Infuriated crowd severely beat a man accused of blasphemy.

india and paksitan both became independant countires at the same time, but pakistani is still a nobody in world terms apart from being a cesspool of terrorism - surely that proves it has everything to do with pakistan going down the non secular islamic route.

i have no idea which african countires you are referring to, but im not aware of ones that legally allow the death penalty for expressing an opinion about islam (aprt form the muslim ones that is)

Look at the crowd lynching and beating to death (it was on sky tnews he other week) that happen in south africa for those suspected of stealing, or shall we look at uganda and crowd beatings of those who do no follow christianity.

Or shall we look athe the political beatings in zimbabwe and Botswana?

I mean these countries do not follow islam or have next to no muslims so why are they so corrupt and poor then?

but it doesn't allow the mob lynching of people in public. That is not a democracy! As for your comment on my thread, why would british muslims of this and coming generations want to relocate to their countries of origin, especially corrupt ****hole like pakistan.

DDD

i didnt say crimes never occur in other countries, i said they are not legitimised by a backward islamic system of law asi n pakistan (and other places)

And islamic regieme simpy serves to brainwash and radicalise people

Pakistan law has its foundations set right on Shariah law make no mistake about that (and its constitution has Islam as its sole offical state religion) as can be proved by Pakistan blasphemy law, its inheritance law, it s laws on Zakat and amongst others which I am sure you could google.

Not to mention Pakistans official name , The ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan, wth the green in the flag representing the muslims, the white the minority non muslims, oh it was created on religious grounds alright.

Islam is the state religion for nearly all Muslim countries today. It doesn't mean it's following Shariah. And nearly all Muslim countries take some aspects of Shariah out and use it. Doesn't mean it's following Shariah.

Also what they take from Shariah has methods of implementation, you have no idea whether Pakistan implements these things in accordance to Shariah or not. For example, "insulting" and "criticizing" is differentiated in Shariah. Is it differentiated in Pakistan's constitution? I doubt it.



You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm guessing Iran is based on Shariah because it's called "Islamic Republic of Iran" right?

Islam is the state religion for nearly all Muslim countries today. It doesn't mean it's following Shariah. And nearly all Muslim countries take some aspects of Shariah out and use it. Doesn't mean it's following Shariah.

Also what they take from Shariah has methods of implementation, you have no idea whether Pakistan implements these things in accordance to Shariah or not. For example, "insulting" and "criticizing" is differentiated in Shariah. Is it differentiated in Pakistan's constitution? I doubt it.



You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm guessing Iran is based on Shariah because it's called "Islamic Republic of Iran" right?

the religion of peace. ****ing savages.

For the monkey guy that was on here earlier, this sort of proves my point.

monkey guy?

Think he was called monkey man or summat, anyways thats beside the point.

what was the point

What about blasphemy laws, do you think that they're democratic?

yes, if brought about via the democratic process.

Only to an Islamaphobe it may have. The implication was clear if you read this post.



Apart from when he(pbuh) got stones thrown at him when he went to Ta'if;

---

Mohammed traveled to Ta’if, a mountainside town in Arabia about seventy miles southeast of the holy city of Mecca, to invite its people to become Muslims. Instead of welcoming him, the farmers stoned him and drove him, bleeding, out of town…Wiping blood from his face, the Prophet refused, saying, “Lord, forgive thy people, they do not know.” - Eliza Griswold, The Tenth Parallel: Dispatches From the Fault Line Between Christianity and Islam, p.23

---

Or when he almost got choked to death;

---

The next day when they had assembled in the Hijhr, the Prophet appeared once again. The Quray****es, who were humiliated because of the incident the day before, drove to him in unison. While they mobbed him thus, one of them pulled the sheet of cloth hanging round his neck, which nearly choked his throat. Abu Bakr, who was present at that moment, severed them from the prophet by thrusting himself in between them. And with tears in his eyes he cried, “Would you kill a man simply because he acknowledges that Allah is his Lord?” Hearing this, they shun the Prophet but fell upon Abu Bakr dragging him by his hair and beard. - Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, pp. 289-91 and Bukhari

---

And countless other examples, including the times they tried to/almost did assassinate him(pbuh).

How he got out alive, and his determination to remain preaching, is one of the reasons why so many secular Academics consider him to not be an "imposter".

---

Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? ... There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. - Watt, Montgomery, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. From p. 232.

---

Not sure what you mean, but the point has always been from the start; I never condemn anyone being beaten on the street (like the man in the OP's article). I only made a realistic statement that it's not a surprise the man did get mobbed, simply because he was pushing all the right buttons and despite being asked to stop multiple times, he didn't. Does not take a genius to know that if you really offend someone, and keep offending them again and again, that at some point, they're going to explode.

If I were to make negative "remarks" about a friend of yours who had recently died, then you would have every right to be angry.

Doing the same about some bloke that you've never known and died over 1000 years ago should not provoke such a response.

So, if I say something awful about your great-great-great-great grandmother; you wouldn't be upset?