icon76 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand that but don't you think they should make it crystal clear what actions will be breaking said law? Especially when you're dealing with such harsh sentences. In this case the law is not meant to be fair. It's there to supress any criticism of islam and to enforce islamic suppremacy in pakistan. Keeping it vague means people are scared of any criticism of islam and muhammed, thus stifling disent and ensuring those who don't believe in the 7th century twaddle keep their mouth firmly shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I understand that but don't you think they should make it crystal clear what actions will be breaking said law? Especially when you're dealing with such harsh sentences. I agree but I made this post because certain posters who are posting against this sentence on this thread were posting on the thread about Akmal Sheik saying he deserved to hang because he broke China's law so I was applying the same logic on this thread. I do however totally disagree with this sentence but as was also mentioned on the Akmal Sheik thread, we can't go meddling in the laws of another country can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 False dilemma, to say that a ideology may have contributed to the problem is in no way to suggest individuals shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. It is an excuse, nothing more. If a person is crazy and inclined to do abhorrent things they would do it even if they were not religious. Maybe they would blow up a building and claim Tom Cruise made them do it; that does not make Tom Cruise responsible in the slightest. People subject to some varieties of religion clearly do far more crazy things than equivalent numbers of people subject to other ideologies which would suggest that some varieties of religion encourage people to do "crazy things". Do they now? I would disagree with that. There have been many non-religious psychopaths who have done unthinkable things. Or do you think it's just a coincidence that such "crazy" behaviour is so concentrated amongst people subject to certain ideologies? I don't believe it is. The loud and aggressive actions of a minority may make it appear as though they are the majority but it is not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 In this case the law is not meant to be fair. It's there to supress any criticism of islam and to enforce islamic suppremacy in pakistan. Keeping it vague means people are scared of any criticism of islam and muhammed, thus stifling disent and ensuring those who don't believe in the 7th century twaddle keep their mouth firmly shut. Then it is scare tactics and games and sounds much more like politics than law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I agree but I made this post because certain posters who are posting against this sentence on this thread were posting on the thread about Akmal Sheik saying he deserved to hang because he broke China's law so I was applying the same logic on this thread. I do however totally disagree with this sentence but as was also mentioned on the Akmal Sheik thread, we can't go meddling in the laws of another country can we? Ah, I see. Hypocrisy on SF?? Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 They will only do just over 16 years each if they behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 So if 25 years is too much what do you think would be an appropriate punishment for touching a book with dirty hands? They should have been made to attend a day long course where somone would have educated them about what the laws regarding Blasphemy against Islam are in Pakistan so they could make sure they don't face the same predicament again. Even I didn't know about this law and I'm a Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 They should have been made to attend a day long course where somone would have educated them about what the laws regarding Blasphemy against Islam are in Pakistan so they could make sure they don't face the same predicament again. Even I didn't know about this law and I'm a Muslim. It's not an Islamic law though is it, it's a Pakistani law concerning Islam in their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex3659 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 It's not an Islamic law though is it, it's a Pakistani law concerning Islam in their country. I think the bit saying "muslim radicals were outraged" contradicts that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I think the bit saying "muslim radicals were outraged" contradicts that. How so? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.