Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan

are you serious?????

Why is there no marriage equality in a lot of CHRISTIAN nations like say AUSTRALIA where the ACL is against it. Separation of church and state my ass, the opposition leader takes his orders from fuckwit Pell

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm kind of embarrassed Geoff beat me to the punch. I can't really improve on what he said, but I can't really let your post pass without reply, so here goes.

I would prefer it if you posted from a place of rational thought instead of blind rage, but alas...

This is typical of you. The article cites one family that went to a neighbor's house while the violence was occurring. You, in your infinite dishonesty, have twisted that into "Muslims going out of their way to shelter and protect Christians." You're lying, and you need to stop.

Oh, so the reason they did this was simply because they were all in a group? How convenient. That explains why there are riots every Sunday at churches around the country. Oh wait, that doesn't happen.

If this was about anything more than your own phony self-righteousness, you would have seen that the mob wasn't a mob until they were told of the blasphemy, at which point they decided to burn down a neighborhood because a Christian had the nerve to say something bad about their prophet. You would have also seen that this isn't anything unique. Christian communities are quite often the target of angry Muslim groups, particularly when blasphemy is involved. But these details don't interest you. Better to blindly throw accusations around than learn the facts. After all, you might then have a reason to criticize Islam, and that ain't in the handbook!

What a ridiculous thing to say.

As Geoff pointed out, this mistreatment of religious minorities--particularly Christians--predates our involvement in Pakistan. The blasphemy laws especially have made Christians and other non-Muslim minorities targets, not just by law enforcement, but by Muslim vigilantes (such as the mob in this story). But how would you know that? You'd have to actually educate yourself to the facts, and as we've already established, the facts aren't relevant to you.

It was a riot based on a allegations of blasphemy. This wasn't because their favorite team lost the World Cup. These people came directly from the mosque to this neighborhood.

Who says religion is the only factor? I'm saying it's the driving force, not that it's the sole cause.

This is how I know you're full of shit. You're not stupid, so it's not as if you don't understand the difference between criticizing a philosophy or ideology and criticizing a people. You know my comment was regarding Islam, not its followers. I don't need to tell you that I made no such comments about Muslims; you already know I didn't. Yet here you are acting as if I did. I can only presume that this is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position and I wish a moderator would step in right now and warn you against such behavior. But since you're the queen bee around here, and are above the rules the rest of us have to abide by, I'll settle for the fact that you're humiliating yourself in front of everyone who is following this thread.

I can't because it doesn't say anything about it in the article, and the police were simply doing their jobs. I don't have any reason to say that Islam was what made these people help their Christian neighbors. But even if it was because of some edict from some cleric, it wouldn't change the fact that Islam was at the root of the violence, as well. You seem to think that if Islam were responsible for helping, then it couldn't be responsible for the riot. I shouldn't have to tell you that this is a logical fallacy.

I suppose since nothing about any of this is ironic, saying something is "the most ironic" isn't really worth arguing over.

Still banging on about this? Here's what the article said about Muslims helping Christians:

That's the only passage in which a Muslim is said to have helped a Christian family during the riot. Yet you say that the link is "full of" this?

Well, we know somebody's full of something, don't we?

Islam is to blame. Mosque-goers attacked a Christian neighborhood (again) over accusations of blasphemy. What isn't religious about this scenario?

You most certainly are. You're trying to bury it beneath nonsense excuse-making regarding drone attacks, and one utterly broken soccer hooliganism analogy.

Case in point. To say that religion is just a "minute part" of this is absurd. This event isn't even possible without Islam's attitude toward blasphemers, so that right there makes it at least the catalyst, and in all likelihood is the very source of the problem.

Nonsense. Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of Pakistan. It has been radicalized since the early 1970s, since it was divorced from the majority of its non-Muslim community when East Pakistan become the independent Bangladesh. Look at Pakistan's constitution. This is radical state, and it has nothing to do with American drones.

I'm putting the blame where it belongs, as opposed to engaging in apologetics based on lies and misinformation, such as you're doing.

Sure. As soon as we get you out of there, Baby Jessica.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll leave the points made here for Geoff, I just want to correct a couple more of Bells' lies here.

I did no such thing. I made no comments other than "The religion of peace strikes again."

Another lie. All religions can and do promote violence to some degree. Even Buddhism isn't wholly peaceful, having been argued to be responsible for kamikaze philosophy. I've said that Islam played a vital role in this instance. And it did.

The title of this thread is not comparable to those examples.

I switched nothing. My title is a statement of fact--a Muslim mob attacked a Christian neighborhood. That's what happened. What you're saying is that if I cite an article that says "American soldiers attack Iraqi village, killing innocents" and use it to say that I am against the war, then I am necessarily saying I am against soldiers. Obviously that logic doesn't fly.

My thread title does not accuse all Muslims of anything. You need to amend this.

It was one family helping one other family. You portrayed it as being more than that.

Oh yes you did. You said exactly that.

More lies. You are aware that your previous posts don't just disappear when you make a new one, right?

 

Well, it's certainly more likely in the case of Islam. Friday riots are getting not uncommon, and blasphemy riots appear to occur mostly w.r.t. Islam vis-a-vis other religions. It strikes me as an integral factor.

Hmm. I don't know if they would or not. If religious leader were egging them on, using intolerant passages from the Bible, then yes.

I saw it suggested that it was simply means to an end: that the hatred was just a ploy to get at loot or confiscate property. Yet that would still be a religious imperative, much as the Inquisition. Further, the social and economic segregation of the Pakistani Christian community is based in religion itself: the hatred of Christians and the Christian religion by Muslim conservatives, which influence - control, some might say - social and political life in Pakistan. The main factor that led them to attack their fellow Christian citizens was religious incitement. It was possible because of that underlying hatred. I don't think we make such excuses in other parallels, and I'm unwilling to make them here.

The thread title says "Muslim Mob Torches Christian Neighborhood in Pakistan". This is what happened. It doesn't refer to Muslims in general, nor to all Muslims.

Well, the first example is a criticism of the institution. The second is an accusation against Catholics in general. I've seen the first in protests and, while not accurate, expresses justifiable (to my mind) rage against those who enable or permit molestation. It doesn't seem to invoke Catholic theology. The second would be no parallel to Balerion's point. The first: possibly so. It might not be unjustified either: the Church does indeed permit such things, because such things occur and they certainly seem to have no interest (or ability) in stopping them.

Where does he cite "all Muslims"? If anything, my points might be closer to such a statement, since I invoke the popularity of conservative sentiment in Islam, but I don't make such an absurd argument either, because it would be neither fair nor true.

Well, as I wrote, conservative sentiment and blasphemy and apostacy is actually quite common in several Islamic nations. Polls in several Islamic nations indicates that a plurality or majority of those polled support harsh social penalties for religious 'crimes' such as apostasy. I think it not unreasonable to conclude that they have similar attitudes about 'religious insult', or at least about religious insult against Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
http://media.gallup.com/MuslimWestFacts/PDF/GALLUPMUSLIMSTUDIESIslamandDemocracy030607rev.pdf
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Apostasy

I don't think it's as simple as 'the world being different if this were so'. For those living in Islamic nations, social intolerance probably isn't too different from the unpleasant existence you allude to: ask the Egyptian bloggers being sent up for religiously uncomplementary commentary on line how they find things. It doesn't really require a billion people to support it, or to march. It only requires some of the above to support it, tacitly or overtly, and some to support it overtly.

With all the hummus being consumed daily throughout the Middle East, I could hardly make such a request, nor think it fair.

Anyway: no. I think I might expect more of a reaction against it.

Mixed response here: there is a strong conservative streak in many Islamic nations. I think it not unreasonable to expect some kind of pressure to change. Is

I see a description of a specific event. I don't see anything like "Muslims are rioters who attack Christians". That would be on par with your point. If you're referring to the first line of his OP, one could go with something like "The religion of child protection strikes again" if one wished to use a Catholic scenario in parallel. This might not be a completely fair representation, but I don't think it could be said to be an accusation against all Catholics.

Ah, I see. I'm glad to see there are at least some liberals left there. A single such instance would not obviate the criticism of the intolerance of religio-political Islamist institutions, however; but central here is the question of whether Balerion is actually criticizing Muslims per se. He doesn't appear to be.

The borderline between religion and politics is not so clear there as here, Bells: some would say no such firebreak exists, as I often have, or that it is very porous. But what drives it? Well, religion. It is not for nothing that imams invoke. The very concept of a blasphemy law indicates its basis.

The minorities were paying the price before the Americans ever arrived, and before the Taliban. This anger is merely an extension of 'business as usual'. As such, I find religion underlying the effect.

Religion, seemingly.

Well, Balerion's cite indicates otherwise. But anyway:

Vendetta would not explain the deaths of Muslims opposing the blasphemy law: they are in genuine opposition to a genuinely malevolent social institution. But personal or otherwise, it reflects the underlying attitudes of the players: religious hatred. It was not a call to vendetta that sent that mob into the Christian neighborhood, but religious hatred. Describing it as a religious problem does not therefore seem unjustified; and it seems especially pertinent to illustrate this issue these days, with the social disaster of the Arab Spring.

 

The Troubles were much more than religious conflicts, but religion was absolutely a key aspect. The sides were split as evenly between Catholics and Protestants as they were between unionists and nationalists. And the level of violence likely wasn't possible if not for the long history of emnity between Catholics and Protestants in the country throughout the centuries, including prior wars. Religion was like rocket fuel on the campfire.

I made no such claims about Muslims. My original comment was a sarcastic quip about Islam's title as "the religion of peace," and my arguments have been against Islam as a philosophy. My title does not correspond to anything Bells has attempted to use as a like example, because mine was simply a statement of fact: A mob of Muslims torched a Christian neighborhood. The religions of the two groups are not irrelevant, either, so it's not like I said something along the lines of, "Black police officer saves drowning Jewish teen," in an attempt to play with stereotypes. The religious denominations in this story matter, as they are obviously the source of strife between the two groups.

Again, she's only griping because she's one of the bleeding-heart mods who refuses to let a bad word be said about Islam. There's literally nothing more to it than that.

Exactly. I noticed something else interesting, by the way. Bells said, "As the article states itself.. [sic] This was a case of personal vendetta" when in reality, the article quotes a Catholic bishop who makes this claim. She's presenting the bishop's words as if the article is itself endorsing that scenario. This, like her statement that the article was "mostly full of how Muslims risked their own lives to shelter and protect the victims of this riot," when there is in reality only one, sentence-long example of a Muslim family helping a Christian family, and absolutely no indication whatsoever that they were at risk. It's obvious that she's intentionally distorting information within the article. It's despicable behavior, but not out of character. Quite often posters are warned against such behavior, yet no one will warn Bells. It's a travesty.

 

This is a matter of degrees, its a big leap from the difficulty of trying allow marriage for homosexuals in the USA to lynching homosexuals in public executions in Iran. In short the Christian fundmentalist though not devoid of any power what so ever have FAR less than the Muslim fundamentalist in most Muslim countries. In just about every Muslim country homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death in some of them!

 

The fact that you have to scour the net for "mob conflicts" in pakistan rings an element of truth in this statement ....

 

It was on the front page of Yahoo.com. I was checking my mail and saw it. I didn't have to scour anything.

 

Then I guess then its your hyper-sensationalizing of an incident that gives your statement an element of truth that you probably didn't anticipate ....

 

"Hyper-sensationalizing?" All I did was post a snippet from an article and make a crack about "the religion of peace." It wasn't even a crack, it was a sarcastic comment.

I love how the mere act of sharing information is not just sensationalism, but hyper-sensationalism. What would I have needed to omit for it to be just run of the mill sensationalism? I'm just trying to figure out where the line is.

 

...hence the suggestion your "addition" rings with an element of truth that you probably didn't anticipate

the article was sensationalism (or more specifically, the headline, since the article itself tends to explain how the catalyst for the event is not an inherent religious issue).

Your attempt to capitalize on this misrepresentation takes it a bit further, hence hyper-sensationalism

just take the headline on its own (so-called) merits of course

between where the article draws the line at a pakistani event and you extrapolating it to a worldwide phenomena of course (which, ironically, added an element of truth you didn't anticipate ... unless you have some suave argument for having the actions of a handful of angry muslims painting the picture for several hundreds of millions peaceful muslims )

:shrug:

 

It's hard to take your pacifist approach here seriously, given the everything but pacifist attitude toward others that your own religion preaches or its leader set as an example. I've already pm'd you references.

 

I have no idea what you think you mean by that, but since you think you're being clear, I'll just let you go on thinking it.

Ah, I see. So rather than reading the article itself, you're taking Bells' word for it. That was a mistake. The article clearly states that religion was the catalyst (unless you happen to think blasphemy isn't a religious matter). The local catholic bishop claims that the blasphemy never happened, but there's no doubt that the perceived blasphemy was the catalyst. even if this started with a fight, it was still a mob of angry Pakistani Muslims attacking a Christian neighborhood because they were told a Christian had said something bad about their prophet. This doesn't happen over a fight, this happens over some slur uttered about Muhammad.

There was no misrepresentation.

I actually read the article, something you quite obviously failed to do. That said, the headline was accurate: A Muslim mobbed torched a Christian neighborhood. That's what happened.

Oh, I'm sorry, are we pretending now that Islamic violence is rare? Okay, I didn't realize this was Happy Magical Pretend Time.

:shrug:

 

He's just trying to pick a fight with me. As usual, he's unprepared and outmatched.

 

This is true. I was considering the overlap with the 'tribalism' of Unionist/British Nationalist as partially inextractible: some people, I vaguely recall, have argued that some 'intra-religious' (if that's a word) violence (i.e. Sunni-Shiite) is actually tribalistic in nature, because of sort of within-nation tribal rivalries. This might be so. However, I shouldn't demean the importance of religion in such a conflict.

Actually I didn't mean to imply that you made such a claim about "Muslims", per se, but my later language in that paragraph seems to belie that. That's not what I intended, anyway. I see 'Religion of Peace' as a criticism of the institution, not the believers.

Well... Bells and I have had some... discussions about these issues.

Fortunately, they managed to put the forum out in time.

 

nothing was a lie

hence putting the blame sole on islam. I know we are being mean for holding the implicent against you but you responsible for the things you imply as well as what you directly say.

 

You said it was 'minute', previously.

Well, no one I think would deny that personal vendettas were possible - maybe even likely. But without a fairly broad degree of hatred there wouldn't be much support for a riot. You couldn't have the Chicago race riots of 1919 without an underlying hatred.

Sure, but their philosophy is also to blame. It's possible to have a supremacist philosophy that promulgates hatred.

I don't think one can extrapolate this ideology into an all-or-nothing thing. Many Muslims would disagree with such hatred; many would also reject the ideology of Islamic social and political supremacy that lead to this situation. Unfortunately, not all do so, and in several Islamic nations there is a substantial plurality or majority that support such violence. This doesn't mean that all of those supporters would even engage in it, of course - there's a strong demarcation between political support and political action.

I rather doubt that last point, but I don't think we can afford the digression just now anyway. If Muslim hatred for Christians in Pakistan was really determined by a minute minority, why the seriousness of their social condition relative to their Muslim neighbours? Why the history of persecution? Why has their community been so chastised? The evidence does not support your argument.

If the interpretation of their religion is such that it rejects independent secular law - and I think I could dredge up some scripture related to this point - then it could be argued that it was indeed 'Islam'. Perhaps that's too severe: it might be possible to produce a different interpretation from the same texts, which would then also be 'Islam'. But that is a question for other worlds. For the moment at least - or for longer; I confess myself very pessimistic - this is how it stands. If you're saying it's not 'true Islam', then very well - but this is how things are right now, and in the past.

Poorer or not poorer, progressive or reactionary, it wouldn't erase the underlying hatred that has led to this event. It isn't so cut-and-dried as to be.

Actually, it does. 'Catholics' are those people who follow Catholicism. 'Catholicism' is an ideology, and possibly an institution. 'The Catholic Church' is, fairly explicitly, an institution. I don't think your parallel is correct: if you made the headline 'Catholic priests rape children in Jakarta', then you would have a correspondance in message.

Yes and no: you'll find a lot of morally reprehensible statements issuing from the likes of al-Ahzar and the Ayatollah from time to time which are in agreement with the kind of sentiments that encourage violence in these local events. Furthermore, the laws of essentially every Islamic country explicitly mandate severe penalties for 'blasphemy'. I cannot therefore agree that such events as this riot arise independently of this overall mandate on blasphemy and other such moral/religious 'crimes'. One could argue that the events themselves were dependent on local sentiment, but not if the overarching law or philosophy expressed a similar current. In other words, I could also argue that these local events occur when this explicit contract - the avoidance of 'blasphemy' - is breached: but that only means that the law or social was breached at that time. It still exists, everywhere and always. I cannot think it accident that discriminatory laws or laws or social behaviours protective of Islam (or outright supremacist in nature) exist the length and breadth of the Islamic world. Do you presume it mere accident that penalties for blasphemy exist throughout dar-al-Islam? If so, it would be a great coincidence indeed. There are Western parallels in this religious influence on social custom. Ultimately, I cannot accept this explanation that it is sheer tribalism.

It details a specific event. (see my example above)

If a reaction to the West, the rioters have certainly chosen an inappropriate target: their fellow citizens. (Although, as discussed, it underscores the notion that Islamists and Islamic conservatives do not really consider Christians 'fellow citizens', whatever their nationality. Food for thought there.)

But further: is it increasing? Or has it always been thus, and never noticed before? I seem to recall that the Armenian Genocide was dismissed by many agencies of the Western press as it was occurring, and forgotten thereafter for almost a hundred years.

This is interesting ground. You could be right. While there's no explicit moral reason to expect the public to demand such changes, I think they ought to. They have no explicit responsibility to, but they should. It's like that in the question of equality everywhere, I suppose: racial inequality in the West and the East, language discrimination, sexual discrimination, and so forth. Then again, South Africa was pretty widely denounced for its social inequity. Then again again, I don't know that one would blame individual South Africans for that. Do you disagree with holding up the body politic for censure in such cases? Why or why not? I'm not sure myself.

While no man save perhaps The Shadow can see into the hearts of men, I think that his public opinions could indeed be pilloried if there was evidence that they should be. I do not see this evidence, and so I cannot agree that it is only opinion that decides here. (see also above)

I hope you read my links with equal alacrity.

 

Wholly unsurprising. You're not answerable to the administrators for your toxic behavior, so why should you be answerable to me for your deceit and misrepresentations? Run along.