Couple sentenced for 25 years in jail for ..

[Plain Talker]

Is that the same as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument, plek? Also known as the "Hiding-to-nothing" theorem?

[icon76]

I don't need any authority to know whether something is correct or not Plek. The Quran is not as open to interpretation as the extremists would have you believe. And I'm not a guy.

 

So the relevant ayas would be what you now post to prove this difinitively?

[plekhanov]

I don't need any authority to know whether something is correct or not Plek.

If you are going to arbitrarily declare that what millions of true believing Muslims believe to be Islam isn't Islam then you absolutely do need some authority (in this case divinely ordained authority) to do so.

 

The Quran is not as open to interpretation as the extremists would have you believe.

And your grounds for this grand claim are?

 

And I'm not a guy.

Guy 3. A man, a fellow; in pl. also (chiefly N. Amer.), people (of either sex). colloq. (orig. N. Amer.). L19.

[plekhanov]

Is that the same as a "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument, plek? Also known as the "Hiding-to-nothing" theorem?

How's about you quit sniping and try responding to posts 15, 17 both of which took on your attempts to defend this abhorrent law.

[Rupert_Baehr]

295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an:

Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.

 

But who decides what the definition of "defiles, damages or desecrates" is?

 

To me that would probably mean taking a dump on it... ?

 

Perhaps the word 'wilfully' might give grounds for an appeal. Arguably, the prosecution would have to prove that the accused persons acted wilfully.

 

If they were not aware that they were supposed to wash before handling the Qur'an, or even if they forgot to do so that would constitute negligent behaviour - but negligent misbehaviour falls far short of wilful misbehaviour and given that previous sections of the penal code talk about negligent behaviour, it is clear that the Pakistani legal system differentiates between the two.

 

There are a few other 'amusing' sections in the Penal Code. - I was particularly taken with Section 278:

278. Making atmosphere noxious to health:

Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine, which may extend to [one thousand five hundred rupees] .

 

They have a law like that and they still allow people to eat curry? - Amazing!

[frank ryan]

I've tried to research this one past some right wing fruitcake website and all i can find is circular references back to it - have emailed the pakistan embassy, but for the time being, I think i can be personally certain that it's not true

[Kthebean]

I've tried to research this one past some right wing fruitcake website and all i can find is circular references back to it - have emailed the pakistan embassy, but for the time being, I think i can be personally certain that it's not true

 

Yes, dont believe everything you read on some website. I too can find no other reference to it anywhere else.

[Plain Talker]

How's about you quit sniping and try responding to posts 15, 17 both of which took on your attempts to defend this abhorrent law.

 

In your rush to condemn religion, plek, I think you missed the bit where I said, quite clearly, it was a sledgehammer to crack a walnut...

 

So how about YOU quit sniping, and using every opportunity possible to have a go at faiths?

 

Thank you

[plekhanov]

In your rush to condemn religion, plek, I think you missed the bit where I said, quite clearly, it was a sledgehammer to crack a walnut...

Prompting the response:

 

Your response rather implies that you feel that some sort of punishment for 'touching a book' would be acceptable, but that this punishment is too much.

 

To carry on with your analogy - where is the walnut?

 

Which I called your attention to and which you have ignored.

 

The fact is that by saying "Can you say "Sledgehammers-and-walnuts?" that sentence is well.. erm... excessive!" you are arguing that it is right that people should be punished for touching your precious 'holy' book without first ritually washing their hands, just not quite to harshly.

 

In this thread you have attempted to defend the existence of this law, criticised the victims of your co-religionists persecution and attempted to draw false equivalences between touching a book and urinating in public onto public property. Because you like so many people have sadly been corrupted by the virus of faith.

 

So how about YOU quit sniping,

What 'sniping'? Unlike your recent efforts my posts in this thread have been substantive and on topic, you may not like them but they are anything but 'sniping'.

 

and using every opportunity possible to have a go at faiths?

 

Thank you

The moment those infected by faiths stop being inspired by their faiths to persecute others in the way the unfortunate couple mentioned in the op are being persecuted then I'll stop 'having a go at faiths'.

[patty1142]

Touching a book with dirty hands. Please tell me it's not true.

 

 

 

barbaric!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!