I just dont know what bush is doing he is a total puppet.. without a single policy of his own read this..
President Bush no longer seems able to restrain anti-Islamic rhetoric
By Deborah Caldwell
In the last six weeks, a major Protestant leader has described the Prophet Muhammad as “demon-possessed pedophile;” a well-known conservative columnist suggested that Muslims get “some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels;” the head of a conservative activist group suggested American Muslims should leave the country; and evangelist Franklin Graham described Islam as inherently violent.
Meanwhile, the University of North Carolina is being sued by the Family Policy Network, a conservative group, for asking incoming freshmen to read a book called “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations, ” an assignment Fox News Network’s Bill O’Reilly compared to teaching Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” in 1941. On Wednesday, a North Carolina state legislator told a local radio station his view: “I don’t want the students in the university system required to study this evil.”
Islam-bashing, it appears, is suddenly not just acceptable, but almost fashionable among conservatives. This isn’t a matter of commentators criticizing Muslim extremists. These are remarks that attack Islam, Muslims, the Qur’an, and the Prophet Muhammad as pervasively and inherently bad.
President Bush’s repeated attempts since Sept. 11 to describe Islam as a “religion of peace” initially helped quell anti-Muslim rhetoric. But now, conservatives seem to be increasingly ignoring Bush’s approach. “The White House has lost control of the issue,” says John Green, an expert on religion and politics at University of Akron. “Islam bashing has become more public, and it seems to be more accepted.”
And there is a limit, Green notes, to how vehemently Bush is likely to disagree with these conservatives and Christians, since they make up his political base.
The latest round began in June, when the Rev. Jerry Vines, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention–the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, with 15 million members–described Islam’s founder as a “demon-possessed pedophile.” Vines, pastor of the 25,000-member First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla., added that “Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah’s not going to turn you into a terrorist that’ll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people.” Days later, the SBC’s current president, the Rev. Jack Graham, pastor of the 20,000-member Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, agreed with Vines.
Ari Fleischer, the President’s spokesman, was compelled to differ with the SBC leaders, even though in remarks to the convention a day after Vines’ comment, Bush praised Baptists for being “among the earliest champions of religious tolerance.” Of the Muhammad comment, Fleischer said: “It’s something that the president definitely disagrees with. Islam is a religion of peace, that’s what the president believes.”
A week after Fleischer’s remarks, the hugely popular televangelist Benny Hinn said during an appearance at a Dallas arena: “This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It’s a war between God and the devil.”
Evangelical Christians have always believed that Islam is a wrong religion, and refuse to accept Allah as the same as the Christian God. Conservative Christians actively proselytize among Muslims in this country and abroad. But lately, many Christian commentators are pushing these views in broader, secular formats.
Shortly after the attacks, Franklin Graham was forced to apologize for describing Islam as a “wicked, violent religion.” But in his new book, “The Name,” released Monday, he writes: “Islam–unlike Christianity–has among its basic teachings a deep intolerance for those who follow other faiths.” On Fox News Network’s “Hannity & Colmes” program this week, Graham said: “I think it’s [terrorism] more mainstream. And it’s not just a handful of extremists. If you buy the Qur’an, read it for yourself, and it’s in there. The violence that it preaches is there.”
Hannity responded: “But this then raises a question. If this is not, Reverend, the extremist fanatical interpretation of the Quran, then we do have a big problem.” Graham replied: “Big problem.” This week, in an interview with Beliefnet he reiterated his opinion, saying, “I believe the Qur’an teaches violence, not peace.”
At the Christian Booksellers’ Association meeting in Anaheim last month, retailers sold an array of books and tapes describing Islam as a violent religion–and many of these books will be marketed not just in Christian bookstores, but also in malls nationwide. For instance, Hal Lindsey, author of the 1970s best-seller, “The Late Great Planet Earth,” has come out with a new book called “The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad.” Titles by other authors include “Religion of Peace, or Refuge of Terror,” “War on Terror: Unfolding Bible Prophecy,” and “Islam and Terrorism.” Among the tapes available was “Terrorism: The New War on Freedom.”
But it’s not just Christians. Soon after Vines’ comments, a new cascade of public anti-Muslim comments poured forth.
In a late June interview with NBC’s Katie Couric, columnist Ann Coulter said of Muslims: “I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels.” That comment followed Coulter’s comments about Muslims last September: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”
Last month, William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation suggested that “Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war,” and that American Muslims “should be encouraged to leave. They are a fifth column in this country.”
Also in July, a Secret Service agent admitted scrawling “Islam is Evil” and “Christ is King” on a Muslim prayer calendar while searching the Michigan home of a man charged with smuggling bogus checks into the United States. The agent was put on leave pending the investigation, and officials said he could be fired and face criminal charges. Around the same time, Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission suggested that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil could stir public support for ethnicity-based internments as during World War II. “If there’s another terrorist attack and if it’s from a certain ethnic community . . . that the terrorists are from, you can forget about civil rights.”
Says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a lobbying group: “It is the fad now to bash Islam and Muslims.”
As these events unfolded, representatives from the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council wrote a letter to the President, begging for a meeting with the Administration. AMPCC, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, is comprised of representatives of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American Muslim Council, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the American Muslim Alliance. Last week, the President’s scheduler responded–Bush said he was too busy to meet, according to Al-Marayati.
“Either there’s negligence or deliberate exclusion,” says Al-Marayati, a Democratic insider and moderate Muslim. “There needs to be unequivocal denunciation of these statements. The President needs to make a decision to clear himself of this kind of vitriol, or basically say he agrees, because I don’t think there’s any room for having it two ways on this issue.”
Of course, whenever an Administration loses control of an issue, it’s not good news for a President. But usually, “losing control of an issue” means an Administration is losing traction as a President moves ahead with policies, or has lost control of a legislative agenda.
The problem for this Administration is that Islam is a much bigger issue. “It is really a different thing because the President can’t control the agenda the same way,” Green says. “What the President wanted to do after Sept. 11 was persuade Americans, particularly conservatives, to behave themselves and be civil and restrained about Islam because our domestic and foreign policy is very delicate right now. Here we are making war on Afghanistan and talking about making war on Iraq, so it’s important to make a distinction between terrorists who happen to be Muslims, and Islam,” Green says. “Having a positive rhetoric on Islam is pretty important.”
American Muslims say they’re feeling the change in Americans’ attitude toward their faith in the last year. After Sept. 11, most Americans swallowed hard and–with President Bush leading the way–decided that anti-Muslim bigotry was wrong. During the fall, he repeatedly called Islam a “peaceful religion,” hosted a Ramadan dinner at the White House, and described the Muslim scripture as the “holy” Qur’an.
“That helped to tone down a lot of the animosity,” says Hodan Hassan, communications coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington lobbying group. “But now, when you have the ratcheting-up of anti-Islam rhetoric and a continuing state of alert and continual warnings from the FBI about Muslim terrorists–that combination is worrying for us. When you dehumanize a whole sector of society, it’s a lot easier to lash out.”
Until recently, CAIR members handled the backlash with letter-writing campaigns or by asking media outlets or commentators to retract comments Muslims perceived as unfair. Now, Hassan says, the anti-Islam fervor is too widespread to deal with.
“It seems to have gone beyond the evangelical sector and to some of the political commentators,” she says. “We routinely get emails from Muslims around the country complaining about their local talk radio basically demonizing Islam. That’s been worrying. What’s new is the viciousness of it and the fact that it’s spreading to relatively well-established leaders.”
Asma Gull Hasan, author of “American Muslims: The New Generation,” says she’s noticing an uptick in hate mail at her website these days. Some are from evangelical Christians, but many are what she calls “live free or die” Americans–secular conservatives who believe all Muslims are inherently anti-American.
“There’s really no convincing any of these people,” says Hasan, who appears frequently on cable and radio talk shows. “It’s pretty nasty email. There’s definitely a movement happening.”
Hasan traces the upsurge in anti-Islam rhetoric to the escalation of the war in Israel.
“From the beginning, the evangelicals didn’t like the things Bush said about Islam, and talk show conservatives didn’t either. But when the Middle East violence happened, they felt they could connect it all together,” she says. “It made it very easy for people to make a neat parallel that we were attacked by suicide bombers, and Israel was, too.”
Hasan says she has appeared numerous times recently on talk radio shows where the interviewer says the purpose is to teach the audience about Islam. “Then I get on and it’s a blood bath,” she says. And the rhetoric has ratcheted up in recent weeks, Hasan says.
Last week on a Denver radio show, for instance, the interviewer asked Hasan if she is a Muslim first or an American first, and she said she is both. Soon after, a caller said he is Catholic first and that being American is a distant second. Hasan said she then asked the caller to give an example of ways his religion conflicts with being American. His response was that he wants to be able to protest peacefully at abortion clinics; the host asked if he would blow up a clinic. And the caller said yes, if he thought it would do more good than harm.
“Can you imagine if a Muslim said such a thing?” Hasan wonders.
The problem, say Muslims like Hasan, is that moderate voices like hers aren’t heard enough. That seems to be the viewpoint of the Bush Administration, even if the White House isn’t meeting with American Muslim leaders. Richard Land, a prominent Southern Baptist with close ties to the Administration, says “one of our basic strategies should be to damage the radical [Muslim] voices and support the moderate voices…. My perspective is that the President did what he probably had to do in the wake of Sept. 11. He grew up coming to understand what happened to Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor and not wanting that to happen again.”
Land says he doesn’t disapprove so far of Bush’s stance toward Muslims.
“He’s supposed to be President of all the people,” Land says. “As far as I’m concerned, what he’s done to date has not been a problem. But I’m afraid that his comment that Islam is a religion of peace is more a wish than a fact. I don’t think evangelicals are very happy about it, but there are so many other things they are happy about. Now, if he started showing up at worship services at mosques that would be another thing.”
Green says Bush remains in a tricky political position with conservatives for the foreseeable future.
“To the extent that this grousing becomes common, this presents a problem for the President with the war on terrorism,” Green says. “It’s important for him to maintain this distinction between Islam and terrorism. If a very important part of his political base equates them, that makes the President’s job very difficult.”
And Bush can’t exactly repudiate conservatives, because he needs them politically.
“It may have been that these people were held in check by the President’s request that they behave themselves [early on]. I suppose you could fault Bush to some extent” for not keeping the lid on the dissent, Green says.
And here, he repeats what most Americans, at heart, believe: Sure, there are legitimate religious differences between various faiths, but the genius of the United States is that we tolerate each other. And so, Green says, if we’re going to deal with terrorism and threats to our freedom, people who hate each other’s beliefs in this country are simply going to have to make an effort to understand each other.
And in the end, that means they’re going to have to put up with Islam, and with American Muslims-whether they like it or not.
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th August 2002 at 01:08
RE: huh?
You can be quite perceptive sometimes Mongu… 🙂
Ironic that the guy who threatens the president might get a few months in jail but the guy exercising his right to free speech with a stupid statement would probably not wake up alive the next day… the difference between the rule of law and mob rule…
By: mongu - 24th August 2002 at 17:49
RE: huh?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-08-02 AT 05:51 PM (GMT)]Garry, I see what you are saying and you are correct. It is the old Freedom/Anarchy debate. Without rules (which restricts freedom) we have Anarchy. Which also restricts freedom…
But in terms of freedom of speech, there is a big difference betweem making a threat (eg to kill Buush) and an obviously ridiculous assertion (OBL should have killed more Yanks). Rules are supposed to ensure punishment for the former and freedom to say the latter.
I think the focus of the anger in Europe and elsewhere is that the US is indicating that freedom of speech only applies to Americans. Anyone disagreeing is just “US bashing”.
The same applies to human rights. The issue of Al’Qaeda terrorists being either detained in Cuba or being granted their full legal rights depending on whether they are Americans or not is a good example. So is the refusal to ratify US membership of the ICC.
So back to the original point, the US seems to be disreagrding criticism of their impending Iraqi invasion just because dissenters are mere “US bashers”. Every reason that the US has for invading Iraq has been dismantled on this thread. We have also pointed out the dangers of going in. But we are ignored, because we disagree with Bush…
…Which proves the whole argument, that Bush just “doesn’t get it”. Maybe he should have a nice chat with “General Somebody or Other” from that funny Paki-stan place over pretzels and a Bud.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th August 2002 at 03:22
RE: huh?
“Now that’s truly moronic Garry, if a stranger goes to your house and say he’s going to kill you….i guess you’ll just stand there….what a stupid meaningless example of yours.”
If a stranger walks up to you and says he is going to kill you in your house and there are witnesses will the stranger remain free?
I am pointing out that you are not actually free to say anything at all that you like in any country.
If I went to New York and walked into a joint Police and Fire Service party and stood on a table and said “OBL was a nice guy and didn’t kill enough yanks”. Would I get out of there alive? …what happened to my right to free speech?
If the US president was making an address or speech at a mall and I stood up and said loudly and clearly that he is a moron and I am going to kill him how many seconds do you think I’d have before the guys in sunglasses and ear piece radios pounced and dragged me away?
What about my rights to freedom of speech then? …in both cases I hadn’t done anything wrong except say something that was rediculously stupid… is that ilegal… yes in many cases it is… if you yell that there is a bomb or a fire in a crowded area and the people stampede and people are injured or killed do you get arrested? …of course you do! …and not just in the US. Obviously there are many countries where the things you can say out loud in public and remain free is very limited.
What I am trying to say is there is no such think literally as free speech… I believe swearing and being offensive or overly aggressive in public is just as ilegal there as it is here.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th August 2002 at 02:40
…
that would be very hard…almost all religions i know of say the others as being influenced by the devil (or the likes). The only one that truly tolerate others in their OFFICIAL teachings i can think of is budhism. I’ve even heard of budhist monks telling certain believers to follow another religion because of what they call something similar to fate and cohesioness. Of course i said OFFICIAL because there are truly evil people everywhere, every creed, every color, every…you get the point.
By: mongu - 23rd August 2002 at 23:23
RE: huh?
…which raises the question of a lack of accountability and transparency within religous organisations.
In my sytem, all relgions must register with a notional UN Religion Council. The codes would mean each relgion must have an elected Board, must publish accounts and must be tolerant of other religions. Non-compliant religions would have their assets seized by NATO forces.
I just can’t see how else to get rid of the bone head Bishops, Rabbis and Mullahs who openly tolerate terrorism, intolerance and relgious hatred.
By: keltic - 23rd August 2002 at 20:57
RE: huh?
Any God puts bombs, or any religion promotes terrorism or hatred. Only sick interpretations of Bibles, Tora, Coram or whatever be called from sick human brains. It may sounds simplistic but if do accept it, we would be solving most of the hatred between religions.
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd August 2002 at 19:36
RE: huh?
Now that’s truly moronic Garry, if a stranger goes to your house and say he’s going to kill you….i guess you’ll just stand there….what a stupid meaningless example of yours.
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd August 2002 at 07:03
RE: huh?
“Leaderships in the US have always call those people evil in the recent past. “
Yes… they seem to like calling any group they don’t like evil… but does that actually make that group evil or the leadership silly and shallow… My money is on the latter.
“yes, their leaders are morons, but if you call ALL as including people who was brainwashed, then it’s only in hypocrisy in trying to prove your point. “
A leader spouting racial, religious, or political hatred is of course a moron. Those brainwashed followers must also be considered morons if they believe what their leader says is true.
(Hate to make the comparison but Bush talking about “evil” rogue states sounds like political hatred to me… guess I just called most Bush supporters morons, but if the shoe fits…)
BTW a few in this thread have mentioned the concept of free speech in the US. This is not strictly true. You can’t actually say just anything you like. Stand in a crowded public building and shout “fire”, or “There is a bomb in this building”, or walk up to a police officer or the President himself and say “I am going to kill you right now.”.
How long do you think you’d stay “free”?
By: Arabella-Cox - 23rd August 2002 at 05:02
RE: huh?
>So following the same logic, all christian fundamentailists
>(or morons) should have been put into a list of being evil,
>even if they condem the OC bombing.
yes, their leaders are morons, but if you call ALL as including people who was brainwashed, then it’s only in hypocrisy in trying to prove your point. And, yes, people like Koresh was called evil and some others, like leaders of the KKK, why didn’t you have a cow there? Leaderships in the US have always call those people evil in the recent past. So, ironically, the logic is reversely applied to those evil leaders of Iraq, Iran, and NK. But, then if we follow the same logic, there are plenty other evil leaders around the world (in US’s point of view), but they weren’t named, so isn’t it rather obvious that the top 3 was directly referenced? So, what does this all say? People are obviously having a cow with no matter what the US says. Like Geforce’s oer infactuation with the world “AXIS” and i can only say Earth spins on it’s axis so does that mean Earth is evil too?…hum…that’s it, we’re all evil….human beings }>
By: seahawk - 20th August 2002 at 06:02
RE: huh?
But most moslem states and organistaions condemed 9/11 too. Even though you put some of them into the Axis of Evil. (I never understood how North Korea was involved in that anyway)
So following the same logic, all christian fundamentailists (or morons) should have been put into a list of being evil, even if they condem the OC bombing.
Personally I think OC, should have shocked the US much more then 9/11. If a internal group commints such an attack against the US should be muc more scary then some forgein terroists attacking.
The only difference between OC and 9/11 is that 9/11 was more devastating, but in the way it was done (offical building, no care about civilian casualities) they are comparable.
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th August 2002 at 03:24
RE: huh?
Why? because nobody came out and sided with them and not only that all Christian groups came out and condemn them. Furthermore, he was executed, the 2nd suspect is in jail for life. As to why 9/11 isn’t a big deal if you compare to OC, it’s because if i break one of your leg it’s no big deal in comparison if i break all four of your limbs…so moderation i guess. And again, who here is condemning an entire religion? I mean if you listen to them, what does that say about you. That’s why i said if you’re educated then you’ll simply call them morons….but if you listen to them, well i guess you are one too. Saying a certain religion is being hijacked is totally different from saying that religion is evil, in fact they have exact opposite meaning. Who here including many Mulims denies that?
By: seahawk - 19th August 2002 at 07:21
RE: huh?
I really do not know why the US gets so excited about 9/11.
The first time a US building was blown up was the bombing in Oklahoma City. As far as I remember he was close to some christian / right wing groups ?? After that what was done against this groups ??
These people were living in the US and so enjoyed all the freedom and prosperity there.
And if some people from countries who have been suffering under US world domination dreams for years do the same (on a larger scale) you start to condem the whole religion.
You even attack another country for that (and are willing to attack yet another), but I would like to know would you have used such force (or only parts of it) against 1 of the christian right wing camps in the US ??
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th August 2002 at 21:43
huh?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 18-08-02 AT 09:57 PM (GMT)]they found the Anthrax person? Please don’t spread false info here. Since the beginning, FBI has consistently said that it may be due to domestic terrorism, although they’re not ruling out any foreign ones. Then later they have said that the most probable is an American scientist or have connections to domestic Anthrax researches. And, if you’re refering to the Oklahoma City bombing, he was not only executed for his evil deed but all Christian group in the US openly condemned him and warns of the perversed claims of Timothy McVey. What many Americans have problems with is all these Muslim leaders of the US, most didn’t show any condemnations against such deeds. Irregardless of politics or views, the simple fact of destroying buildings with thousands of civilians should be a cause of outcry against them. When you become an American citizen, it should be America first and your homeland/people second. If you have problems with US foreign policies, so did many Christian and other religious groups, but you don’t see them using that as a reason for not condemning 9/11. That would be very wrong and in the opinion of Americans who don’t believe in Islam as being bad they nevertheless belive it was wholesalely hijacked. As to all these other places you named, what you didn’t say is that they didn’t bomb the US. How many times did Al Queda bombed US targets? You have no problems with their bombings, but you have problems with what some people are saying?
By: tomel - 17th August 2002 at 12:31
RE: I dont know what to say read this
Fact.
Singapore is not an Islamic nation-it’s a republic.
Fact.
Singapore do have the worst human /political rights in SEA.They do not have any opposition in the govt -all of their opposition parties were crushed with various legal procedures.The latest-of the their prominent opposition leader(Chinese guy)have to make an escape to Australia in order to saved himself from being arrested by the govt.Others have to faced certain legal proceding which make them penniless.But of course since Singapore is one of the US main friend in SEA-non of this fact were hightlighted by international media.Speaking of media -they have a tighter control on them compared to Malaysia or Indonesia.Internet are censored eg.sex stuffs/sensitives issues.Malaysia which highly vocal against US policies were –
Accussed with draconian rule when we arrested trouble makers with the ISA.The same and even worst law are currently being used by the US.
Malaysia gave a proper chance for the opposition parties to gained power-2 out of 14 states -govern by the opposition parties.Any others SEA region countries conduct the same exercise????None.
Malaysia is a fundemental islamic state.To claimed Malaysia is the same as others -are totaly unacceptable and it really shows ones shallow knowledge on SEA politics/Islamic nations.
Malaysia is a multi racial nation which has managed to become an economic wonders within 45 years since gaining independence from the HM govt.HM govt willing gave Malaysia it’s independence w/o spilling a single drop of blood-just a stroke of a pen.
Gave an example of any other nation in the world which could top Malaysia economic/social/political/strategic/financial etc which it has achieved in the last 45 years?It is easy to believed all this bullshit regarding Islamic nation failed to developed its people/nations -caused the west always sees us as being undemocratic.Western nation also has their record on a gruesome human rights abuse-yet we Muslim just done gave a damn about it.
By: mongu - 17th August 2002 at 11:45
RE: I dont know what to say read this
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-08-02 AT 11:47 AM (GMT)]Whatever the rights and wrongs of Bush’s actions (and in “allowing” this, he is encouraging it and therefore wrong, in my opinion) it is still only one side of the story.
I struggle to think of one single muslim country which is credible! None of them, that I can think of, are anything other than dictatorships with zero human rights. Maybe Singapore is an exception??
The notion that Islam is a “bad” religion does, on this basis, have some grounding in fact. If it’s so good, why are the regimes of muslim countries so bloody awful?
By: mixtec - 17th August 2002 at 08:38
RE: I dont know what to say read this
Ive given up trying to tell people that the US is going to far oppressing iraq (even in this forum). If moslem people are going to better their standard of living and role in world economy, they should seek relationships with countrys other than the US. The US is really going to go to far if they invade iraq. Even farther than vietnam, because with vietnam, the US people honestly thought they were rescueing the south from a hostile invasion (not the political reality at all). This time there knowingly forcing there will on a countys system, I have a feeling the iraqis arent going to feel liberated.
By: tomel - 17th August 2002 at 03:21
RE: I dont know what to say read this
Hmmm…..well if the Islamic guys blowing up people were deemed evil and such -what about Catholic/Protestan in Ireland?Hindu LTTE in Sri Langka-never did i heard world leaders(US)said a damn thing about those suicide bomber in Colombo?What about those Karen rebel in Mynmar?They killed people too -yet the world never sees them as terrorist but freedom fighter.Palestinian Muslim -TERRORIST.
Why the US practise double standard???
No doubt most of the so call US enemies were Muslim-yet it is interesting to note the so call anthrax killer which were claimed to be part of a Al Qeada network-happens to be a US Christian.So it is fair to called the Christian also part of the AXIS OF EVIL???
By: Arabella-Cox - 17th August 2002 at 02:55
RE: I dont know what to say read this
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-08-02 AT 03:00 AM (GMT)]that’s right, if you understand America, you can say anything you want, that’s why i believe in educating the citizens so if you are saying some rather moronic thing people will simply view you as such. That’s why people tends to get their feelings hurt more often than else where if they are very sensitive. But, putting words into actions is a world of difference here and is being dealt with very seriously. But, isn’t this rather hypocritical? I’m not a Christian, but don’t Muslims call all others Infidels? Please give me the exact definition of infidel and according to your religion what’s going to happen to them? Or what rights do “infidels” have? Actually i personally am very offended by that just because my religion is not of Islam, but are you going to stop call non-Muslims an “infidel”? by the way, what exactly does it mean again?
By: Professor404 - 16th August 2002 at 16:06
RE: I dont know what to say read this
if anyone cares to follow up on this stroy read
Pakistani court frees ‘blasphemer’
Rights groups condemn the blasphemy laws
By Susannah Price
BBC correspondent in Islamabad
Pakistan’s supreme court has overturned the conviction of a Christian who was sentenced to death for blasphemy.
The late bishop was also a leading human rights campaigner
His death sentence had led a Catholic bishop to commit suicide outside the courtroom in protest.
The supreme court ordered that the Christian, Ayub Masih, should be released immediately.
Mr Masih was sentenced to death more than four years ago after being found guilty of blasphemy in a public place.
He denied the accusation, saying it was made by individuals who wanted to steal his land.
Calls for repeal
Ten days after the sentence was passed, the bishop of Faisalabad, Doctor John Joseph, shot himself in the head with a pistol in front of the courtroom in the Punjab province.
Colleagues said the bishop, who had long campaigned against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, had been very worried because he could not find a lawyer willing to defend Mr Masih.
Human rights groups welcomed Mr Masih’s acquittal and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.
There have been several cases where Christians have been given the death penalty for blasphemy against Islam.
And last year a doctor became the third Muslim to be sentenced to death for allegedly making blasphemous remarks about the prophet Mohammed.
Hardline pressure
Activists say there has been a sharp increase in the number of cases over the past years although the death penalty has never been carried out.
Even those who have been acquitted by a higher court find themselves under attack by extremist groups and lawyers and judges dealing with blasphemy cases are often threatened.
The Pakistani Government tried to amend the law to allow an enquiry before any arrest in an attempt to curb false blasphemy cases but it pulled back under pressure from religious hardliners.
By: Professor404 - 16th August 2002 at 16:05
RE: I dont know what to say read this
i also believe in freedom of speech, but when other entities help these wacko’s message across more easily thats when I get pissed. These people have a right to say whatever they want but no one in the media should invite them to their shows and have them talk like that.
All I want to see is that no one should give a crap about those people and just ignore them instead of inviting them for debates on the media…
Sign In
August 16, 2002 at 4:03 am