World News

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Fwd: [politics] Qadri, Taseer and Ilm-ud-din – History in Circles

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kisan
Date: Thursday, October 6, 2011
Subject: [politics] Qadri, Taseer and Ilm-ud-din – History in Circles
To: SPN <socialist_pakistan_news@yahoogroups.com>

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/10646

Qadri, Taseer and Ilm-ud-din – History in Circles
Published: October 5, 2011

This is a guest post by Kisan

As an illiterate and impoverished Christian woman faced the sentence of death for blasphemy, a secular leaning Governor of Punjab tried to
intervene to get her freed, describing the blasphemy law as a 'black
law' and was killed by his own guard after being named by clerics as
'wajib ul qatl', or necessary to be slaughtered.

The history of the law mandating the death penalty for blasphemy can
be traced back to an earlier chapter in the history of Pakistan. In the
British times a law was enacted in the then undivided Indian penal code, article 295A, which makes it a criminal offence to: "insult the
religion or the religious beliefs of any citizen with deliberate and
malicious intention to outrage their religious feelings." This law, still current in India, has in Pakistan been further modified to
include article 295B which mandates life imprisonment for defilement of
the Quran and article 295C which prescribes the death penalty for the
"use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet."

The reason the British found it necessary to bring this law into
effect was the Ilm ud din episode which has striking parallels with
today's events.
A book had been written called Rangeela Rasool 'colourful prophet' in Hindi which quoting embarrassing stories from
the hadiths painted an unflattering picture of Islam's founder and was
published by a Raj Pal in Lahore. Imams in Lahore incited their
congregations to kill the blasphemous publisher and hearing this, a
carpenter called Il-mud-din bought a dagger and stabbed Raj Pal to
death.
He was arrested and eventually executed by the British Raj. But the Raj,
seeing how incensed Muslims could get over such issues, introduced the
law in 1927 to deal with blasphemy (the above 295).

Ilm-ud-din was deemed a great hero by the Muslim masses. He was represented by up
and coming lawyer Jinnah (later to be founder of Pakistan) and his
funeral rites were organised by Allama Muhammad Iqbal (later to become
Pakistan's national poet). He was given the honorific title Ghazi
Ilm-ud-din Shaheed. Ghazi is a title of honour for a Muslim who
slaughters a non-Muslim for the cause of Islam and Shaheed is the term
for a martyr. Until now he remains a great hero inPakistan and where he
was once jailed there is now named in his honour Ghazi Ilmuddin Shaheed
Mosque.

So the law that accounted for the death sentence on Asia Bibi, directly evolved from a similar event of Muslims seeking to murder a blasphemous non-Muslim.

In the same way there are clear parallels with the treatment of the
murderers Ilm-ud-din and Qadri. Both are lauded as heroes and given the
same honorific titles Ghazi and Shaheed. The Judge who has sentenced Qadri to death is now in fear for his life and lawyers have trashed his courtroom to protest the sentence against Qadri. Huge rallies are being held by Pakistan's religious parties in support of Qadri whom they laud as a true lover of Islam's prophet or "Ashiq-e-Rasool". Not
content at just murdering Taseer, his son too has been kidnapped, and is apparently being used as a bargaining chip for the release of Qadri.

It is indeed a bind for the Pakistani Government, caught between
honouring its National ideology of Islam and all that entails or between being a responsible member of the community of nations. As the history
shows in the past both its founder and national poet came down on the
side of a killer of blasphemers.

The Pakistani Government has been a leading proponent of trying to export a watered down version of its blasphemy laws to the United Nations
along with other OIC countries. Much of the hullaballoo about
Islamophobia you hear of from Islamic organizations in the West is also
similar attempts at trying to criminalize blasphemy.

There is an interesting article I read online translated from Urdu in which the author Maulana Nademul Wajidi says:
Does he not know that in undivided India a Lahore resident
had dared to challenge Muslim's self-respect having written a book
called Rangeela Rasool (The colourful Prophet). An illiterate young
Muslim Ghazi Ilmuddin had answered him with his sword. Having killed
him, he had proved that no one can insult our prophet. Muslims will
never tolerate that. Recently Pakistani Punjab's governor Salman Taseer
was killed for showing sympathy for the accursed blasphemer Aaasia Bibi. His own bodyguard Mumtaz Hussain Qadri killed him.
>
>
>The punishment for blasphemy can be nothing less than death. Muslims have always punished blasphemers with death. But we are live here in India. We are merely demanding punishment in
accordance with laws of this land. Why should the government have any
problems then?
The learned Mullah is indeed correct. Muslims have indeed punished
blasphemers throughout history with death, but will use any means to
shut up the critics of Islam at their disposal.

For those unaware of some of these historical killings of blasphemers you can go right back to the time of the holy prophet of Islam and see
that he instigated his followers to kill many of his critics
(blasphemers):

On the orders of Muhammad a follower went and killed Asma Bint Marwan, a woman suckling her infant child:

Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her
children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling.
He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the
child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to
her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at
al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the
daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to
do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her.
This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The
apostle of Allah called him 'Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

Another critic of Muhammad, Abu Afak, an old man, composed poetry that doubted Muhammad's claims to be a
prophet. Muhammad said: "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" One of
his followers then went and killed Abu Afak.

There are numerous other examples of killing of blasphemers in the time of the prophet such as:
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4349:
>Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
>A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage
him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her
blood.
Throughout the Islamic domination of the subcontinent also
blasphemers were killed again and again in keeping with the Islamic
tradition that the Mullah writes about above. There is this example I read of, about a man murdered as he made the apparently incredibly blasphemous claim that both Islam and Hinduism were true:
It is related in the Akbar Sháhí, that there
came a Bráhman, by name Laudhan, who dwelt in the village of Kaner, who had one day asserted in the presence of Musulmáns that Islám was true,
as was also his own religion. This speech of his was noised abroad, and
came to the ears of the 'Ulamá. Kází Píyára and Shaikh Badr, who resided at Lakhnautí, gave fatwas which did not coincide respecting the merits of the case. Consequently
'Azam Humáyún, the governor of that district, sent the Bráhman, the
Kází, and Shaikh Badr, all three into the King's presence at Sambhal.
Sultán Sikandar took great pleasure in disputations on religious
questions, and on this occasion summoned all the wise men of note from
every quarter. Mullá 'Abdu-lla, the son of Mullá Ilahdád, Saiyid
Muhammad, and Míán Kádan, from Dehlí, all the Mullás in short
of his empire, were summoned to Sambhal, and the assembly of the also
present on this occasion. After investigating the matter, the 'Ulamá determined that he should be imprisoned and converted to
Muhammadanism, or suffer death, and, since the Bráhman refused to
apostatize, he was accordingly put to death by the decree of the 'Ulamá. The Sultán, after rewarding the learned casuists, gave them permission to depart.
The incitement of Muslims to kill blasphemers is a recurring theme
throughout history. The basis of it lies within the teachings of Islam.
Islam believes it has the right and mandate to murder those who oppose
it in word or deed. This is due to the very founder of the religion
using such means and those means in fact assisting the rapid expansion
of Islam.

The world needs to be aware of methodology in play to shut down
debate on Islam by devout Muslims. Devout Muslims will when in power or a strong position seek to kill blasphemers or critics of Islam. When in a weaker position vis-à-vis critics they seek to use other laws and means to silence critics. The current push for international blasphemy laws
and talk of Islamophobia represent that path of action.

Rather than laws to entail and criminalize criticism of Islam, strict laws that severely punish those inciting murdering in the name of Islam need enacting and enforcing. This would work towards eliminating this
unacceptable menace to societies around the world.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group
- - - - -
The All Things Political FAQ (v. 1.21) is now availiable at the URL which follows: &lthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/politics/files/AllThingsPoliticalFAQ.txt>. Send your comments, if any, to <politics-owner@yahoogroups.com>. All suggestions are welcome.
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [RumblesAList] Puppy love

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ted
Date: Monday, September 19, 2011
Subject: [

I receive lots of sweet pictures
of dogs, cats and other adorable
animals. I always like to forward
cute dog pictures.

This one is especially touching!!

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=132823bad5a99f7a&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=132823bad5a99f7a&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw>

AdamKokesh just uploaded a video

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: YouTube
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Help Center | Change Email Preferences

AdamKokesh just uploaded a video:

Davis Fleetwood: Former teacher wants force used against students, not persuasion
While following around #OccupyDC, I ran into my old friend, Davis Fleetwood and we had this enlightening conversation. More

You can unsubscribe from notifications for this user by visiting My Subscriptions.

© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul

"So why the lies?
"I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent."

Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul
by Laurence M. Vance

Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.

The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.

Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn't support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.

The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.

Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn't support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.

The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don't likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.

Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn't support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.

Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."

Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn't support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.

Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world's policeman.

Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn't support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.

The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.

So why the lies?

Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.

I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn't just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn't change his message depending on the crowd he's addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?

So why the lies?

I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.

But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don't share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right's embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.html

ARI Alert: Ayn Rand's Chairs Being Auctioned

--------

<http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/131833.png>

Ayn Rand's Chairs Being Auctioned

The Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to let you know about this unique auction event.

Four Brno chairs owned and used by Ayn Rand are being placed on auction, at Bonhams & Butterfields, by Peter and Sandra Schwartz. These are cantilevered, leather and chromed-steel chairs, designed by Mies van der Rohe. Here is some background, provided by Harry Binswanger:

"I visited Ayn Rand weekly in her apartment during her final couple of years. We sat in these chairs, around her dining room table, to play Scrabble—and to talk philosophy. More importantly, in her last years, Ayn Rand did her writing sitting in one of these chairs at that table, not in her study as it had become too cluttered. For instance, it was sitting in one of these chairs that she wrote the first third of the screenplay of Atlas Shrugged, for a film or miniseries that she was going to produce herself (as explained in her last talk, 'The Sanction of the Victims'). And, of course, it was in these chairs that she dined nightly with her husband, Frank O'Connor, from when they moved into that apartment, in 1965. As to the scratches on the chairs, she always said, 'One can either have unscratched furniture or cats. I choose to have cats.'"

The auction will take place on Oct. 16 at 10am. Bids can be submitted online or by phone. The website gives instructions.

» View auction

<http://www.aynrand.org/site/PixelServer?j=zqfHNV0xPfyIPTRPVC5YFQ>

ARI on:

<http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/131844.png>
<http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/131847.png>
<http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/131843.png>
Ayn Rand Institute
Web site
________________________________

Copyright © 2011 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

You are subscribed to the Ayn Rand Institute's General Announcements list under the e-mail address majors.bruce@gmail.com. If you prefer not to receive general announcements from the Ayn Rand Institute, please visit our Web site to change your e-mail preferences. You can update your profile or change your e-mail preferences at any time. Send inquiries to mail@aynrand.org.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92606

<http://www.aynrand.org/images/content/pagebuilder/131867.png>