jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (50 posts)

Anti Muhammad Film : Sacrilege be declared a crime globally: Pakistan

  1. pisean282311 profile image60
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    Sacrilege was intolerable for the Muslims, as it was not the issue of freedom of expression instead it was the question of violence on earth, Geo News reported.

    Addressing the Ishq-e-Rasool Conference here, the prime minister said that freedom of expression didn’t mean that revered personalities be made a target, adding that protest against such despicable acts was our religious duty.

    Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said that the world today was threatened by religious extremism and one of the reasons of extremism was disrespect to other religions.

    PM said that the miscreants have targeted the greatest personality of the universe whom no power on earth could ever cause any damage.

    PM said that the sentiments of the Muslims were not taken care of, while the debate on holocaust was forbidden. Pakistan has the right to protest against the anti-Islam film and added that all the religions, beliefs and the revered personalities must be respected.

    He said that Pakistan was the only Islamic country observing protest day officially and this was not all but President Asif Ali Zardari would be taking up this issue in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

    He said anti-social elements were using the concept of freedom of speech in an offensive manner, adding that, Islam was a religion of peace and preached respect for all faiths.

    PM Ashraf further said that a significant factor leading to increased extremism the world over was lack of mutual respect among followers of different religions.

    He said if such actions did not stop, they would create instability worldwide.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Note the obvious contradiction in bold.

      They want everyone to respect their faith but the faith has no respect for people.

      1. pisean282311 profile image60
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        hmmm...u r right...

      2. Soulnectar profile image83
        Soulnectarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, if we don't respect their religion they are going to respond with extremism / terrorism? I don't see the peace in that? if I don't like or want to follow your religion suck it up and get over it!

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Notice that you said if we don't respect their religion, they are going to respond with extremism/terrorism.

          And, that somehow is something we have to respect?

          No, it is something that needs to be exposed for what it is.

    2. twosheds1 profile image61
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There should be no special treatment for religious beliefs. They need to nut up or shut up. If we accede to one of their demands, then they will continue to demand more and more and it will never end. Screw them. And that goes for Muslims or Christians who were upset over "Piss Christ." Grow a thick skin. It doesn't shake your faith, and you god is bigger than that, so why should you care? (I don't mean you, specifically. I'm speaking rhetorically)

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    That is actually funny since the instability worldwide is caused by the Muslims and most are losing respect for their religion because of their behavior. To insist that we curtail our freedoms because many within Islam look for any excuse for violence is ridiculous. But, I sympathize with anyone attempting to maintain order in a country with a large Muslim population and I can certainly imagine what motivated him to make those statements.

    Muslims should look to the recent behavior of Kate Middleton and her husband to understand. If you make a big stink about something trivial that hits the news, you can rest assured that the media will keep it alive as long as there are those who will  read and listen.

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @emile quite right....read saudi's chief priest comments too...he wants criminalization of what he says insult to prophets of monotheistic religions...what about other religions wiccan , hindus , buddhist,jains  etc?..secondly what about rights of atheist ,angonist and most importantly what about right of every human being to critically evaluate historical figures like muhammad , jesus ?

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I sympathize with those living near people who go off the deep end at perceived insults, as many in the Muslim community appear to do. We want our freedom of speech, but we must accept that exercising our freedoms jeopardizes the safety of innocent people elsewhere. So, although I think it is audacious to ask anyone to limit  voicing their opinions, I'm not sure how I feel about people not voluntarily doing so. I think something such as that film is as cowardly an act as the pictures I see of the Muslim men running around, wreaking carnage and havoc with the masks over their faces.

        Cowards killing innocents because they are mad at cowards. It reflects poorly on the causes both sides claim to care about.

  3. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    No one should be compelled to follow the rules of a religion the do not believe in.  No one should be able to declared topics illegal in fiction or the creative arts.  That is not the kind of society I would want to live in.

  4. Shadesbreath profile image89
    Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago

    You are free to say what you want, but you are not free to say what you want without consequences. They say you should not say crap about their religion. You say they should not blow up embassies and kill people when someone says crap about their religion.

    A rattlesnake says, "You should not come over here where I am rattling." You say, "It is my right to go anywhere I want."

    There is only one thinking creature in that scenario, so whose fault is it if someone gets bit.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If Islam is a snake rattling to be avoided, it most certainly can only do harm to others who aren't snakes.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thinking people know how to avoid obvious peril. Taunting a snake is just dumb. There's enough chances for accidental encounter, why artificially pit "free speech" against it and then act surprised when it goes off?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If Islam is considered "obvious peril" then why is mankind allowing it to exist?

          Agreed. What should we then do with such a volatile and dangerous aspect of our society?

          1. Shadesbreath profile image89
            Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some things are only perilous to the incautious or willfully stupid.

            To your second part: there's not a lot of options. If you look through history, I think there are five strategies that seem to repeat most often, shown below in no particular order:

            1. Learn to live within the world intelligently and peacefully.

            2. Teach, train or coerce them to stop being who they are and start being who we are.

            3. Learn, succumb to it and become who they are.

            4. Kill them all.

            5. They kill all of us.

            Which one seems not only the most desirable, but the most actually possible to carry off?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If by that you mean those who follow the perilous are willfully stupid. Unfortunately, one does not have to be incautious or willfully stupid to be caught up in the crossfire of the perilous.

              If any of those options actually worked, shouldn't we see the results?

              It's obvious that the perilous snake (Islam) will never allow options 1 and 3 and is only interested in option 2 with option 5 being the last alternative.

              1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think you have missed the main point I have been trying to make here. It is up to us to avoid the snake, since we know it is there, and we are not inclined (and perhaps not even capable) of eradicating all of the snakes in the world. Yes, I'm for free speech, but I'm not for free speech that gets people killed.

                Freedom in America is contingent upon the fact that you do not exercise your freedom in a way that jeopardizes mine. You have the right to say whatever you want... BUT, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for example. You might argue, "Yes, I can!" and you would be correct, in that, you can go into a theater and yell that before anyone can stop you. However, you will be held responsible for the injuries sustained by people who get trampled on during the panicked stampede you caused, which is why there are laws that say your free speech does not extend to speech that includes yelling "Fire."

                I see poking Islam as the same sort of thing. We already know there are huge mobs of hungry, frustrated people living in the desert with hardly any electricity or decent provisions (and if you are a woman, I mean, bleh, what a suck life), so all they have is that religion. They also have corrupt evil religious leaders and political leaders who horde oil wealth even more shamelessly that American corporations do. So many of these people have only a corrupted, conscripted version of Islam they are given by their leaders. So, since we see this pretty evidently, we know how easy it is to get people killed if you draw a picture of their prophet with a bomb in his hat. To me, doing that is exactly the same as yelling, "Fire," in that theater.

                You should not have the right to do that, because it may impinge on someone else's right to stay alive, thanks to the "crossfire" you mention.

                So, back to my point... intelligent people should be capable of recognizing where the snake is and simply avoid it rather than going and taunting it with the toe of their boot... especially if I happen to be walking by when you do it.  If you can't do that, then you in a way insist on a Crusade to eliminate all the snakes, which is absolutely no better than a Jihad to eliminate infidels.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I can agree with much of that. But, look at the explanation you gave, the comparison you made and the conclusions drawn.

                  The explanation being that "mobs of hungry, frustrated people... all they have is that religion... only a corrupted, conscripted version of Islam they are given" which is in stark contrast to the conclusion drawn by misplacing it with the comparison made. It is this comparison which is key to the validity of the conclusions.

                  From the explanation we understand there are great wrongs being perpetrated against a lot of people; keeping them hungry, frustrated and immersed in religion by their leaders. The conclusion drawn is to "simply avoid it" by using the comparison of yelling "Fire" in a theater to that of taunting those very same hungry, frustrated peoples.

                  Causing a panic in a theater would endanger lives because of physical laws; forces acting upon each other resulting in physical injuries.

                  We can't say drawing Muhammad with a bomb in his bonnet is the same thing as the cause and effect of physical laws. Choices can be made to avoid any physical injuries.

                  You say the choice should be to avoid drawing the picture in the first place. If we do that, we are not only allowing, but are condoning the practice of keeping people hungry, frustrated etc.

                  So, if a more accurate comparison can be made, we are actually yelling "Fire" in a theater by avoiding the issues.

                  Perhaps, not so dramatic as that. Through the centuries Christianity was brought under control through laws, they can no longer burn witches or kill non-believers without facing the consequences of a justice system.

                  We need not go on some medieval fueled crusade to fix the problem, there are other alternatives.

                  From the explanation you provided, the first thing should be to make as much knowledge and information readily available to those hungry, frustrated people that they can themselves begin to understand their leaders are corrupt, are keeping them hungry and frustrated and they themselves can do something about it.

                  By the by, if you happen to be walking by when something happens, remember your own words that you wanted to avoid it. Of course, wanting to avoid it still won't stop it from happening when you do walk by.

                  1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                    Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    When you draw a picture of their prophet with a bomb, you aren't trying to save people from oppression. You are willfully kicking the snake. Nobody in this thread has made any argument about what we should do to relieve suffering over there. It's all about some perverse form of "freedom of speech." Freedom to taunt and bait the radicals regardless of what that costs innocents nearby.

                    Choices could be made about which exit to use leaving the theater, too. Choices could be made to seek out the truth of the claim that there is a fire before running. Choices could be made to sit there and burn rather than try to escape. Same difference. It is the same because both actions "Picture" and crying "Fire" are intentional triggers of chaos. "If I do THIS, these people will do THAT." I see very little difference other than scale.

                    Not true. Intentionally pissing people off by pushing their hot button is not even remotely the same as trying to solve human rights issues, just as crying "Fire" in a theater is not the same as writing a letter to the management asking them to lower the price of popcorn.

                    That's like saying if I don't go over there and poke that snake with this stick, I am supporting the willful injection of venom into babies at the hospital down town.

                    I agree. Rather than just pissing the radicals off, or condoning the pointless and deadly actions of others who like to run about kicking snakes for fun despite the consequences (that do no good and change nothing, only get people killed), trying to find ways to convince people to change or compromise is a much better solution.  And yes, it would suck to get bit by a snake that would have been sleeping when I walked by were it not for some idiot who decided it would be fun to F- with it out of some perverted and ignorant mutation of what it means to be "free."

                2. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Agree with you 100%.
                  A bit surprised not to have seen anyone bring forth the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument until now.
                  Glad you did.

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a serious question?

        2. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And if they choose to not avoid it, that is their right.  I don't think their is any doubt the recent movie was made to provoke--what has happened is no accident.  But they were exercising a valid and important freedom.

          In order for me to have the freedom to make the stuff I make, idiots have to have the freedom to make the ridiculous products they want to make.  That is the price and we have to pay it to be free.

          1. Shadesbreath profile image89
            Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So if you decide to piss them off by making a movie you know will insult them (and won't change anything anyway), as is your right, when other people who have nothing to do with you get killed in the mayhem, it's just like, Oh well, tough luck for those people? At least you got to exercise your right, so F--- everyone else?

            I hardly think that's a good exercise of freedom.

  5. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    That is the answer.   If we want to eleminate murderors from society, all that we have to do is murder them.... problem solved ??

  6. Pearldiver profile image87
    Pearldiverposted 4 years ago

    Personally I feel there are far more important issues in the world today!

    Luckily sport unites people throughout the world... but sheesh, I wish Pakistan hadn't beaten NZ today in the 20/20 match!  sad

    Perhaps the kiwis will riot over this sacrilege!  smile