the establishment" all the time. They may get investigated but unless they are actually committing some act of violence or planning to then nothing will happen to them.

Right now the lgbt community is FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT for their right to get married. But I haven't heard any stories of Gay activists violently attacking any politicians. Fighting does not always mean violence.

The violent Muslims you read about enthusiastically use such passages to justify themselves. But the majority of Muslims I know do not interpret the passages as commands for violence.
....

Few people in the USA call for actual violence against political enemies, but Islam does. You are being highly disingenuous here by arguing semantics. There is no non-violent way to cut someone's head off. Yes, these things are open to interpretation, but it would also not be correct to say that Islam forbids any form of religious violence.

The violent Muslims you read about enthusiastically use such passages to justify themselves.

Then you admit the basic premise of my argument. You might consider that it wasn't violent Muslims who "use" these passages, but rather sincere Muslims who don't want to be violent but who feel compelled to do so by their religion.

But the majority of Muslims I know do not interpret the passages as commands for violence.

Perhaps they are hypocrites.

 

[seagypsy]

There is no non-violent way to cut someone's head off. Yes, these things are open to interpretation, but it would also not be correct to say that Islam forbids any form of religious violence.

Let's keep the cutting off of heads in context. That instruction was given in regards to being on the battlefield. Disingenuous indeed. It does not say to randomly run around cutting off heads of unbelievers who are minding their own business.

And I never said that Islam forbids any form of religious violence. I am asking you again to stop putting words in my mouth.

Then you admit the basic premise of my argument.

No, I don't, Your premise is that Islam is to blame, I ,knowing what Islam is and having practiced it know that the majority of Muslims violate Islam regularly. And I hold the people responsible for their acts, not the religion. After all who do we put in jail for the crime? The people who commit the act, or the book that they use to justify their act?

You might consider that it wasn't violent Muslims who "use" these passages, but rather sincere Muslims who don't want to be violent but who feel compelled to do so by their religion.


Perhaps they are hypocrites.

BINGO! They are hypocrites. A sincere Muslim, IMO, is one that reads the Qur'an and follows it in its entirety,without cherry picking and without following Hadith or paying attention to Shariah.

If human nature is not to blame and religion is, then who is to blame when an atheist commits some cruel atrocity?

Perhaps referring to them as human beings offends some because they are also human beings. Or referring to the offenders as humans somehow takes away your perceived right to hate them or elevate yourself over them. Rest assured, anyone's capability to be reduced to their level does not mean that you have no right to look down on them for what they did. Afterall, it is human nature to judge and rightfully so. If we don't judge, we are more likely to become what we hate.

Maybe it is fear of being equals to those who do these things that prevents us from admitting that it is human nature that allows us to be horrible monsters under the right circumstances.

 

[spidergoat]

If human nature is not to blame and religion is, then who is to blame when an atheist commits some cruel atrocity?

The person, since atheism isn't a belief system. Islam is, and it suggests the use of violence with violent rhetoric. The "battlefield" could be the battlefield of the mind, just like Jihad can be a struggle of the mind or a literal one. Note that the battlefield could be anywhere, and could come about through such immaterial threats as western culture.

I'm aware that Muslims are huge hypocrites, but on some points Muslims aren't, and these are the points that cause them (and us) so much harm. Yes, there is a degree of personal responsibility, but when you are immersed in a totalitarian religious culture, some acts are inevitable due to that culture.

A sincere Muslim, IMO, is one that reads the Qur'an and follows it in its entirety,without cherry picking and without following Hadith or paying attention to Shariah.

Great, so we are arguing about two different things. The Muslim who doesn't follow Hadith or Sharia is rare. I bet you live in a western country, and so are influenced by the secular nature of western society, where you are allowed to make up your own mind.

Maybe it is fear of being equals to those who do these things that prevents us from admitting that it is human nature that allows us to be horrible monsters under the right circumstances.

Of course we can all be monsters given the right conditions. But all too often, the only condition that's required is the domination of Islam on the human landscape.