Sentenced to death for a sip of water! [Religion]

...about as credible as little green men fart harvesting...

the NY post is their Daily Mail... all of its 'articles' are about as credible as little green men fart harvesting...
If, however, this story is true its heinous and is yet another example of the backwards nature of the people living out in the provinces and how backwards their logic is.

Check out this news story about a Christian Pakistani who has been sentenced to death for taking a sip of water from a Muslim well:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sentenced_to_death_for_sip_of_water_7zwT2vBrUGqhDzasfQxkKK/3

Personally, (if this story turn out to be correct) I'm absolutely disgusted by it. So, because she happens to be a Christi an, she can't use a Muslim well? Why? Is she supposed to be poison to Islam or something? Seriously, I'm completely baffled at how her race can be a factor in where she drinks.

What do you think?

It is indeed backwards but before we look down on them as lesser beings we must remember the sad irony that Pakistani blasphemy laws mostly originate from British colonial blasphemy laws. The same can be said for African and Caribbean homophobic laws. So yeah it's ultimately our fault.

The punishment of death for insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad was actually first instituted in 1986. The British imperial law relating to blasphemy was general in nature and carried a maximum punishment of "one year to 10 years in jail, with or without a fine".


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12621225

This may surprise you, but not everything bad that happens in the the Middle East and Asia is a consequence of Western intervention.

What does "based on British colonial blasphemy laws" mean?

The punishment of death for insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad was actually first instituted in 1986. The British imperial law relating to blasphemy was general in nature and carried a maximum punishment of "one year to 10 years in jail, with or without a fine".


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12621225

This may surprise you, but not everything bad that happens in the the Middle East and Asia is a consequence of Western intervention.

Nonsense. Just about every country that you care to name (especially Muslim majority countries) has some form of blasphemy law. The Pakistani government would have had blasphemy laws with or without a British imperial history. Even then the British laws that were instituted were relatively lenient in nature (as stated above). The topic of the OP (the death penalty for those that insult Muhammad) is a specifically Pakistani invention in this instance as it was introduced well after the British were involved in Pakistan. The reality of the situation in no way corresponds to your statement that it is "ultimately our fault".


After being called out on a mistake, you really should just have the good grace to accept the mistake and move on rather than pretending that you were saying something different from what you were actually saying.

Calm down son. Every country has blasphemy laws? Havey you got a source for that?

Pakistan is known for having extra stringent blasphemy laws which built upon laws that were introduced by British colonial rulers to keep the separate populaces from warring.

If Britain had never done this there would not have been the legal framework to push through ever harsher blasphemy laws in later years.

When an American goes to court to defend his right to own a semi-automatic rifle for no good reason he is basing that right on the right of a man who lived 300 years ago to own a single shot muzzle loading musket that he needed to protect his family from Native Indians i.e the man living 300 years ago set the legal framework to own a gun that is many more times more powerful and deadly than a musket for no reason whatsoever.

When an American goes to court to defend his right to own a semi-automatic rifle for no good reason he is basing that right on the right of a man who lived 300 years ago to own a single shot muzzle loading musket that he needed to protect his family from Native Indians i.e the man living 300 years ago set the legal framework to own a gun that is many more times more powerful and deadly than a musket for no reason whatsoever.

I don't want to deviate from the argument and/or nitpick but the statement above is anachronistic. You're right about the man setting up the framework for the Second Amendment being almost 300 years ago but your statement about a man needing a single shot muzzle loading musket to protect his family from Native Americans (Native Indians?) is wrong since single shot muskets were used during the American Revolutionary War in and around 1776. The above scenario of a settler family under attack by Native Americans occurred AFTER 1776 when the independent US began expanding westwards for new lands. By then firearms were such that they used repeater rifles, bolt actions, revolvers, pistols, shotguns and so on.

I have never seen so many hairs split in my life.

You are completely wrong anyway, native American attacks happened pretty much as soon as the first Europeans stepped off the boat way back in the 1500s meaning that settlers were using muskets (well arquebuses if you really want to nitpick) to fight them off from day one. The arquebus developed into the musket in the 1600s then they switched to rifles until they finally finished off the Indians with the repeater in the 1800s

In that case I stand corrected.

Never thought that the attacks happened so soon but thanks for the correction regardless.