Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared

[Croquet]

Re: Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared

@ravage

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.

I dont think you understood what i was trying to say, because your post merely reinstates my point. The fact that it is “possible” for religious parties to do well (without strong financial background) just goes to show that pakistani people are as open to religious politics as anyother. Where as the success or rather the continuance of feudal system and feudal politics is most definitely not a sign of people prefering fedual system. Rather that pakistan has a political history (especially in recent times) where feudal system has exploited democracy and people’s will.

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.

which one do you think is more prevalent all over pakistan? religious parties or ethnic ones? parties like mqm usually on gather roots as a reaction in a certain minority ,on over all level they are minute comparatively.

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.

bhai saab the legislation has input from all levels of your society. I can argue that so far there is no revolt against islami nazriayati council or federal shariah council, so what is the reason behind snubbing their presence or advice? It isnt all a legacy of zia. islami nazriyati council(before zia was even heard of) was formed to help create the evry consitute of your country. Elected representatives of people dont get the right to jump into all matters merely on democratic principals. SC,shariah council and nazriayati council and other institutes which merit of education rather than votes have to be consulted.

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.

lol ravage atleast talk sense. SC or the judges are not selected on the basis of their popularity.BAR of any country, army and army in chief are not selected through democratic circus. The criteria is merit of expertiese. Not everything is popularity contest.

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.

so you want to re examine the authroity and role of shariah council?great do so but unless that has been done or an alternative of shariah council is in place you cant over ride its presence,its an important insitute of your country.take the legal route bhai sahab not democratic parachute with gazillion holes in it.

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?

once again what a classically deprived argument so because the govt is failing to fulfill its duties in a responsible manners we should just give up on the principals and keep changign our laws. You dont go an mend your laws to suit your corrupt your govt though that is what the polictical manner has been in a the land of pak. But i am surprised that an educated person will advocate that who has nothing to gain from this idiocy.

Yes, he is reasonable only in comparison to the lynchers. That however should not be our paimana.

the only reason he is bad in your opinion is because you dislike the presence of very law that he utilised. moot point. If the govt is the authority and fulfills it responsibly the witch hunt mentality will be eradicated and minorities will be protected. Blasphemy is not a requirement christians in pakistan by their religion, it is not a freedom of expression or freedom tp practise religion. It is not blasphemous to not beleive in prophet pbuh, defamation is essentially what blasphemy is about. Unless you get that through your head i am afraid you wont understand the need for the law at all.

Couldnt understand that.

you say boycott offenders socially and economically yeah? rahter than having a law against blasphemy.please enlighten me as to how your sensibilities will respond if a non muslim accussed of blasphemy is not under any legal trouble but is being denied a job by paksitani muslims. For that is what economical boycott is.How will that protect the rights of minorities? any rumour would be enough to make a them a social outcast, so instead of this mob violence you are advocating slow death? how on earth is that an improvement?

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.

fine senitments but impractical as hell. You will have a law and order situation, you will discrimination reports and you will have righteous anger to deal with.
There are million things on net that cannot be controlled or regulated. Lets take a non muslim coutnry for example. in australia you cannot see the popular media launching a caricature(Allah forbid) of prophet pbuh in main stream papers or visual media without a backlash. yet that is what you are advocating in pakistan. You cannot contorl paedophilia on net should it be made legal on those premises? you cannot control gambling, pornography, heck even terrorist organistions on net should they all be made legal?

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.

tou bhai saab exert pressure on your govt to get rid of mob mentality, hate speech, voilence instigators and hate incitors rather than back pedalling on the law. And by all means pass a protection bill for minorities which protects them from your rishwat khour law and order services that refuse from filing their complains. Million things you can do to protect minorities and you get stuck on blasphemy law.

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.

actually i think you are bristling with righteous anger which in my opinion is misplaced. In pakistan the blasphemy law addresses just that -blasphemy. Your local thakaydar do rang bazi. Dont eradicate the law to get rid of dramay baz, get rid of the dramay baz. Raise awareness about what is blasphemy and what is not. What should be the reasonable course of action. What we have in pakistan is a law and then its distortion and abuse. Get rid of the abuse not the law. If the issue still presists ,approach your federal shariah council ask them for a re examination of situation and i dare say you will find that they will not short of providing you with measures that you can take to get rid of village mentality. You can’t just jump on a high horse and say right thats it, get rid of the law.

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.

i simply dont like your comparison. Reason being all these countries have sets of laws that match their criteria of just and right. We should consult our sources for just and right and i dont mind harsh penalties as islam often advocates harsh penalties, i do advocate a fair system rather than one we have now.

No its most definitely not, if you mean blasphemy in the meaning we’ve been talking about so far. Please do not equivocate.

please let me know what constitutes as blasphemy near you. Because i as per the current law, its pretty reasonable with a window of appealing and repenting and pardon wide open. Now its upto pakistanis to make sure their govt does its job.

Several sections of Pakistan’s Criminal Code comprise its blasphemy laws.[4]](Blasphemy in Pakistan - Wikipedia) § 295 forbids damaging or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object. § 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings. § 295-B forbids defiling the Quran. § 295-C forbids defaming Prophet Muhammad. Except for § 295-C, the provisions of § 295 require that an offence be a consequence of the accused’s intent. Defiling the Quran merits imprisonment for life. Defaming Prophet Muhammad merits death with or without a fine. (See below Sharia.) If a charge is laid under § 295-C, the trial must take place in a Court of Session with a Muslim judge presiding.[5]](Blasphemy in Pakistan - Wikipedia)
§ 298 states:
Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. § 298-A prohibits the use of any derogatory remark or representation in respect of Muslim holy personages. § 298-B and § 298-C prohibit the Ahmadiyya from behaving as Muslims behave, calling themselves Muslims, proselytizing, or “in any manner whatsoever” outraging the religious feelings of Muslims. Violation of any part of § 298 makes the violator liable to imprisonment for up to three years and liable also to a fine.
No judicial execution of a person charged with blasphemy has occurred in Pakistan.[6]](Blasphemy in Pakistan - Wikipedia) Article 45 of the Constitution says, “The President shall have power to grant pardon, reprieve and respite, and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority.”

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?

let me know what prophet’s pbuh response was to 4 sahabis who didnt go on ghawza e tabook. but more so consult an alim to hear his argument without doing that you wont be doing a fair amount of research to form an opinion. And consult the one that you consider is esteemed and worthy.With my knowlede i am afraid i will do an insufficient job of explaining it to you.

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?

once again learn the difference between speaking truth and speaking a lie. you cannot fold on your belief in order to extend a courtesy. An example of that i can think right now is this. prophet pbuh claimed to be the messenger of Allah and called onto the idol worshippers , now during his life another person claimed to be the prophet named Musailama al-Kazzab. By your logic prophet pbuh should’ve just let him claim and let the people be judge.Please find out what was Prophet’s response to him. Infact why did all the prophets that you mentioned went to the liars of their times and willed them to submit? freedom of expression, let them do what they want.

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.

bhai sahab i am going to let the turkey bit go since i dont have time to do much research there. However you are completely incorrect about the history of blasphemy laws in pakistan. Blasphemy laws were in place since british raj in united sub continent to avoid religious slandering and riots. Pakistan inherited the same blasphemy laws in 1947, Zia as per you is merely guilty of bringing in islamic penalties for blasphemy but it is a historical error to bestow upon him the birht of blasphemy law. The blasphemy law itself was always a part of pakistani constitute since 1947. please consult who ever you want on the issue.

Because I dont believe the kind of rampant blasphemy you talked about ever happened.

thanks to your blasphemy laws.lol

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.

somehow i dont think that is a accurate recount. Much of the history and especially local history is not recored. Secondly i havent done research to find out the answers and with your track record of research i am not willing to take your word for 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.

it doesnt since blasphemy laws were in place since 1947 and in turkey they might not be called blasphemy law but there are measure in place to deal with offesive material i posted you an article in previous posts.

Secondly whether or not mob mentality goes with these laws is irrelevant to my opposition to them.

should be if you care to read the law and the statistics. only 20 people were actually given capital punishment in recorded 647 cases i think. Consult wikipedia if u must.

Because the people voted for them.

la di da. People voted them to run the country not adopt all institutes and over ride all procedures. Though i am not surprised that a pakistani should confuse the two given the blatant abuse of due procedures by elected representatives in our history.

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.

not a creation of zia although you can attribute the death penalty to him in a round about way.

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.

yep to me quite shameful while for you obviously it is something to be continued. we differ simply. no point discussing it however i should have a right to expect islamic idealogy since the claim is rampant. and unless it is given up for good should be vigorously scrutinised.

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.

hmm i am not going to argue with you there. however i will say this. people should be made to think. If they want to claim something, they need to acknowledge it fully. we call ourselves muslims yet are afraid of finding out about islam this approach to me is depressing. however i also have hope if they have the goodness to so tenaciously stick to this claim they might actually wake up to its reality one day. however as long as they claim it its only reasonable they should be called up on that claim.

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?

precisely we profess it so we should then develop scruples to act upon it. as for who cares, some of us do and till they do they reserve the right to call others out on their hypocrisy.

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.

not it was approved by your elected senate you can consult wikipedia there.

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.

lol, that is all i have to say on the matter.

I already mentioned my reasons for not believing the Prophet would enforce these kinds of penalties for this kind of blasphemy.

yet somehow i am willign to credit all the scholars through out the history who are confident that these punishment could be applied. They are not the only penalties but they are amongst the approved penalties. i dont mean to be unkind but your value in these issues would be nil since you dont command the authroity of knowledge.

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.

yes i am saying in ignoring theory of yours the council will be actively ignored its advice and ruling neglected. its very presence futile. if there is a valid concern the council could be asked to re examine the issue and come up with results and suggestions.

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.

nope the pakistanis abroad are not scrutinised on the merits of laws in pakistan rather the merit is the law of that land in which they choose to reside or else all dual citizens wouldnt be supported by local govt to study or make use of citizenship benefits simply because pakistani gov doesnt provide any form of social security to anyone. you live in dreamland if you expect the congress of usa consults pakistani laws regarding its minorities before forming its own regarding american minorities.

Someone blaspheming does not restrict your ability to freely practice your religion.

none of the registered religions in pakistan require blasphemy as part of religious practise. why so intent on making blasphemy legally acceptable? think where you are putting your weight.

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.

blasphemy law since 1947 and before, islami nazriyati council aka, mazlis shura aka federal shariah council. dance around all you want.

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.

that entirely depends on how sadly neglected your studies have been. read about first four caliphs and reaction to blasphemy. Please read about these people in prophet’s time and blasphemy
1.asma bint e marwan
2.abu afak
3. kab al ashraf( i dare say the calips right after prophet’s time and the scholars since then are more consistent in reasearching whether blasphemy of his was a reason behind his execution)
4.consult Aba Dawud Book 38, Number 434 for two other incidence where no penalty was given to people who killed two more blasphemers.

Having said all of that i will again remind you death penalty and life imprisonemnt arent the only two penalties. But at the same time they cannot be considered unislamic.

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.

no sir the argument is falliable. if us citizens can tolerate shariah in saudi does that deny them the right to form their own preferred system in their own country. if no then take mercy on bicharay pakitanis as well. and this part of your argument is probably the weakest link of all.