Penn Judge: Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[DESERT FIGHTER]

In soviet india.......... beef gets you jailed.

 

[Saifullah Sani]

it is simple we must respect each other's religion

 

[Rusty]

Is cow slaughter mandatory in Islam? Is it ordained by the Holy Koran or any of the authoritative Hadiths? If not, then banning of cow slaughter (in some states) doesn't present any impediment, real or imagined, to Islam or its practice. The tenet of secularism is, therefore, not violated.

By that logic, why not ban chairs and tables, or jumping, or something equally silly?
Non of those things are mandatory in any religion.

The only reason eating beef was banned is because Hindus don't want minorities eating them.
Hindus don't eat beef, so they are not affected by this law, but a minority can go to jail for 7 years just because of his dinner. And that is oppression of minorities.
Which is against secularism.


QUOTE=toxic_pus;2650039]Just to remind you, India doesn't practice exclusivist secularism as in Europe. Indian secularism is inclusivist.
[/QUOTE]

If Indian secularism is so inclusive then how about banning Alcohol?
It is forbidden in Islam, and since your secularism is already pandering to Hindus, why don't they also pander to Muslims?


QUOTE=toxic_pus;2650039]
There is a difference between Hinduism having influence on the state of India and Hindus making laws. Due to the simple reason of statistics - Hindus being in overwhelming majority - Hindus in India will be in a predominant position in law making (as Muslims are in Muslim majority state, e.g. Pakistan). If this predominance is used in making laws that unduly favours the Hindus and Hindus only, only then can we say, that 'Hinduism has influence on the state of India'. Unfortunately for you, there is no law in India that unduly favours Hindus or creates stumbling blocks for Muslims or other minority religions. Laws, putting minorities in jail for not acting like Hindus, is a product of your fertile mind, unless you are suggesting that slaughtering cows or eating beef is so integral to the practice of Islam that by not doing so, on fails to be a pious Muslim and falls out of his religion.

So, yes, the state of India is secular in every sense of the word.[/QUOTE]

Right, there is a difference between pandering and influence. Influence means setting morals and ideals that the people share, into the government. Pandering means to make laws that only affect minorities to get the approval of the majority.
Since you are not part of a minority, you clearly don't know the effects of certain laws that target minorities.
Like I said, the beef law only targets minorities and it's only purpose is to pander, and thus the law is unduly favoring Hindus.

 

[haviZsultan]

Halloween parade: Ernest Perce (right) marches through Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, with a fellow atheist dressed as a 'Zombie Pope' in October. He was confronted by Talaag Elbayomy about his 'offensive' costume, which included the sign 'Muhammad of Islam'

I feel its just impossible to stop these people. Why try?

Christians didn't have a problem with the pope being insulted. Why did we have a problem with our Prophet (PBUH). I think we just have to accept this kind of thing will happen and not take offense at everything.

Banning or stopping people to do things by force is never the solution.

 

[Soumitra]

If Indian secularism is so inclusive then how about banning Alcohol?
It is forbidden in Islam, and since your secularism is already pandering to Hindus, why don't they also pander to Muslims?

Alchohol is banned in Gujarat - Which according to many pakistanis is ruled by a hardline hindu.

Right, there is a difference between pandering and influence. Influence means setting morals and ideals that the people share, into the government. Pandering means to make laws that only affect minorities to get the approval of the majority.
Since you are not part of a minority, you clearly don't know the effects of certain laws that target minorities.
Like I said, the beef law only targets minorities and it's only purpose is to pander, and thus the law is unduly favoring Hindus.

What about special laws only for Muslims like Muslim Personnel Law, Reservation for Minorities, Giving taxpayer subsidy for Hajj, overthrowing Supreme Court Judgments just to please some Mullas (Shah Bano Case), saying that minorities have first right for the nation's resources (Manmohan Singh Speech)? Are these not signs of "Secularism"

 

[PteX]

His license to practice law should be revoked, America isn't an Islamic republic.
@Gambit
You'`re an American(Military official from my understanding) and know American law better than most of us, why is this guy not persecuted by actual Law enforcers(The Judge and the guy that assaulted the atheist)?

 

[toxic_pus]

By that logic, why not ban chairs and tables, or jumping, or something equally silly?
Non of those things are mandatory in any religion.

Why would anybody want to ban 'chairs and tables, or jumping, or something equally silly', willy nilly, just because these are not mandatory in any religion. There must be a rational explanation for banning. Test of secularism would be if such banning, or for that matter permission, of an act puts a particular religious community in advantageous position and another, disadvantaged.

Does banning of cow slaughter leave the Muslims in India disadvantaged and the Hindus advantaged. If so how?

The only reason eating beef was banned is because Hindus don't want minorities eating them.
Hindus don't eat beef, so they are not affected by this law, but a minority can go to jail for 7 years just because of his dinner. And that is oppression of minorities.
Which is against secularism.

Cow slaughter is banned because it offends Hindus, not because of some conspiracy against the minorities to depreive them of their religious rights. And beef is not the only dish available. So calling the ban on beef as oppression of minorities is as juvenile as it gets.

If Indian secularism is so inclusive then how about banning Alcohol?
It is forbidden in Islam, and since your secularism is already pandering to Hindus, why don't they also pander to Muslims?

Alcohol is/was actually banned in several states, just as cow slaughter and beef is not banned in several states. But more importantly I am not aware of any such demands being made from the Muslim communities. As with pandering to Muslims, how about banning anything that offends the Muslims, e.g. banning of Rushdie's book and more recently barring his entry into India to attend a literary festival.

Right, there is a difference between pandering and influence. Influence means setting morals and ideals that the people share, into the government. Pandering means to make laws that only affect minorities to get the approval of the majority.
Since you are not part of a minority, you clearly don't know the effects of certain laws that target minorities.
Like I said, the beef law only targets minorities and it's only purpose is to pander, and thus the law is unduly favoring Hindus.

How exactly is it 'unduly favouring' Hindus. Is the law getting them more food, more shelter, more education, more jobs, more position of power, more access to Govt. facilities, more bank loans, more aids, more of every other thing than the minorities? Or is it allowing the Hindus to be more pious than the minorities. Please elaborate how it is doing so and try not to evade.

And btw, I belong to a minority, just not the minority of your choice.

 

[toxic_pus]

What about special laws only for Muslims like Muslim Personnel Law, Reservation for Minorities, Giving taxpayer subsidy for Hajj, overthrowing Supreme Court Judgments just to please some Mullas (Shah Bano Case), saying that minorities have first right for the nation's resources (Manmohan Singh Speech)? Are these not signs of "Secularism"

The ones highlighted are examples of what our good friend Rusty calls pandering. Not secularism.

 

[Prometheus]

the judgement was not passed by a judge

 

[Chogy]

I feel its just impossible to stop these people. Why try?

Christians didn't have a problem with the pope being insulted. Why did we have a problem with our Prophet (PBUH). I think we just have to accept this kind of thing will happen and not take offense at everything.

Banning or stopping people to do things by force is never the solution.

You make a solid, basic point in that there are always people out there who believe your beliefs are silly. If they are decent people, they will keep their thoughts to themselves. But of course, many are NOT decent and enjoy baiting and insulting. This sort will always be with us.

So what action should be taken? Take the high road. Ignore, or debate your beliefs intelligently. And at the end, when they are still jerks, walk away. One should be confident and secure in their beliefs.

There are levels of reaction. One can

IGNORE...DEBATE...DEMONSTRATE...RIOT...ATTACK...KILL

A wise person will never go to the right of Demonstrate, peaceful protests with placards and the like. If we stay to the left of RIOT, then we will actually end up with a culturally rich and interesting society. If we go to the right, ultimately the end will not be good.

If someone publicly insulted a loved one of mine, I'd probably walk away. One need not be "macho" or "manly" and engage in a fistfight, or worse.

In the end... all they are is words. I know my loved one or cherished religious figure is immune to this idiot's statements.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

^ I agree but don't you think state should have laws to prevent hate crimes which bring disturbance in society. Sure a individual should not take laws in their hand but then its responsibility of government to deal with such haters, bigots and racist peoples who openly express their hate and bigotry which bring psychological harm to the victim.

If you say ignoring them is best solution then will you say the same if someone try to burn American flag in USA which will hurt the feelings of Americans or give hate speech against president and american peoples in public ?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Jackass: Satan vs. God - YouTube

 

[gambit]

His license to practice law should be revoked, America isn't an Islamic republic.
@Gambit
You'`re an American(Military official from my understanding) and know American law better than most of us, why is this guy not persecuted by actual Law enforcers(The Judge and the guy that assaulted the atheist)?

Because the judge let his political correctness got the better of him. In America, the line is physical, meaning you can hurl any insults of any kind at me and if I respond in the physical, the law will (or should) come down on YOUR side. The judge was wrong and I suspect he knows it.

 

[Zarvan]

Daily Express News Story
Read the column of Javed Chaudhry he has explained through convert why Muslims get so angry when some one insults our PROPHET SAW or Quran or Islamic Things

 

[gubbi]

You make a solid, basic point in that there are always people out there who believe your beliefs are silly. If they are decent people, they will keep their thoughts to themselves. But of course, many are NOT decent and enjoy baiting and insulting. This sort will always be with us.

So what action should be taken? Take the high road. Ignore, or debate your beliefs intelligently. And at the end, when they are still jerks, walk away. One should be confident and secure in their beliefs.

There are levels of reaction. One can

IGNORE...DEBATE...DEMONSTRATE...RIOT...ATTACK...KILL

A wise person will never go to the right of Demonstrate, peaceful protests with placards and the like. If we stay to the left of RIOT, then we will actually end up with a culturally rich and interesting society. If we go to the right, ultimately the end will not be good.

If someone publicly insulted a loved one of mine, I'd probably walk away. One need not be "macho" or "manly" and engage in a fistfight, or worse.

In the end... all they are is words. I know my loved one or cherished religious figure is immune to this idiot's statements.

Basically, this means learn to Choose your Battles.

Alas, some people are not mature enough!