Bahanay. If you say ‘feudal background’ is what prevents religious parties from winning, that in itself indicates that people prefer feudal loyalties over religion, and those the feudal loyalties are owed do are not religiously inclined, however they retain the loyalty. Furthermore, in rare occasions in our history, religious parties have done well, so it is possible for them to do what they want.
Finally a party like JI had a big support base in Karachi, which they lost to MQM. The reasons for this loss is because people in Karachi prefer ethnic motivations and progressive ideas to religious ones. That is entirely about what idea appeals to the electorate.
No its not. The only legislating should come through elected representatives. If religious sources are important to people, that will happen. Im only handing power to the people. You may not agree with who they elect, that is another issue.
Great, if they’re so qualified, they can impress people with their ideas, and either get elected themselves, or convince elected representatives with their ideas.
Hypocritical? How so? I would get the legislature to actually review the role and powers of the federal shariah court, another dictatorial gift from Zia.
Ah so you’re arguing from consequences, and saying that people wont react ideally and therefore the government has to step in. Tell me something. Does the government react ideally? In all of the recent episodes, do you have confidence in the government to deliver justice and protect innocents?
Yes, he is reasonable only in comparison to the lynchers. That however should not be our paimana.
Couldnt understand that.
Why not? That is something we all do everyday, and demonstrates that it is possible to live with the undoubtedly unbearable emotional pain of knowing that someone somewhere said something disrespectful to our religious figures. It atleast demonstrates the feasibility of ignoring as an option, though again it is by no means the only available non-violent option to someone anxious to respond to the provocation.
Vigilante-ism is not the only issue for me. I have criticized the blasphemy laws absent any vigilante-ism. Furthermore on the vigilante issue I atleast havent argued that all the mob violence is caused by the laws, rather that the mentality is exactly the same (we’ll kill you because we dont like what you said) and there is evidence that atleast some of the victims of the violence were killed by mobs immediately after they were charged under these laws.
You are equivocating on the word blasphemy. I have been criticizing these laws specifically in context of the form they have in Pakistan: Specific to a particular religion with a very broad definition of religious offence (anything that injures religious feelings) with harsh penalties like the death penalty or a significant period of time in prison. In european union case, and in many other places of the world, the blasphemy laws that do exist are usually oriented towards stopping incitement of violence and usually carry very minor fines or jail terms. And even within these limited laws, there are provisions for ‘truth’ as the speaker sees it. There is absolutely NO comparison to what we have in Pakistan, where in the case of disrespect for the Prophet the speaker may not even intend to cause offence or disrespect.
I have already said that I am open to some kinds of very, very loose boundaries on speech, as in Canada or the UK, with very limited penalties.
No its most definitely not, if you mean blasphemy in the meaning we’ve been talking about so far. Please do not equivocate.
So let me ask you the same question I asked picoico. The Prophet Ibrahim destroyed the idols of the unbelievers. Do you think that was blasphemous from the perspective of that society? The Prophet lived for years in Mecca, where much of what he said was regarded as blasphemous from the pov of the host society, and he was persecuted by that society for it. Did that society do something worth emulating?
Our history is filled with Prophets and religious leaders speaking critically of the deviant religious ways of the societies they lived in, in a manner and with language that no doubt would be considered blasphemous had the society been Muslim and the religion been Islam. Do you think such behaviour was nauzubillah idiotic?
So the banning of sunnat is a consequence of blasphemy not being a crime? What are you talking about? I specifically asked you this: In Turkey, or in pre-Zia Pakistan, there were no, or very limited blasphemy laws. You have argued that there would be rampant abuse of the Prophet without these laws. You have historic and current facts to argue with. Demonstrate your claim in light of them.
Because I dont believe the kind of rampant blasphemy you talked about ever happened.
If a mob did take law into their hands in either current age Turkey or pre-Zia Pakistan that would be in the recordbooks, and should be easily googled. Lets discuss it.
Might not be your favourite period (1947-1980), however it provides you with a reasonable basis for testing your hypothesis. The issue is not how good the world was, but whether blasphemy was rampant before these laws, and whether the Prophet appeared in jeans and such.
Secondly whether or not mob mentality goes with these laws is irrelevant to my opposition to them.
Because the people voted for them.
Indeed, why? Its a creation of Zia and I am not particularly fond of it. If the people want it, they can get the laws passed into the mainstream courts system, instead of having a parallel court system for a restricted set of laws.
We are not a particularly religious state. We have never had an elected leader with even a beard or a mandate to deliver sharia, and we have actively resisted certain forms of sharia. Why call ourselves Islamic? Because people like to call themselves Islamic. Its more of an identity than anything aspiring to Islamic governance and laws.
Look at people’s behaviour. A vast majority of people use interest based banking, despite the availability of competitive ‘Islamic’ finance. Music bands are popular. TV stations, that rely on acceptance in the public sphere to generate income (and therefore have a stake in knowing the preferences of people) project a very liberal lifestyle. The point of the poor historical performance of religious parties has already been made.
We have by no means the status of a religious state even if it pleases us to call ourselves thats. And if it does please us to call ourselves that, well who cares if we dont live upto it entirely?
When was it approved? I dont know a whole lot on this, but as far as I can see it was in the Senate in 2004. That would be the senate that was elected with the MMA in power in the NWFP.
Referendums by dictators rarely pull up surprising results. Having said that, it would be fair to say that at the time of the referendum few people really believed in democracy, and many were happy that both parties were out of power and could be punished.
I already mentioned my reasons for not believing the Prophet would enforce these kinds of penalties for this kind of blasphemy.
You assume that the federal shariah court hasnt been consulted. In 1991 I believe the ruling was that life imprisonment was too good, and death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for blasphemy of the Prophet.
It does have to contend with the fact that it’s citizens and Muslims in general (whom it usually supports) often live in muslim-minority countries, and need freedom from their hosts in order to practice their religion. whatever laws it has at home need to be congruent with the demands its people make of their host societies abroad. From the perspective of both expedience and fairness.
Someone blaspheming does not restrict your ability to freely practice your religion.
Dont try to take ‘shariah council’ back to the origin of Pakistan. For most of Pakistan’s history there has never been shariah council, blasphemy laws or anything of the sort. The people who founded this country NEVER saw a need for these laws or courts, nor did the elected representatives at any point in history. For you to argue that this is why our country is founded ignores that very inconvenient gaping hole in your reasoning.
Thats just one part of my argument. Other arguments include: we’ve never had these laws for most of our country’s existence, it is only fair that we grant others freedom of expression if we demand it ourselves, there are non-violent approaches to respond to a non-violent offence, religious personalities we revered often ‘blasphemed’ from the perspective of the society and historically you are more likely to find personalities like Abu Jehel and Firaun to kill and imprison for the crime of speaking the truth as the person sees it. I may have missed a few points.
Took me a while to see the point you’re trying to make. The analogy doesnt fit for a number of reasons. A large number of USA and its citizens do not live in Saudi Arabia. Those that do, live in compounds usually run by US contractors and they have laws and environment more similar to the US than KSA. The fact that they live in Saudia and occasionally adhere to Saudi rules instead of instituting secular democracy merely demonstrates that it is possible to adhere to Saudi rules for them. This is analogous to the fact that it is possible for Muslims to ignore blasphemy as they do in western countries. The reason this argument is offered to counter the fallacious line of reasoning that Muslims cant help reacting with violence and must absolutely extract revenge. That is only part of the argument however.