Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- A Pakistan government minister has personally offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who kills the man who made the anti-Islam movie that is drawing ire throughout the Muslim world.
Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour announced the bounty at a news conference Saturday, but he made clear to CNN he was speaking for himself and not as a government representative.
Asked whether he was concerned about committing or condoning a crime as a government official, Bilour said, "I am a Muslim first, then a government representative."
He said he invited the Taliban and al Qaeda to carry out the assassination.
Sen. Zahid Khan, a spokesman for Bilour's political party, said the minister's action is not representative of the Awami National Party.
"We believe in nonviolence. How could we make such announcements?" Khan said. "Our party has been fighting against militancy and extremism for years. How could we invite Taliban and al Qaeda to kill someone? Taliban and al Qaeda are our enemies who have killed our loved ones."
"We have lots of concerns over the statement of our colleague," he added.
Read the rest here.
"I am a Muslim first, then a government representative."
Well, welcome to the world of church and state unification. Sorry, but I don't buy the business about speaking for himself rather than for the office he holds. That office gives him the significance and the publicity to actually get attention for a stunt like this, sufficient that CNN would actually pay attention, certainly. Worse, he invites the two most notorious terrorist groups in his area if not the world to carry out his wishes. This not only besmirches him but the office and government he works for, his disavowal notwithstanding.
I agree with Senator Khan that he and his colleagues have a lot to be concerned about regarding Bilour, but more: they have actions - possibly including censure, if that is available to them - to consider against their associate. This is an abject lesson in what happens when irrationality overrides rationality, a teaching opportunity, if you will.
Such an opportunity should not be lost.
THIS DEED made the 22nd day of September 2012 between Napoleon Bonaparte (of the one part and hereinafter referred to as 'the grantor') and Atheist Nexus (of the other part and hereinafter referred to as 'the grantee') hereby make a unilateral offer intended to form a binding contract with a third party on acceptance and execution of this agreement and hereinafter referred to as 'the acceptor'.
WHEREAS the supernatural does not exist and therefore gods do not exist. AND WHEREAS and on the basis as aforesaid a belief in gods renders a 'believer' to think and act irrationally and often with criminal intent AND WHEREAS A Pakistan government minister has personally offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who kills the man who made the anti-Islam movie that is drawing ire throughout the Muslim world. AND WHEREAS Pakistan Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour announced the bounty at a news conference Saturday, but he made clear to CNN he was speaking for himself and not as a government representative.
NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH as follows;
The grantee hereby offers the sum of $100,000.00 to any person or persons who assassinate the said Ghulam Ahmad Bilour in what may be described as a 'secular killing' based on rational cognitive processes and reason.
Signed Sealed Delivered by the Grantor
Signed Sealed Delivered by the Grantee
Nappy, do we have to kill the guy to wake him up to his own foolishness? Maybe I'm being a Pollyanna here, but I hope not. In addition, I see nothing to be gained by stooping to his level. Such a "secular killing" would be neither rational nor reasonable. It might be tempting to those who are tired of such antics to the point of desiring an eye-for-an-eye, but it helps our cause in no way, shape, or form that I can see.
What we need to teach these people is that all of them may think that they are exercising free speech, but speech that actively threatens another is not responsible speech, nor is it tolerated under the US Constitution, and I suspect many other such documents. Conversely, the lampooning or ridicule of religion IS free speech. It harms no one, threatens no one, but points out something that some people may be uncomfortable with: that religion in the eyes of some is foolish, not worthy of respect or consideration ... and perhaps add that threats to people with such opinions is extremely unlikely to silence them.
Bilour's statement was irresponsible on its face. We cannot offer correction with the same grade of irresponsibility.
A crappy movie dubbed over by anonymous trolls fluent in arabic ripping on Muslims gets US embassies attacked, now death-threats against the figment of someone's imagination. This is a troll win that keeps snowballing. It's probably like that burned quran that some pakistani girl got fingered for, a clerical invention.
If the filmmaker did not see this coming, he's really stupid. On what planet would there not have been riots, deaths, and a fatwa?
I'm not against free speech. But people, including an American ambassador, have been killed because of this. The filmmaker had his agenda, and I suppose he's accomplished what he wanted. I'm not supporting the Pakastani minister or other makers of fatwas, but this is reality.
Of course he knew, why else would he have to lie to the actors as to his intentions? Not only did he knew, he is pleased at the result. So pleased in fact that he has gone into hiding like the coward he is.
Actually, I really couldn't give a rotten rip about the filmmaker or what is going on with him. He indulged in free speech, as sanctioned by the United States government, its constitution and laws. What happened from there is that some mullah or imam who cruises YouTube found that video and spread the word to his fellows. They in turn used this as fodder to whip up anger in their congregations during Friday prayers, whereupon we have the current mess.
The filmmaker indulged in speech. He swung no fists; he broke no jaws. The mobs reacting less to the video than to their leaders' representation of said video did a lot more than swinging fists and breaking jaws. They may have also provided cover for those who killed Ambassador Stevens and the others at the Libyan embassy.
To a degree, I'm less interested or angered at the mob than I am at the people who incited them. THEY are the real culpable parties here, and I can't help but notice that no one is looking at them ... other than me and maybe a few others.
BTW, for those who want to take shots at the filmmaker, there is plenty of material on YouTube which takes shots at muslims and islam. Maybe these idiots needed it translated into their own language before they could get incensed about it.
Yes, we have free speech but, even we never had absolute free speech. Besides, what the government shouldn't, and hasn't sanction him but, that doesn't mean that what he did was right or that anyone should support him. Again, it just comes down to understanding what free speech is.
yes, I heard about that on the news. There's a bounty on his head.