FIR lodged for 'dishonouring' Priest King at Mohenjo Daro

[Ghost Hobbit]

Yes and No. The kind of hinduism practiced in the Indus valley was very different than the hinduism practiced today. Hinduism has changed a lot over time and the vedas was only written down in 1490. The hinduism in the indus river valley was more like the religion of the kalash with borrowed gods from Greek mythology like Atlas, Poseidon and Dionisius.
These statues are our cultural heritage and should not be disrespected. Idols should only be destroyed once people start worshiping them. Mullah Omar destroyed the buddha because people wanted to spend money to maintain the statue rather than use it to feed starving people. Sacrificing money to maintain an idol that could better be used elsewhere is a form of worship.

Lol. Man your BS doesn't know where it starts and where it ends.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

So exactly which law was broken by sending lanat on a person who died thousands of years ago??

you know recently there was a case in France where someone was beheaded for "insulting" (actually just showing a specimen in the process of teaching) someone who died hundreds of years ago :/. and then some riots in protest of actual insults by the French government in solidarity with the teacher and free speech. I don't know much about Pakistani law, but enough about about the French law to know no law was broken even then.

 

[Mujahid Memon]

you know recently there was a case in France where someone was beheaded for "insulting" (actually just showing a specimen in the process of teaching) someone who died hundreds of years ago :/. and then some riots in protest of actual insults by the French government in solidarity with the teacher and free speech. I don't know much about Pakistani law, but enough about about the French law to know no law was broken even then.

So you are now comparing murder with insulting idols?? Lol. Get a life man

 

[AgnosticIndian]

So you are now comparing murder with insulting idols?? Lol. Get a life man

View attachment 735861

no. I'm comparing insulting prophets with insulting idols. if one results in a murder without any law on the basis of a religious book alone, I would assume the other can at least result in an arrest on the basis of an actual law by the police.

 

[Mujahid Memon]

no. I'm comparing insulting prophets with insulting idols. if one results in a murder without any law on the basis of a religious book alone, I would assume the other can at least result in an arrest on the basis of an actual law by the police.

No one was killed by French law enforcement agencies. If you want to compare French and Pakistani laws then in France no FIR was lodged and no one arrested for insulting a Prophet whose 1.6 billion followers are still alive while in the Pakistani law, an FIR was lodged for harmless behavior against an idol that has 0.0000 followers.

 

[AgnosticIndian]

No one was killed by French law enforcement agencies. If you want to compare French and Pakistani laws then in France no FIR was lodged and no one arrested for insulting a Prophet whose 1.6 billion followers are still alive while in the Pakistani law, an FIR was lodged for harmless behavior against an idol that has 0.0000 followers.

insulting any dead or imaginary person is harmless behaviour. it only becomes harmful (to the insulter) when the person has alive followers who don't believe in non-violence.
my point was on your trivialising of sending insults on a dead person. yes it's always harmless behaviour and I don't think they should have even been arrested for insulting religious feelings if they didn't do actual damage to the historical heritage. I support removing all blasphemy laws against all religions dead or alive. I just think all persons should have a consistent position on it. either feel free to insult all religions or insult none.

 

[Mujahid Memon]

insulting any dead or imaginary person is harmless behaviour. it only becomes harmful (to the insulter) when the person has alive followers who don't believe in non-violence.
my point was on your trivialising of sending insults on a dead person. yes it's always harmless behaviour and I don't think they should have even been arrested for insulting religious feelings if they didn't do actual damage to the historical heritage. I support removing all blasphemy laws against all religions dead or alive. I just think all persons should have a consistent position on it. either feel free to insult all religions or insult none.

No you clearly compared the action of Chechen person in France with that of Pakistani law. What if I say that rape is allowed in Indian constitution because somewhere an Indian did this act.

 

[Imran Khan]

اگر کسی مذہب کی توہین پر سفیر نکالنے کا عالمی قانون ہوتا تو آج پاکستان کے تمام سفیر گھر بیٹھے ہوتے

 

[AgnosticIndian]

No you clearly compared the action of Chechen person in France with that of Pakistani law. What if I say that rape is allowed in Indian constitution because somewhere an Indian did this act.

here's what I said:
"no. I'm comparing insulting prophets with insulting idols. if one results in a murder without any law on the basis of a religious book alone, I would assume the other can at least result in an arrest on the basis of an actual law by the police."
I compared the insulting the prophets of a live religion with insulting idols of a dead religion and the reactions to them. you either fully support France where blasphemy law is applied to no one or you fully support blasphemy law for all religions. in between is hypocrisy. but it's no secret that people (Islamic scholars and the common folk) in Pakistan insult Hindu idols too all time without any blasphemy laws applied at them. But then Pakistan is a Islamic Republic. you do you.

 

[CatSultan]

Aren't the Kalash the descendants of Alexander's people ?

no. They are the same as other Pakistanis. They just look different because of the geography of their homeland. It doesn't make sense that people in Alexander's army would stay in a foreign land when they quite clearly wanted to leave

 

[Menace2Society]

You know when you are conquered in the mind when you look down on your own past.

Mock your own past and celebrate others history. You are exactly where they want you, a pawn, poodle, living under the shadow of others. You laugh at yourself and everyone joins in and laughs at you too. I guess the Arabs kind of like you, I mean they might let you work under the hot sun for pittance. Something isn't it? The small crumbs, gets you by doesn't it? Whilst they drink and f**k in London casinos every weekend. How the cookie crumbles eh

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

they did it because its idol and they insulted Hinduism by this

Its not an idol nor is it related to Hinduism

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Entire subcontinent belongs to India. Eventually it will come back to its cultural roots.

Both the concepts of India and the subcontinent were artificial constructs that were developed and imposed by the British. "Returning back to cultural roots" would mean the disintegration of India, not it's expansion.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

No, it was wrong of the Taliban to destroy those statues.

Remember, Buddhism came as a reaction to Brahminical Hinduism.

But I just hope that even the current Buddhists simplify their lives by just remembering Buddha and not worshiping his statues. Would the Buddha have approved of Burmese militant and fanatical Buddhist priests creating situation for Burmese Muslims to leave Burma ?

Buddhism came as a reaction to Brahminical Hinduism? In which pathetic book did you find this idea?

One can also claim that Islam came as a reaction to Arab polytheism which is not true.

 

[jamahir]

Buddhism came as a reaction to Brahminical Hinduism? In which pathetic book did you find this idea?

How else then ?

The injustices in society enabled and maintained by Brahminical supremacist ideology were seen by Gautama and he got some ideas to rid society of those wrong things and he preached those ideas.

Which is also why Dalit leader Ambedkar adopted Buddhism along with hundreds of thousands of his followers in 1956.

There should be no reason for anyone to defend Brahminical supremacist ideology.

One can also claim that Islam came as a reaction to Arab polytheism which is not true.

No, that is partly true. Hazrat Muhammad saw the injustices and unnecessary complications in life brought by the local Arab idolating populace. Plus he brought some ideas to simplify life and make society more harmonious than it was originally. For example, a straight prohibition on interest-based economics which particular simple thing is not present in India even now, 1400 years later.