Reverse Swing gets what I am saying. Your rose tinted glasses are on.
Sure. The person and his family being put through financial distress trying to prove he didnt say something has nothing to do with blasphemy laws. The local head of a national political party getting involved, ensuring that the police case is not about a lesser crime (as originally attempted by the police) but for blasphemy has nothing to do with blasphemy. The subsequent challenge by the same political party of the court's decision also has nothing to do with blasphemy. The fact that the potential blasphemer's janaza was refused by local molvi sahab has nothing to do with blasphemy. The fact that his murder is defended before a national audience by the politician has nothing to do with blasphemy.
Read through the profile of the accused/convicted of blasphemy in post 16. Exactly none of them regard the cases against them to be legitimate, everyone has the same defence as the Pindi guy. Either it is a defensive move, or the motivations of the murderers are not pure. The latter possibility does not change the fact that there exists under the blasphemy laws a social pattern that enables murder and victimization. Just as not all honour killings are really about honour, the motivations of the murderers dont really singularly define the issue. This has now become a pattern of abuse whereby
Person A gets accused of blasphemy. Person A gets dragged through court trying to disprove that he said something. Person A is marked socially as an outcast regardless of the court's decision, and has religious organizations turn against him, and will lose something of the already limited protections citizens have in Pakistan. Person A may get assassinated at some point. Person A's murderers will be defended by a segment of the population. Person A will comprise of minorities disproportionately.
None of the above assumes that the person killing person A has pure intentions. All of the above has to do with blasphemy laws and social attitudes towards blasphemy.
And how is any of that related to what I said. I said one very very simple thing. This article makes the assumption that he was killed due to the Blasphemy law. I asked for proof of that. You have yet to show it.
Ravage are you egotistical that you can't even accept that you made a mistake?
So you dont disagree with anything that I said in post 21. Im fine with that.
[quote]
I said one very very simple thing. This article makes the assumption that he was killed due to the Blasphemy law. I asked for proof of that. You have yet to show it.
Ravage are you egotistical that you can't even accept that you made a mistake?
[/QUOTE]
Please state the specific text that you object to.
A - The guy wasn't gunned down by a trigger happy mullah due to blasphemy, this was a personal dispute.
B - The case shows why there's a need for amendment of the blasphemy laws which were clearly exploited here.
Agreed on B. wrt A we dont know who killed him, and whether the motive was personal or religious. The victim's family certainly feels that the case against the guy was cooked up. On the other hand you have a Jamaat-e-Islami Amir being the one fighting the case and appealing against the not-guilty verdict, you have the Jamaat-e-Islami Amir justifying the murder. You also have the local molvi sahab refusing to say the victim's janaza (out of fear), and you have a quote from him saying it was religiously motivated. Regardless of any personal motive the issue of blasphemy and the law concerning it runs through the whole story, whether we consider the initial allegation, whether we consider the period of incarceration, whether we consider the victim's family's financial distress resulting from fighting the case and having a breadwinner in prison, whether we consider the justifications given to the victim's murder, whether we consider the perception of the victim and the murderers.
The Jamaat-e-Islami Amir only heard the word blasphemy and started justifying the murder. He would have no more evidence of blasphemy than you and I do. You say the victim's family feels the case was cooked up which is exactly what we're trying to say, it was cooked up because they had some personal enmity with the guy. But you are correct in saying blasphemy laws put the guy through a year of hell before he got killed.
This insistence on personal enmity strikes as a mental refuge. Concocted doesnt necessarily mean that the motives were not religious. The killers could very well have had religious reasons, as implied by police officers and the local molvi sahab. It certainly is possible that what is blasphemous in one sect is perfectly normal in another.
Eventually we dont know what motivated the killers. It could have been personal, it could have been religious, it could have been a combination of the two.
