Hang Ayaz Nizami

[Angra Mainyu]

So, the reason I quoted you the story of Robert De Niro and Madonna is to literally give you examples of people who wanted to punch President Trump or bomb the White House, all crimes, one being descriptively a battery and the other descriptively terrorism. However, we didn't take their words literally, did we? We thought these people were just expressing their outrage. Why should we then take words of these individuals whom you've quoted from Twitter literally just and only because they happen to be Muslim?

Fair points, however:

1. A large majority of Pakistanis are committed to a religion that imposes severe punishments for blasphemy and/or apostasy.
2. Opinion polls show that there is indeed wide support for blasphemy laws in Pakistan. For example, http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf reports 75% considers that "Blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in our country" comes closer to their view than the alternative statement (which says they unfairly target minority communities).
Those are responses to a poll, not reactions in the heat of the moment against someone who said something against Islam, like the Tweets - not that those are acceptable, either. Neither were Madonna's words, if they were as you describe them, acceptable. But Hang Ayaz Nizami is on the other hand at a serious risk of being severely punished. Trump seems pretty safe. And Madonna doesn't actually support bombing the White House, whereas a large majority of Pakistanis do support blasphemy laws (even if not all of the ones who Tweeted do, which seems improbable given their words, their religion, and the vast support for such laws in Pakistan; but even if some of them don't support them, the general point about Pakistan would remain).
4. As it happens, blasphemy laws are in fact applied in Pakistan on many occasions. People do get punished. And the vast majority of Pakistanis still support such laws. While the government might or might not apply them on non-religious grounds only (though that's improbable; they probably use them for both religious and non-religious political reasons), popular support seems clearly religiously-driven.
5. It ought to be obvious that popular support for those laws is mostly driven by religion. Even if we didn't have any polls, simply by talking to Muslims you can find on blogs, social networks, etc., you'll find pretty good evidence (yes, it's not a poll, but that's not the only way to get good evidence, if you keep digging) that support for legal punishment for blasphemy and/or apostasy is very common in Islam (and in some places, Christianity too), and that supporters - who may actually be against the Pakistani government overall - cite religious texts (the Quran or the hadith, sometimes the Bible depending on the case) in support of said views - and there is no good reason to think they're being dishonest; they're just committed to the religion they were indoctrinated in, like most people are. But some religions are more evil and/or more dangerous than others.

I meant "But Ayaz Nizami is on the other hand at a serious risk of being severely punished. ", of course (copy/paste error).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Double post.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You say that like anyone here has ever made that argument. Dismal, if you're going to debate and argue at a Facebook level then maybe Facebook would be a better fit for you than here.

I say that because he does not embrace western values like free speech when obviously a *real* representative muslim would.

According to the Pakistani constitution, Ahmadis (like Syed) aren't Muslims. Moreover, 66% of Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, and only 7% say they are.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/

 

[Syed]

I say that because he does not embrace western values like free speech when obviously a *real* representative muslim would.

According to the Pakistani constitution, Ahmadis (like Syed) aren't Muslims. Moreover, 66% of Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, and only 7% say they are.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/

i am not ahmadi and ahmadi are not muslims but they have RIGHT to practice their religion in peace

 

[Syed]

nobody have right to insult other people religion, if you dont like religion you can shut up

Uhhh...Syed...yes in fact, we as American's (along with the majority of democratic nations), have the right to insult other people's religion. So may Mo spend eternity being fucked by a dog while only allowed to eat hot dogs.

And may the "Life of Brian" be rebroadcast until the end of the ages...

yes, in america you have the right to insult other people's religion and crew yourselves, you already destroyed christianity soon end of western civilization

 

[Syed]

You say that like anyone here has ever made that argument. Dismal, if you're going to debate and argue at a Facebook level then maybe Facebook would be a better fit for you than here.

I say that because he does not embrace western values like free speech when obviously a *real* representative muslim would.

free speech should be constructive not destructive, if you dont like something debate nicely you could win debate

 

[Syed]

nobody have right to insult other people religion, if you dont like religion you can shut up

We are in a country with freedom of speech.

That means we do have the right to insult religion. Religion is one of the great sources of evil in the world today, it's very worthy of insulting.

how ignorant you are

religions civilized human and ONLY religion can preserved civilization

 

[Angra Mainyu]

According to the Pakistani constitution, Ahmadis (like Syed) aren't Muslims. Moreover, 66% of Pakistani Muslims say Ahmadis are not Muslims, and only 7% say they are.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/

i am not ahmadi and ahmadi are not muslims but they have RIGHT to practice their religion in peace

My apologies. I thought I had read in a post that you were. My bad.
Why are Ahmadi not Muslims?
And why do you want to place people who insult the religions of others in a psychiatric hospital, not in prison? After all, you said that no one has the right to insult the religion of others. But that's no argument for a hospital.

 

[Syed]

nobody have right to insult other people religion, if you dont like religion you can shut up

First, it's not clear whether it was an insult, or they argue it was false.
Second, of course people have the right to insult the religion of other people. I do have that right, though I prefer not to insult. But then again, many of the things I say would be classified as an insult by millions of religious people. How about the following statements?

1. The biblical character Moses was a moral monster, going by the description of his actions in the Bible, and regardless of whether he was real or not.
2. The biblical character Yahweh is a worse moral monster, albeit an imaginary one - like Darth Vader, but more dangerous.
3. Muhammad was a moral monster too. He attacked villages, murdered men (even non-combatants), raped women, sold women into slavery, of course stole things, and on top of that, became powerful by promoting a false religion that is still doing serious damage today.

Do they get me into a psychiatric hospital?

Third, if you believe that people do not have the right to insult the religion of others, why would you send them to a psychiatric hospital, rather than prison?
I mean, you don't want to send rapists and bank robbers to a psychiatric hospital, do you? So, why a psychiatric hospital, rather than a prison cell?

you can say All the above but just say it nicely, why do you want to be rude ?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I say that because he does not embrace western values like free speech when obviously a *real* representative muslim would.

free speech should be constructive not destructive, if you dont like something debate nicely you could win debate

But debate is often considered an insult, is it not?
I can argue that Islam is not true because the Quran claims that Muhammad was a righteous person, but he was an evil rapist, murderer, enslaver, thief, etc. But that would get classified as an insult, would it not?
I also argue against Christianity by arguing that the biblical creator is a moral monster (albeit an imaginary one, like Palpatine), that so was Moses (regardless of whether he was real), etc. Is that an insult? But moral argumentation is like that: one argues that a person is evil, or not perfect, or engaged in immoral behavior, etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, it's not clear whether it was an insult, or they argue it was false.
Second, of course people have the right to insult the religion of other people. I do have that right, though I prefer not to insult. But then again, many of the things I say would be classified as an insult by millions of religious people. How about the following statements?

1. The biblical character Moses was a moral monster, going by the description of his actions in the Bible, and regardless of whether he was real or not.
2. The biblical character Yahweh is a worse moral monster, albeit an imaginary one - like Darth Vader, but more dangerous.
3. Muhammad was a moral monster too. He attacked villages, murdered men (even non-combatants), raped women, sold women into slavery, of course stole things, and on top of that, became powerful by promoting a false religion that is still doing serious damage today.

Do they get me into a psychiatric hospital?

Third, if you believe that people do not have the right to insult the religion of others, why would you send them to a psychiatric hospital, rather than prison?
I mean, you don't want to send rapists and bank robbers to a psychiatric hospital, do you? So, why a psychiatric hospital, rather than a prison cell?

you can say All the above but just say it nicely, why do you want to be rude ?

I don't want to be rude, though I have the right to it. I was asking whether the mere act of saying it classifies as an insult. How do you not insultingly say that a person is an evil rapist, for example?
At any rate, saying that Muhammad was a morally evil person - just that - would almost certainly be enough to get me classified as someone who insulted the prophet, in the eyes not only of millions of Muslims, but also some blasphemy laws.

 

[Syed]

i am not ahmadi and ahmadi are not muslims but they have RIGHT to practice their religion in peace

My apologies. I thought I had read in a post that you were. My bad.
Why are Ahmadi not Muslims?
.

ahmadis are followers of a pakistani man name mirza ghulam ahmad he claimed he is prophet of god

so muslims have only one choice to accept him as prophet of god or reject him as cult leader

And why do you want to place people who insult the religions of others in a psychiatric hospital, not in prison? After all, you said that no one has the right to insult the religion of others. But that's no argument for a hospital

because people who insult religions they must mental health problem

 

[Angra Mainyu]

ahmadis are followers of a pakistani man name mirza ghulam ahmad he claimed he is prophet of god

According to the Wikipedia article, he claimed to be the Madhi. But he - and Ahmadis - also believe Muhammad was a prophet. Moreover, they claim that Ahmad restored the practices of Muslims to the way they were under Muhammad, not that Ahmad brought new revelations. They believe in the six articles of faith other Muslims believe.

so muslims have only one choice to accept him as prophet of god or reject him as cult leader

Or accept him as the Mahdi. But would that make them not qualify as Muslims?
What about Shia, then? Are they Muslims?

because people who insult religions they must mental health problem

1. I still do not know what counts as insulting religions for you. Would something like the examples I gave qualify?
2. Why do you think people who insult religions must have mental health problems?
3. Most people with mental health problems are not committed to a psychiatric hospital. That's only for some extreme cases. Why would you do that to people who insult religions?

 

[Underseer]

Fellow atheists have wrongly offended the Religion of Peace™ and may die for their inexcusable Islamophobia.

According to FIA sources the arrested, Ayaz Nizami alias Abdul Waheed and Rana Nauman, have admitted to having contacts in Holland, USA, UK and Canada from where they got financial and technical assistance.

The suspects were using a Dutch SIM for uploading blasphemous content on WhatsApp. Cyber Crime Circle Islamabad has registered an FIR under section 7/17.

Both the suspects used to upload blasphemous content on various, reports claim.

Blasphemy crackdown: FIA arrests 2 suspects from Karachi

The reaction from "moderate" Muslims (not those ISIS folks who don't understand their religion as well as Western liberals) is reasoned and just:

It should be remembered that the West also used to have blasphemy laws, so anyone concerned about this is a %$#@!^&*ist. There should be no worry at all that this mindset is being imported into Western countries. Don't forget that the members of Monty Python were brought up on blasphemy charges for Life of Brian. It's so shameful that those bastards weren't hanged, too.

Ah, so we can judge all billion Muslims by the radicals?

Great!

So you don't mind if we apply the same generalizations to Christians and white people, do you?

Of course you don't mind, because you're definitely not a hypocrite.

Christians in Africa are killing children for witchcraft. An estimated thousands children have been killed so far, most with fire or acid. This is the single most evil thing going on in the world of religion today. The Bible commands Christians to kill witches, you can find plenty of "moderate" Christians writing anti-witch articles, and I have yet to hear a single Christian radical or moderate speak out against the witch killings in Africa.

Or how about the Trump administration?

Trump was elected thanks to Christian votes, and Christians voted for Trump because of their religious beliefs. Many insist he was sent by God. So far Trump has already killed hundreds of civilians and he's only been in office for two months. The great majority of Christians still fully support Trump because they are ok with murdering large numbers of civilians as long as those murdered are not Christian.

Or how about another administration that received enthusiastic support from Christians? The Bush administration killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by even three most moderate counts, and to this day most Christians make excuses for both busy and the war.

Oh, and the majority of Christians also make excuses for the mass torture that happened under Bush.

So Christians are ok with killing children with fire or acid for imaginary offenses, are ok with mass torture and mass murder, and the few Christians who speak out against these things are shouted down by the other Christians.

Do I have to mention the various Bible passages that instruct Christians to murder people from different religions? Even Jesus commanded it in the New Testament.

So what collective punishment should we apply to all Christians in light of this?

Should we stop accepting immigrants from known Christian countries?

Should we consider mass deportation of Christians because after all, they're all a bunch of crazed killers? I mean, you never know when they might start murdering children with fire or acid.

Should we maybe make them wear a special badge in public and keep a national database on all known Christians in the country?

Or are you just going to blow this whole thing off with a special pleading fallacy?

That's what you're going to do, isn't it?

 

[Trausti]

Fellow atheists have wrongly offended the Religion of Peace™ and may die for their inexcusable Islamophobia.



Blasphemy crackdown: FIA arrests 2 suspects from Karachi

The reaction from "moderate" Muslims (not those ISIS folks who don't understand their religion as well as Western liberals) is reasoned and just:

It should be remembered that the West also used to have blasphemy laws, so anyone concerned about this is a %$#@!^&*ist. There should be no worry at all that this mindset is being imported into Western countries. Don't forget that the members of Monty Python were brought up on blasphemy charges for Life of Brian. It's so shameful that those bastards weren't hanged, too.

Ah, so we can judge all billion Muslims by the radicals?

Great!

So you don't mind if we apply the same generalizations to Christians and white people, do you?

Of course you don't mind, because you're definitely not a hypocrite.

Christians in Africa are killing children for witchcraft. An estimated thousands children have been killed so far, most with fire or acid. This is the single most evil thing going on in the world of religion today. The Bible commands Christians to kill witches, you can find plenty of "moderate" Christians writing anti-witch articles, and I have yet to hear a single Christian radical or moderate speak out against the witch killings in Africa.

Or how about the Trump administration?

Trump was elected thanks to Christian votes, and Christians voted for Trump because of their religious beliefs. Many insist he was sent by God. So far Trump has already killed hundreds of civilians and he's only been in office for two months. The great majority of Christians still fully support Trump because they are ok with murdering large numbers of civilians as long as those murdered are not Christian.

Or how about another administration that received enthusiastic support from Christians? The Bush administration killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by even three most moderate counts, and to this day most Christians make excuses for both busy and the war.

Oh, and the majority of Christians also make excuses for the mass torture that happened under Bush.

So Christians are ok with killing children with fire or acid for imaginary offenses, are ok with mass torture and mass murder, and the few Christians who speak out against these things are shouted down by the other Christians.

Do I have to mention the various Bible passages that instruct Christians to murder people from different religions? Even Jesus commanded it in the New Testament.

So what collective punishment should we apply to all Christians in light of this?

Should we stop accepting immigrants from known Christian countries?

Should we consider mass deportation of Christians because after all, they're all a bunch of crazed killers? I mean, you never know when they might start murdering children with fire or acid.

Should we maybe make them wear a special badge in public and keep a national database on all known Christians in the country?

Or are you just going to blow this whole thing off with a special pleading fallacy?

That's what you're going to do, isn't it?

Considering all the anti-Christian posting on this forum, is anyone ever thought to be blanket accuse all Christians as bad because of this or that bad person or action? Of course, not. So why here, on this this board, this atheist board, is Islam given special privilege? Why is there so much Islamophilia on the left and, astonishingly, among atheists? If there is any place on the internet to highlight a story about atheists facing state persecution, and mob calls for death, it ought to be here, on an atheists and freethinkers forum. And it is so aggravating that the strongest push back against anti-liberal Islamic practices comes from liberals! I care about Ayaz Nizami and the likely millions of closeted atheists and doubters in the Islamic world. I care about those in the West who are born into Muslim families but fear coming out in their communities as non-believers. Yet, the people who should be espousing critique of religion and spurring freethinking are instead condemning them to their religious prisons by thwarting discussion. There cannot be a reformation in the Islamic world if every time a freethinker is critical of Islam that freethinker is shutdown by liberals (no one seems to mind any more if you're critical of Christianity).

 

[Warpoet]

Considering all the anti-Christian posting on this forum, is anyone ever thought to be blanket accuse all Christians as bad because of this or that bad person or action? Of course, not. So why here, on this this board, this atheist board, is Islam given special privilege?

It isn't. The difference is that while atheists are obviously not talking about all Christians - many of us in the West were Christians at one point, or have Christian friends and families - you and the other assholes spouting this self-righteous bullshit ACTUALLY FUCKING ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL MUSLIMS. You might offer the reluctant allowance that some are OK, but that's no different than when racist dickheads say that "there are some good ones here and there." You don't get to post shit about Muslims invading the West, being a fifth column waiting to enslave us under sharia and then claim you aren't demonizing them as a group.

The answer from true liberals to your little crusade will always be fuck you. You aren't some do-gooder genuinely concerned about reforming Islam to make life better for Muslims. You're an alt right troll who doesn't like Muslims, doesn't want them around even though you've almost certainly never actually met one, and would probably be happy if the religion were banned outright. So cut the bullshit and stop trying to defend your hobby horsing by pretending to be something you're not.

 

[funinspace]

Considering all the anti-Christian posting on this forum, is anyone ever thought to be blanket accuse all Christians as bad because of this or that bad person or action? Of course, not. So why here, on this this board, this atheist board, is Islam given special privilege?

It isn't. The difference is that while atheists are obviously not talking about all Christians - many of us in the West were Christians at one point, or have Christian friends and families - you and the other assholes spouting this self-righteous bullshit ACTUALLY FUCKING ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL MUSLIMS. You might offer the reluctant allowance that some are OK, but that's no different than when racist dickheads say that "there are some good ones here and there." You don't get to post shit about Muslims invading the West, being a fifth column waiting to enslave us under sharia and then claim you aren't demonizing them as a group.

The answer from true liberals to your little crusade will always be fuck you. You aren't some do-gooder genuinely concerned about reforming Islam to make life better for Muslims. You're an alt right troll who doesn't like Muslims, doesn't want them around even though you've almost certainly never actually met one, and would probably be happy if the religion were banned outright. So cut the bullshit and stop trying to defend your hobby horsing by pretending to be something you're not.

As a moderate libertarian, I endorse this message!

 

[funinspace]

nobody have right to insult other people religion, if you dont like religion you can shut up

Uhhh...Syed...yes in fact, we as American's (along with the majority of democratic nations), have the right to insult other people's religion. So may Mo spend eternity being fucked by a dog while only allowed to eat hot dogs.

And may the "Life of Brian" be rebroadcast until the end of the ages...

yes, in america you have the right to insult other people's religion and crew yourselves,

So it appears, that you understand even if you contradict yourself within 24 hours. Oh you meant 'screw' when you said 'crew'...was funny.

you already destroyed christianity soon end of western civilization

I think the Christians did that on their own...

Yes, debating 'nicely' is a better thing. However, when someone suggests that another doesn't have freedom of speech, I will tend to get more than a little feisty.

 

[dismal]

I say that because he does not embrace western values like free speech when obviously a *real* representative muslim would.

free speech should be constructive not destructive, if you dont like something debate nicely you could win debate

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

Since you put a "should" in there.

It's only when you go beyond "should" to advocating force to punish those who disagree with your opinion that you violate the "free" part.

A *real* muslim, steeped in western culture and values, would know this and embrace this.

 

[untermensche]

Ah, so we can judge all billion Muslims by the radicals?

Great!

So you don't mind if we apply the same generalizations to Christians and white people, do you?

Of course you don't mind, because you're definitely not a hypocrite.

Christians in Africa are killing children for witchcraft. An estimated thousands children have been killed so far, most with fire or acid. This is the single most evil thing going on in the world of religion today. The Bible commands Christians to kill witches, you can find plenty of "moderate" Christians writing anti-witch articles, and I have yet to hear a single Christian radical or moderate speak out against the witch killings in Africa.

Or how about the Trump administration?

Trump was elected thanks to Christian votes, and Christians voted for Trump because of their religious beliefs. Many insist he was sent by God. So far Trump has already killed hundreds of civilians and he's only been in office for two months. The great majority of Christians still fully support Trump because they are ok with murdering large numbers of civilians as long as those murdered are not Christian.

Or how about another administration that received enthusiastic support from Christians? The Bush administration killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by even three most moderate counts, and to this day most Christians make excuses for both busy and the war.

Oh, and the majority of Christians also make excuses for the mass torture that happened under Bush.

So Christians are ok with killing children with fire or acid for imaginary offenses, are ok with mass torture and mass murder, and the few Christians who speak out against these things are shouted down by the other Christians.

Do I have to mention the various Bible passages that instruct Christians to murder people from different religions? Even Jesus commanded it in the New Testament.

So what collective punishment should we apply to all Christians in light of this?

Should we stop accepting immigrants from known Christian countries?

Should we consider mass deportation of Christians because after all, they're all a bunch of crazed killers? I mean, you never know when they might start murdering children with fire or acid.

Should we maybe make them wear a special badge in public and keep a national database on all known Christians in the country?

Or are you just going to blow this whole thing off with a special pleading fallacy?

That's what you're going to do, isn't it?

It is amazing this modern hysteria against Islam really takes off right after the US launches a cold blooded terrorist attack of a Muslim nation.

Then 10 years of tortuous occupation.

And ISIS as a parting gift.

US Christians have always demonized those it was attacking and murdering.

This modern insanity included.