ISLAMABAD - The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) has ordered for deletion of life imprisonment term from “Tahafaz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat” law, saying sentence in blasphemy case is only death sentence and awarding any other punishment in this respect is not lawful. A five-member larger bench of the FSC, headed by Justice Fida Hussain, was hearing a contempt of court petition filed by Hashmat Habib on Wednesday. While pronouncing the judgment, the bench said the FSC had given a decision in 1990 that life imprisonment, mentioned with death sentence in blasphemy law should be deleted as any blasphemous act is not acceptable and the blasphemer is liable to be punished under death penalty. Hashmat Habib had filed petition in FSC that court’s 1990 decision has not been implemented so far. He prayed the court to issue orders for implementation of this verdict besides initiating contempt of court proceedings against those who have failed to implement the decision. -
Anonymous asked: Can you explain the mosque standing in Indonesia after the tsunami in 2004. Was it a miracle?
As most people remember there was a very tragic tsunami in South East Asia in December of 2004, which resulted in the death of nearly 300,000 people. However, religious people claim that those lives were completely meaningless and that god supposedly decided to show us a miracle by having a mosque survive through all the destruction. Seems like a pretty hateful monster, rather than a loving god, but we can analyze what they are saying further.
After the massive devastation, there was a mosque (Baiturrahim mosque) which survived while most of the homes and building in the town of Meulaboh were left in ruins. However, if you look at the pictures from the scene there are other buildings that survived as well, which were not so far from the mosque. If this ugly act was somehow a method that Allah put together to show us a miracle, then why leave other building standing there as well? And why not save all the mosques?
A very important note to take away from this whole situation, as well as many others similar to it, is the fact that typically building that have a religious importance are better constructed than other buildings around them in highly religious societies and countries, and hence if regular crummy house falls apart, while another well-structured building survives a massive typhoon, there is nothing “miraculous” about the situation all, especially considering how many innocent people died in the process. There were hundreds of mosques that were destroyed during this tsunami and there were many non-religious buildings that survived.
If anyone considers this to be a miracle, they need to first ask one simple question, “Why does this loving god torture and kill thousands of innocent children to death, yet decides to have a building stand still to show us how powerful he is?”, and the next inquiry should be to look into the structural and engineering work that was put into the building that survived, and the final thought should relate to understanding the unsystematic movement of water where the physical force varies from place to place.
Anyone who calls such a thing a miracle needs to pull their head out of their ass!
- The Iranian Atheist (http://iranianatheist.tumblr.com/)
Anonymous asked: What is Hadith. What do you think about it?
The Hadith is a collection of the sayings and actions of Muhammad. It is not a single entity, it is a collection of books that form the basis for Islamic law. If there is a specific Hadith that you would like my opinion on then I would be more than happy to share my ideas. These collected sayings form a major part of Islam as we know it today.
Within these written works, there is so much controversy. There are numerous Hadiths that condone violence, intolerance, paedophilia, and misogyny. For this reason, many Muslims tend to ignore the Hadith and say that they base their beliefs on the Quran only. I find this to be ridiculous considering how without the Hadith the religion wouldn’t even exist. Methods of praying, Islamic traditions, laws and major parts of Islam would not be around without the Hadith. The Quran is basically a book which repeats all the fairy tale stories of the Torah and the Bible, with fear of hell, and adds a few more stories calling itself a miracle! While in reality if one reads the Quran with on open mind they will see for themselves that it can hardly be used as a book to define a religion.
In an apparent attempt to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism, the African nation of Angola has banned Islam and is in the process of tearing down mosques, according to multiple media reports.
On November 24, Angola President José Eduardo dos Santos said the country is working toward putting an end to Islamic influence in Angola once and for all.
The African economic news agency Agence Ecofin notes that, “According to several Angolan newspapers, Angola has become the first country in the world to ban Islam and Muslims, taking first measures by destroying mosques in the country.”
Rosa Cruz e Silva, the Angolan Minister of Culture, said “The process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, their mosques would be closed until further notice.”
However, no official explanation has been given as to why Islam currently faces a need to be legalized in Angola despite its presence in the country for many years.
Another French publication reports that a minaret of an Angolan mosque was dismantled last October, and that the city of Zango “has gone further by destroying the only mosque in the city.”
Angola is a majority-Christian nation of about 16 million people, an estimated 55 percent of whom are Catholic, 25 percent of whom belong to African Christian denominations, 10 percent of whom follow major Protestant traditions, 5 percent of whom belong to Brazilian Evangelical churches and where only between 80,000 and 90,000 people are Muslim, according to the U.S. State Department.
Edit: I just posted this article without commentary, but maybe I should clarify that I think this is a bad idea and I find it reminiscent of the Crusades. This is not critical thinking and reason at work, it’s one superstitious religious group violently oppressing another through their government. It will seed/inflame conflict and cause suffering.
isbahqureshi asked: I am not going to say that they way you live your life is wrong cos I am no one to judge. I am muslim and I believe in Allah SWT and its the best feeling on earth. I assume that you have been raised in a muslim family and do not know what the circumstances changed your opinion. Try reciting Quran one last time in your native language, without with your understanding, may be you might begin to differ.
I appreciate the fact that you are saying this because I know you mean well, unlike most religious people who only condemn and insult others for not believing as they do. Before you read any further, I will warn you some of what I have to say may not sit well with you but it is beneficial in understanding why we have such different views on this. It would be the same if I was speaking to my grandma about it, she probably wouldn’t want to listen to most of what I have to say. Before I go any further, let me just make it clear that I respect the fact that you think believing in god and religion is in your own words, “the best feeling on earth”, but I don’t agree with it, that’s just how you feel. In my opinion being an atheist, and living free of god and religion isn’t just an amazing feeling, but it is incredibly liberating. This works for me and I can’t say it’s the greatest feeling for everyone.
To me being a non-believer is a beautiful thing and it makes my life so much more enjoyable. I live to enjoy life, this is paradise, and I never bow down to a supreme power that may or may not exist. I don’t believe in an afterlife, and that gives this life so much more value for me, and death is celebrated, since it means I was fortunate enough just to be born. Sure pain is a part of reality, but we overcome it by remaining strong and taking action, rather than praying and hoping that some powerful force will intervene. As atheists, we greatly cherish this one life and we have already experienced paradise, because we look at this earth as the real heaven.
Asking me to read the Quran in my mother language will not change anything, as I have already done this. With passages such as, Quran 2:19, that says, “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.” or Quran 24:2, which says, “The unmarried woman or unmarried man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment”, or Quran 32:4, which says, “It is Allah who created the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them in six days; then He established Himself above the Throne”, or Quran 5:51, which says, “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people”. With such passages, why do you want me to read the Quran again? I have done this already. Reading the Quran was one of the main reasons why I left Islam. Reading it more will just create more distain and detestation towards the religion! I know the typical response by Muslims is that these passages should not be taken out of context, but under what context is it okay to attack and kill someone just because they don’t share the same beliefs? Under what context is it okay to insult centuries of scientific research with such ridiculous claims? Under what context is it okay to flog people for simply enjoying the natural act of having sex if they are not married? Believe me I have read the Quran and that is one of the main reasons, amongst many, why I am an atheist.
- Iranian Atheist (http://iranianatheist.tumblr.com/)
Anonymous asked: when Islam conquers the world you are the first infidel whos gonna suck my dick
Interesting, considering what Islam says about homosexuality, you are basically writing your own death sentence
Lmfao! And I wonder which sect of Islam he’s talking about. If the Sunnis were to take over I think the Shia would be “suckin as much dick” as anyone… And visa versa. Considering that they fight eachother as much as they fight anyone else.
Why everyone is being so polite? Religious expression is not an absolute right, and should be limited if it affects the rights of others
Here we are again, in the middle of another terribly polite discussion about the niqab. For anyone who hasn’t followed the debate, that’s the face-covering veil worn in this country by a minority of Muslim women. Should women be able to conceal their faces when they’re giving evidence in court? What about women who work in schools or the health service?
A judge has issued a confused ruling that a defendant should be able to keep her niqab on in court, but must take it off while giving evidence. The Government has ordered a review of whether NHS staff should be able to conceal their faces from patients, with the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt acknowledging he would prefer to see the face of the person who’s treating him. But he says it’s ultimately a matter for professional guidelines, not politicians.
Why so mealy-mouthed? The niqab is a ridiculous garment, adopted by a small (but growing) number of women and rejected by many mainstream Muslims. When I see someone wearing it, I’m torn between laughing at the absurdity and irritation with the ideology it represents. In secular countries, the notion that women have to cover their faces whenever they leave the house is rightly seen as weird, and runs counter to the principle of gender equality. Many brave women in the Middle East and Asia have died for the much more important right not to cover their faces, and I have little patience with women in this country who make a mockery of that struggle by trying to pretend they’re the ones suffering oppression.
The question judges and politicians are struggling with is what to do about it. I’m not in favour of the French approach, which is an outright ban on the niqab and the burqa; I’m not keen on banning things and it risks creating martyrs. It makes more sense to treat the face-veil as a political statement and insist on our right to make one in return. Covering the face doesn’t make anyone a better human being and the “modesty” argument doesn’t wash; if you wear outlandish clothes, whether it’s a face-veil or fancy dress, of course people will stare. Nor does the niqab discourage violence; evidence from Egypt suggests that veiled women are slightly more likely to suffer sexual harassment, probably because men regard them as easier targets than women in Western clothes. Does anyone seriously believe that women are safer in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, where most women wear the veil (many of them against their will) in one form or another? Wearing the niqab or the burqa is self-defeating, exposing women and girls to more oppression rather than less.
Where I think the state is entitled to intervene is when a woman’s decision to cover has negative consequences on others, including her daughters; face-covering should never be a component of school uniform, let alone compulsory. Then there’s the example of a courtroom: when someone is giving evidence, she should be subject to exactly the same rules as the rest of us. Vulnerable witnesses need to have their identities protected but as a general rule the judge, jury, defence and prosecution should be able to see witnesses’ faces. I wouldn’t expect to be allowed to appear in court in a balaclava, and the public good of open justice takes precedence over demands for special treatment on religious grounds.
As for the NHS, I’m aghast at the prospect of being treated by a health professional in a niqab. Patients often have to discuss intimate matters with GPs and nurse-practitioners, from sexual health to domestic violence. If someone doesn’t trust me enough to let me see her face, I’m hardly going to feel comfortable about her carrying out an intimate procedure such as a cervical smear. Nor is it easy to imagine a man discussing the symptoms of prostate cancer with a health professional whose idea of “modesty” doesn’t allow her to expose her nose.
At one level, it’s hard to believe we’re having this debate. The UK is a secular society in all but name. Human rights law is clear about the right to manifest religion but it isn’t an absolute right, and can be limited when it conflicts with the rights of others. The demand by a small number of Muslim women to cover their faces in all circumstances clearly impacts on the rights of others, and requires a robust response. If a woman wants to wear the niqab in Tesco or on the 94 bus, I think we should let her get on with it. But when she wants to work with members of the public or becomes involved in the criminal justice system, that’s a completely different matter.
IN 2007 Canada decided to set aside funds for a campaign to investigate and combat the growing number of killings of mainly Muslim women in the country.
Until recently, religio-cultural violence – universally known as “honour killings” – were virtually unknown in the country.
According to this report, only three known victims were killed between 1954 and 1983. But since 1999, 12 women have died in honour killings.
Every year, according to United Nations reports, 5,000 women worldwide are killed for reasons of “honour” that relate to matters of modesty and obeyance, though most experts maintain the numbers are far higher. And the number of victims of honour violence, which can involve beatings, acid attacks, or locking a woman in her home, is literally incalculable.
In the UK alone, more than 3,000 such honour crimes occurred just in 2010, according to a study by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization (IKWRO). The vast majority of those crimes, the organisation states, were committed by Muslims, though Sikhs and Hindus have also been known to commit honour-related crimes.
But Canada’s efforts to stop this phenomena is being opposed … by Muslim women! They are claiming that the term “honour killing” is racist, with many speaking out against the government’s new focus on these crimes.
One outspoken opponent is Itrath Syed, who is pursuing a PhD in Islamophobia in Vancouver. She said:
When women of colour are killed, we ask these larger questions around their culture. We ask what’s wrong with their entire people – their culture, their religion – instead of a particular person.
Writing for the Investigative Project, Abigail R Esman said:
What is so tragic about this remark is not just the half-dozen or so ways in which it is patently untrue, but that it seeks to nullify the horror that is honour violence, to deny the profound distinctions between honor crimes and other forms of domestic violence and femicide.
And she pointed out:
What Syed really was referring to was religion, not race. Or rather, the implication that domestic abuse in Muslim families is related to Islam, and that Muslim families are therefore treated differently than everybody else. It’s a common accusation, and an ongoing question: are honour crimes culturally-based, or founded in interpretations of the Koran?
It’s a bit of both, according to Carla Rus, a psychiatrist in the Netherlands who specialises in working with victims of both domestic abuse and honor violence:
Honour violence involves a kind of ideology, which you don’t find in domestic violence. In [Islamic] cultures, where church and state are not separated, it’s difficult to distinguish whether honour violence comes through cultural or religious motives – culture and religion are inseparable in those cases.
Esman pointed out that understanding how dramatically honour violence differs from other domestic abuse is, however, critical – a point that the recent Canadian funding aims to address, as do similar efforts in the UK and the Netherlands. As Phyllis Chesler, author of the landmark study, Worldwide Trends in Honour Killings, has noted:
Westerners rarely kill their young daughters, nor do Western families of origin conspire or collaborate in such murders.
Similarly, domestic abuse in Western families does not involve brothers murdering their sisters, as happens in cases of honour killings. To the contrary, siblings most often protect one another.
Moreover, Esman emphasises, while domestic violence may relate to a man’s sense of self-respect, reputation, or “honour” among his peers, it does not – despite what some Muslims argue – reflect his sense of religious honour or his sense, as patriarch, of responsibility for his family’s perceived insults to his god.
Yet it is precisely this mindset which incites much honour-based violence and murder – and not only on the part of the father or husband. Frequently, religious devotion and patriarchy places pressure on other family members – siblings, aunts, uncles, spouses or even mothers of a victim – to commit the act, often under threat.
That fact underscores two other critical points that opponents to Canada’s focus on honour killings apparently do not wish others to see – or perhaps are too culturally blinded to see: Ordinary domestic violence is nearly always spontaneous, while honour violence (and especially honour murder) is almost always calculated, often planned out over time through numerous family meetings. And the horrific reality is that, these women simply have nowhere to run: no mothers who will shelter them from the husbands they are trying to escape, no sisters or brothers to protect them from their fathers – no one. (Indeed, the sisters and brothers are often recruited to assure a girl hiding from her family to come home, that all is forgiven. But this assertion is almost always a ruse; once she returns, the child is usually killed within days.)
Which is precisely why funding for, and attention to, understanding and preventing honor violence is so very critical, not only in Canada, but everywhere in the West. It is why women – and especially Muslim women – should be welcoming it, even demanding more.
And yet, countless Canadian (and other) Muslim activists and apologists remain far more devoted to shaping public vision of their culture – even if it means disguising the truth – than to protecting the lives of their Muslim sisters. In some cases, they may go so far as to contend that the very notion of ‘honour killings’ is a ‘Western propagated myth’. Indeed, one Muslim women’s advocate, Rubaiyat Karim, told Women’s e-News that, ‘Immigration policy can be very inclusionary and preach the language of multi-culturalism. But if we really want to talk about multiculturalism, we need to address the Orientalist mentality of government’.
She’s wrong. What we really need to address is the refusal of some Muslim families to advance beyond medieval and barbaric religio-cultural practices – and to stop excusing them when they don’t. Not to do so is to abandon thousands of women, not just in Canada or the United States, not just in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but in every country, every city, every town across the world. We cannot let that happen.
(RNS) The sultan of Brunei announced on Tuesday (Oct. 22) he will rule his oil-rich Islamic country according to Shariah laws, including death by stoning for adultery, the amputation of limbs for theft, flogging for alcohol consumption and abortion, and other punishments.
The Shariah penal code will begin in phases starting in April 2014, said Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, according to Agence France-Presse…
…“It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all his generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilize them to obtain justice,” said the sultan, 67, according to Reuters.
The sultan’s family has been in power for more than 600 years, including when Brunei became a British protectorate in 1888 and after it gained independence in 1984.
The sultan, who is also prime minister, has ruled since 1967. There are no elections.
Up until now, he enforced a dual judicial system of British secular laws, and Shariah courts mainly for family matters.
Brunei’s 416,000 population are 67 percent Muslim and ethnic Malay, governed under a constitutional sultanate officially called the Malay Islamic Monarchy.
“The Compulsory Religious Education Order of 2012 mandates that all Muslim children aged 7 to 15 residing in the country must be enrolled in Islamic religious education,” said the U.S. State Department’s 2012 International Religious Freedom Report.
“The government routinely censored magazine articles on other faiths, blacking out or removing photographs of crucifixes and other Christian religious symbols,” the State Department said. There were “no depictions of other religions’ practices” in school textbooks.
"It [does] no good that most nominal Christians disavow all this [extremist] behavior, for I discovered all too quickly that hardly any of them had the moral fiber to stand up to it, an ominous echo of a phenomenon of apathy and spinelessness we find quite amplified in the Islamic world. Few make much effort to defend in public their apparently kinder, gentler message of tolerance and love against the Righteous Hoard, and fewer still would call me ally. Why would they? Jesus himself tells everyone I am damned, and if the most informed, wise and compassionate being in the universe condemns me utterly, deeming me worthy of unquenchable fire and immortal worms, far be it for any mortal to have a kinder opinion of me.
Worse, the liberal Christians have no text. In any Bible debate, the liberal interpreter always loses, for he must admit he is putting human interpretation, indeed bold-faced speculation, before the Divine Word of God. Appeals to “direct inspiration by the Holy Spirit” win no one over, for the rest of us call that opinionized guessing. And without a believable Revelation or the Bible to stand on, a Christian can be condemned as an as an unbeliever in disguise. Since being thought an atheist is worse than being thought a whore, not many believers raise their head against Fundamentalism.”
Carrier, Richard. “Sense and Goodness Without God.”