My argument against blasphemy laws inst predominantly about my pro free speech philosophy, more so that the government is responsible to regulate feelings; Its laughable to say the least. The idea that when your feelings are hurt the government must interfere and make sure those feelings are not damaged is lol worthy.
In layman's terms, that's how I see this issue.
yes yes khehkeshan now that you have shared your profound bit of take on blasphemy law, continue sleeping.
I can't afford to keep sleeping when innocent people are murdered by mad mullahs. Just look at how you are defending the basis of why these poor christians were burnt alive. The very idea of blasphmey is what drives and fuels this madness.
Re: Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared
Lets see is blapshemy only a punishable offence in pakistan?Please read the article to settle initially the question of whether blasphemy should be a punishable offence or not. Later on we get into what the penalty should be.
**Europe’s Blasphemy Laws **
Europe’s Blasphemy Laws | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 07.02.2006
I can't afford to keep sleeping when innocent people are murdered by mad mullahs. Just look at how you are defending the basis of why these poor christians were burnt alive. The very idea of blasphmey is what drives and fuels this madness.
i am advocating the presence of blasphemy laws in pakistan.but i am not surprised that you should equate that with this mob murder. People who get high on hate usually are quick to promote hatred against anyone who differs.
My argument against blasphemy laws inst predominantly about my pro free speech philosophy, more so that the government is responsible to regulate feelings; Its laughable to say the least. The idea that when your feelings are hurt the government must interfere and make sure those feelings are not damaged is lol worthy.
In layman's terms, that's how I see this issue.
i think the govt gets involved on the basis of keeping peace. why is slander be considered criminal? after all they are just words not stones hurled physically. Inciting hatred and creating mischief has always been considered a criminal offence.
yep.
That has never been how laws have been passed in this country, except for Zia’s dictatorship (without going into the genuine or non-genuine alim issue). You are talking about a country that doesnt exist.
Now how laws are passed was not my point. If the genuine alims are so motivated, they can preach to the people to vote for people who would get them the laws they want. Thats a seperate issue.
My point is that suggesting that state force or vigilante-ism as the only two options is completely incorrect and infact negated by everyday life. We have different responses to blasphemy we encounter or could encounter. And we can respond effectively to views that we dont like, without resorting to violence.
Ignoring is not the only option, however violence (whether through a mob or through the state) is not the only option either. You can counter their views, express outrage and lobby against someone’s job and a hundred different things we do in everyday life, that is when we arent choosing to ignore or avoid unpleasant things that would hurt our sensitive ears.
[qupte]
that is a hefty claim to make about turkey. To say that turkey is in complete compliance with laws declared civil and humane by international standarads
[/quote]
I never said turkey was in complete compliance with laws etc etc, just that it has relatively loose attitudes towards blasphemy with laws that restrict on the basis of incitement of violence, kindof like Canada, and have nowhere near the punishment or breadth of laws that Pakistan has.
I assure you there has never been an image of the Prophet in jeans and shorts in Turkey. We would have definitely heard about it.
Firstly its not a common phenomenon. I believe it was a recent sculpture and the whole point of the guy doing it was because he thought it was art and unexplored territory. Secondly, again, you have to look at Muslim countries without Pakistan-like (death penalty or very long terms of imprisonment) punishments for religious offence. Do some legwork and show me that without laws that kill people or put them in for life, there is rampant ridicule of the Prophet.
hey who says USA or any place you might think im shilling for is perfect? I have long criticized these places when I think they are wrong, and will continue to do so when I think my own country is in the wrong. If you think theres too much special interest influence, bismillah, but I dont think its relevant here.
Not really. The laws were owed to a dictator (Zia) and went at the hands of a dictator (Mush). Nothing more. If people like stoning so much try getting it passed through their elected representatives 
If you really think that the only reason a new generation has regard for Prophet pbuh is at the threat of the death penalty or life imprisonment then you are really insecure about your religion and the personalities you have regard for.
if you are worried about secularization, win peoples hearts over. Dont imprison or kill them just because you cant or think you cant do that.
would you care to enlighten me how the blasphemy law came into place?yea zia’s dictatorship and laws passed under him were bad but laws amended under musahrraf were representative of people? Regardless of how it has been done, the question i pose to you is whether or not pakistan wants religion to inform our constitute.
similarily is the govt is so intent on representating people’s wishes and commands then unless people of pakitan seek for this specific law to be repealed nothing should be done.
i am sorry but i am a little confused. Are you addressing the presence of blasphemy law or the penalty declared by the current blasphemy law?
Ignoring is NO option at all ravage, is all i am saying. I already said i dont know enough to suggest anyother penalty. My particular leaning would be to consult ulemas, it is a religious matter so to me it is reasonable to have laws in place informed by religion.
yes but do you see that ignoring blasphemy is not an option for most people. Nor i suppose is it fair to demand this of people of pakistan. Once again back to how to deal effectively with it.Initially in our discourse i was under the impression that you considered any blasphemy law to be futile and obstacle in regards of human rights.
while i will offer no such assurance i fgather your gist.However turkey was a country which until recently banned hijab and beard, somehow i donot look up to turkey to form secular or islamic legal issues.the rate of oppression their was huge .
bhai sahab have you ever taken culture on university level? have you ever heard of “piss christ” artwork? have you ever seen ads and surveys in these countries where “do you think jesus would’ve liked this car?” or “chocolate jesus” (or some of extreme disrespect that i dont care to rehash) being publicly displayed. I have. I attribute this towards “loose attitudes” towards blasphemy.
elts do bismillah then. I think you in extreme wrong when you suggest that pakistani should just nudge off their blasphemy laws. I find your judgement of blasphemy law based on your personal sense and understanding of right and wrong and i percieve that you havent informed yourself from religious material rather western approach.
lets not bring bicharay people of pakistan. They are hardly consulted. However if you were to make the merit people’s will i dare say blasphemy law will tick. Can you please provide religious sources that outdate rajm, flogging,hath katna and death for blasphemers?Which scholars, ulemas denounce these punishments and label them unislamic?
and we are back to your reducing this argument to extreme basics. You consider me insecure if i advocate blasphemy law, i consider you misguided with your ignore theory. I am afraid if you consult you wont have ulemas backing up your ignore theory and if we consult people and their representations then it would be up to unknown. In any case islamically democracy doesnot apply to constitution, all through human history, large majorities were given azab, the abundance doesnt prove anything.
Most of them are left overs from medieval times and are no longer used and even if used none of them carry death penalties unlike pakistan’s abused laws.
i am advocating the presence of blasphemy laws in pakistan.but i am not surprised that you should equate that with this mob murder. People who get high on hate usually are quick to promote hatred against anyone who differs.
The presence of these laws and more importantly the ideology behind it is what led to these 6 people being roasted alive in this incident. We all know what group was involved in promoting this level fo hatred.
would you care to enlighten me how the blasphemy law came into place?yea zia's dictatorship and laws passed under him were bad but laws amended under musahrraf were representative of people?
if the passage of the laws was bad then how they were amended is moot.
[quote]
Regardless of how it has been done, the question i pose to you is whether or not pakistan wants religion to inform our constitute.
[/quote]
On evidence of our history, on evidence of these polls.. not particularly strongly. Parties lobbying for religious laws tend to do poorly historically. Only one dictator attempted the kindof legal process you are talking about, and he doesnt remain all the popular in hindsight.
[quote]
similarily is the govt is so intent on representating people's wishes and commands then unless people of pakitan seek for this specific law to be repealed nothing should be done.
[/quote]
The government does have the elected representatives of Pakistan comprising it. If the legislature acts on it like has been said by Gilani, that would be the ideal route to take.
I agree with you, the change should happen through the elected representatives, and people like me need to lobby them for it.
[quote]
i am sorry but i am a little confused. Are you addressing the presence of blasphemy law or the penalty declared by the current blasphemy law?
[/quote]
No, Im saying citizens can legally do plenty in response to blasphemy that isnt violence and isnt illegal, and doesnt involve the state or any special laws. Plenty of social norms are enforced in our society without needing specific laws relating to them.
[quote]
Ignoring is NO option at all ravage, is all i am saying. I already said i dont know enough to suggest anyother penalty. My particular leaning would be to consult ulemas, it is a religious matter so to me it is reasonable to have laws in place informed by religion.
[/quote]
It is AN option that you routinely take as I proved to you with the blasphemous websites example. It doesnt need to be the only option, there are valid means citizens can take to express disapproval so long as they're not violent.
[quote]
yes but do you see that ignoring blasphemy is not an option for most people.
[/quote]
No I dont. It is the most usually taken option wherever the people dont have domination over the person doing the blasphemy as in 'apni gali mai kutta bhi sher'. You have not yet been able to show otherwise.
[quote]
Nor i suppose is it fair to demand this of people of pakistan. Once again back to how to deal effectively with it.Initially in our discourse i was under the impression that you considered any blasphemy law to be futile and obstacle in regards of human rights.
[/quote]
I consider it a violation of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you. We Muslims demand freedom for what we want to do and say where we are in a minority, and deny it to others.
[quote]
while i will offer no such assurance i fgather your gist.However turkey was a country which until recently banned hijab and beard, somehow i donot look up to turkey to form secular or islamic legal issues.the rate of oppression their was huge .
bhai sahab have you ever taken culture on university level? have you ever heard of "piss christ" artwork? have you ever seen ads and surveys in these countries where "do you think jesus would've liked this car?" or "chocolate jesus" (or some of extreme disrespect that i dont care to rehash) being publicly displayed. I have. I attribute this towards "loose attitudes" towards blasphemy.
[/quote]
So if they had banned hijab and beard we can safely assume their laws were not as Islamic on the blasphemy issue as you'd like them to be. Now given that you have been arguing from consequences... there will be rampant blasphemy everywhere, people will put the Prophet in jeans and shorts... lets see some of those consequences.
you keep giving examples from western society when there exist examples of cultures without stringent blasphemy laws closer to home.. Muslim ones. Hey even in Pakistan, until 1985 or we didnt have blasphemy laws. Thats almost 40 years. Was the Prophet made fun of and ridiculed in the manner you argue is inevitable?
It is not inevitable that we will transform into New York City when the blasphemy laws are repealed. We'll just go back to 1983.
[quote]
elts do bismillah then. I think you in extreme wrong when you suggest that pakistani should just nudge off their blasphemy laws. I find your judgement of blasphemy law based on your personal sense and understanding of right and wrong and i percieve that you havent informed yourself from religious material rather western approach.
[/quote]
I find that you're ignoring the arguments for meta-comments on the poster. Lets not go there.
[quote]
lets not bring bicharay people of pakistan. They are hardly consulted. However if you were to make the merit people's will i dare say blasphemy law will tick.
[/quote]
No basis for saying that. Its not as if religious parties havent tried to raise the banner of Islamic laws, and havent passed Islamic laws atleast on one occasion (MMA in NWFP) only to have those kindof policies voted out in the next election for a secular/left-wing party.
[quote]
Can you please provide religious sources that outdate rajm, flogging,hath katna and death for blasphemers?Which scholars, ulemas denounce these punishments and label them unislamic?
[/quote]
I didnt say anything of the sort, just that a lot of these punishments dont apply in Pakistan. I personally am pretty happy that they're not, but thats not the topic here.
[quote]
and we are back to your reducing this argument to extreme basics. You consider me insecure if i advocate blasphemy law, i consider you misguided with your ignore theory. I
[/quote]
No i consider it insecure if you think that future generations will only revere the Prophet if there exist death penalty and life imprisonment for them if they dont.
[quote]
am afraid if you consult you wont have ulemas backing up your ignore theory and if we consult people and their representations then it would be up to unknown. In any case islamically democracy doesnot apply to constitution, all through human history, large majorities were given azab, the abundance doesnt prove anything.
[/QUOTE]
I dont care if ulemas dont back up on the ignore theory, though i bet the vast number of ulema living in or touring muslim-minority countries frequently resort to it themselves.
if the passage of the laws was bad then how they were amended is moot.
i was being sarcastic, you took it literally.
[QUOTE]
On evidence of our history, on evidence of these polls.. not particularly strongly. Parties lobbying for religious laws tend to do poorly historically. Only one dictator attempted the kindof legal process you are talking about, and he doesnt remain all the popular in hindsight.
[/QUOTE]
hmm i think you are mixing two issues. Zia was a dictator as musharraf was. So Zia's popularity or notariety in hindsight is not indicative of his personal political slant. The parties that tend to bring religious ideaology are usually not from the feudal background. I wouldnt accept this as an indication of pakistani people not in favour of having religious ideaology.Infact although i am no big fan of JI ,i do consider their success and prevalence in country huge considering they donot come from money. Rest of our politicians do.Unless we have a transparent system, i donot think you can fairly assert what pakistani people want.
[QUOTE]
The government does have the elected representatives of Pakistan comprising it. If the legislature acts on it like has been said by Gilani, that would be the ideal route to take.
I agree with you, the change should happen through the elected representatives, and people like me need to lobby them for it.
[/QUOTE]
yea i got no issue with that. Except that i find it puzzling on why we are intent on not considering/consulting religious sources. To me that is repression of big portion of your society not to mention draconian power to the establishment. You have in pakistan people who spent years studying and gathering islamic education, people form overseas come to learn from them yet they are cast aside when the govt takes an interest in religion. You have in pakistan a federal shariah court that you want to serve merely ornamental purpose rather than active part in legislation.Unfair, impractical and hypocritical to me.
[QUOTE]
No, Im saying citizens can legally do plenty in response to blasphemy that isnt violence and isnt illegal, and doesnt involve the state or any special laws. Plenty of social norms are enforced in our society without needing specific laws relating to them.
[/QUOTE]
i dare say i find your argument flawed and hypocritical. Flawed because in the light of the recent mob voilence i am not sure leaving people upto their own devices is an excellent method. Especially people with no education to form a norm, you will see further hijacking of masses and bigger examples of witch hunt. Why not have a legal procedure? the guy you so scorned(abbasi) took very reasonable means when compared to this disgraceful episode.And hypocritical because you want us to legally admit to nothing yet actually confirm to a standarad.
[QUOTE]
It is AN option that you routinely take as I proved to you with the blasphemous websites example. It doesnt need to be the only option, there are valid means citizens can take to express disapproval so long as they're not violent.
[/QUOTE]
again websites and muslim minorities in non muslim coutnries is not an example that should be followed.Citizens donot need to be voilent, i agree but a law need to be in place. Saudi arab has some strict penalties you donot see people forming mobs and cutting hands of suspected theives. The problem in pakistan is that we keep tweaking the law rather than enforcing it.
[QUOTE]
No I dont. It is the most usually taken option wherever the people dont have domination over the person doing the blasphemy as in 'apni gali mai kutta bhi sher'. You have not yet been able to show otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
then i think your being deliberately obtuse. most muslim countries have blasphemy laws, european union has these laws. Blasphemy and freedom of expression is different and should be recognised as such different by the law. why sully the waters?
[QUOTE]
I consider it a violation of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you. We Muslims demand freedom for what we want to do and say where we are in a minority, and deny it to others.
[/QUOTE]
once again your golden rule exists merely in your mind. freedom of expression one thing, blasphemy another. If muslims do the same idiotic things under the guise of some obscure sense of freedom they should be treated to the same set laws.
[QUOTE]
So if they had banned hijab and beard we can safely assume their laws were not as Islamic on the blasphemy issue as you'd like them to be. Now given that you have been arguing from consequences... there will be rampant blasphemy everywhere, people will put the Prophet in jeans and shorts... lets see some of those consequences.
[/QUOTE]
yes not as islamic as i i'd like but they didnt ignore it which is what you are suggesting. As for consequences, i would consider the banning of sunnat in a muslims country as a pretty big consequence.
[QUOTE]
you keep giving examples from western society when there exist examples of cultures without stringent blasphemy laws closer to home.. Muslim ones. Hey even in Pakistan, until 1985 or we didnt have blasphemy laws. Thats almost 40 years. Was the Prophet made fun of and ridiculed in the manner you argue is inevitable?
[/QUOTE]
once again you cannot actively produce evidence that blasphemy was ignored. Nor that any mob didnt take law into their hands in case of blasphemy. However since then pakistan has taken a direction where we trying internationally to pass a resolution against the defamation of religion. A pretty good direction and much better then our position in 1970s.
[QUOTE]
It is not inevitable that we will transform into New York City when the blasphemy laws are repealed. We'll just go back to 1983.
[/QUOTE]
wasnt particularily my favourite period. and then again, it doesnt provide us with any feasible means to assume that mob mentality will go out riding.
[QUOTE]
I find that you're ignoring the arguments for meta-comments on the poster. Lets not go there.
[/QUOTE]
truly i am not! i am seriously talking about blasphemy law rather than yourself. You say you are not advocating any one country or anyone model. However you want us to scrutinise these laws in the state of pakistan by our own standarads. Fair ,lets say the islamic republic of pakistan is rethinking the matter of blasphemy from scratch. You advocate no consultation from any alim, infact you suggest actively ignoring the federal sharaiah council and give the gilani and co (for they are representative pf pakistani people) a right to meddle over and formulate laws. I ask why? why have a federal shariah council if it is not to be consulted? why call ourselves islamic republic then? we are back to square one, do you want us to rethink our status as a religious state?if not, why do you mind if federal shariah council is consulted in matters such as blasphemy.
[QUOTE]
No basis for saying that. Its not as if religious parties havent tried to raise the banner of Islamic laws, and havent passed Islamic laws atleast on one occasion (MMA in NWFP) only to have those kindof policies voted out in the next election for a secular/left-wing party.
[/QUOTE]
fair enough they were booted out. However the hisbah and shariah bill that they strongly advocated were approved by 90% of your elected senate. So their going out merely proves that people were dis satisfied with the services they provided not the banner under which they were working.Otherwise there should have been a massive rejection of the bill in elected senate. I donot attribute the success or failure of anyone party is indicative of the failure of that political slant. Otherwise the referendum by musharraf proved people of pakistan are rejecting democracy.
[QUOTE]
I didnt say anything of the sort, just that a lot of these punishments dont apply in Pakistan. I personally am pretty happy that they're not, but thats not the topic here.
[/QUOTE]
i personally think that the problem in pakistan is not the sort of punishment rather the implementation of fair system. Pakistan unfortuantely has a history of laws being abused and misused by our establishment. That doesnt particularily brand anyone set of punishments as superior strategy than anyother. As a muslim i find insult in the argument that penalties that were practised and established in time of prophet pbuh are now somehow unfit and inhumane. If that is not a critique on religion i dont know what is.
[QUOTE]
No i consider it insecure if you think that future generations will only revere the Prophet if there exist death penalty and life imprisonment for them if they dont.
[/QUOTE]
there again you are deliberately misreading me. I am all open for anyother penalty short of life imprisonment and death penalty being established for blasphemy. What i am confirmed about is two points
[QUOTE]
I dont care if ulemas dont back up on the ignore theory, though i bet the vast number of ulema living in or touring muslim-minority countries frequently resort to it themselves.
[/QUOTE]
yes and pakistan is not a muslim minority country. Paksitan is a muslim majority country, founded on the principal that muslims of this region should be free to practise their religion.Your desired method of complete disregard for shariah council doesnot fit with the idea of pakistan nor with the concept of fair procedures.
You are merely saying that if pakistanis cannot establish blasphemy laws in usa,canada or france they shouldnt establish them in pakistan. Other then finding the argument absolutely absurd i would like to point out to you that usa and its citizens cannot establish secular democracy in saudi arabia so should they then be denied to established that in their own country?
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.
Re: Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
thanks to your blasphemy laws.lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
not a creation of zia although you can attribute the death penalty to him in a round about way.
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.
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.
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.
not it was approved by your elected senate you can consult wikipedia there.
lol, that is all i have to say on the matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
blasphemy law since 1947 and before, islami nazriyati council aka, mazlis shura aka federal shariah council. dance around all you want.
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.
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.
Re: Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared
**Is Gojra our Godhra? **
This Independence Day our heads hang in shame once again. The ideologues who later sat down to chronicle the birth pangs of Pakistan mixed a good measure of indoctrination and self-righteousness as they retrospectively defined the rationale for the creation of this country.
Eliminating communal violence, for one, became the rallying cry of the Pakistan Movement in its final months, which sought to safeguard India’s minority Muslims’ rights against the majority community. Had Pakistan treated its minorities with dignity, we wouldn’t be ashamed today.
Though violence targeting minorities is not the norm here, the survivors of such violence will tell you it marks the end of their lives as bona fide, full citizens of the state. This is because, besides widespread social discrimination, the state by enacting laws that readily work as tools of oppression against minorities has been a partner in crime.
What happened earlier this month to the Christian Almas Hameed’s family in a Punjab town, Gojra, mirrored the brutal burning alive of a Muslim baker’s family in India’s Gujarat state in 2002 at the hands of a charged-up anti-Muslim mob. Six of Hameed’s family members, mostly women and children, were burnt alive by enraged fanatics who were allegedly egged on to punish Christians for desecrating the Quran by a PML-N leader.
The Indian Gujarat baker had to suffer death and destruction for the alleged burning by Muslims of a train packed with Hindu pilgrims at the Godhra station, miles away. Likewise, Hameed’s family bore the wrath of a Muslim mob for the alleged desecration of the Quran by some Christians in a nearby village. Punjab’s ruling party has responded by just suspending the membership of Qadeer Awan, a local president of the PML-N, who the party admitted was behind the anti-Christian violence. The spokesman said the PML-N was ‘embarrassed’ at his conduct. And only that.
Will the brave, new, independent judiciary take note of and express its displeasure with the Hudood Ordinances, the Law of Evidence and the blasphemy laws that incriminate innocent minority members before any verdict is pronounced? Will the killers of Gojra ever be brought to justice? Will the PML-N lead a long march on Islamabad of the wronged minorities as victims of systematic brutality against them? Not a chance.
It’s not just the Taliban who have their sympathies elsewhere; the so-called and perceived enlightened, educated and clean-shaven politicians who keep mum on issues of discrimination against a sizable section of society do the country no service either. But as the rights activist Asma Jahangir aptly pointed out in an interview with the BBC, ‘It is not just political parties. There are radicalised individuals and supporters of militant groups within the judiciary, the education system, the bureaucracy and the police…’
At 62, Pakistan is a study of what has gone wrong with a state that started out as a dream for a large section of pre-independence India’s minorities. It can be argued today that the Muslim minority that started the new country proved itself inept at handling its own affairs — as even the initial years showed. In the new Muslim-majority country, we created political and ethnic minorities as the new bêtes-noire where none had existed before.
The Bengali majority was politically treated as a minority by denying it due representation in state institutions. Even as that long, sordid chapter came to an end with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, the travails of Sindhis, Pakhtuns and Baloch nationalists have continued. So who today is a Pakistani first and a Sindhi, Baloch, Pakhtun or a Punjabi next? The answer is scathing, and we all know it.
A lot of what is wrong today stems from the rhetoric of our rulers — make no distinction between the elected and the dictatorial — their lack of action when it is needed and the textbooks we teach our children from.
Madressah educationaside, a pumped-up majoritarian religiosity seeps through the textbooks in subjects like social studies, language teaching and even handwriting exercises, linking Pakistani identity with a religious one. Pakistan Studies books take the cake with their anti non-Muslim sentiment. There is little at variance in the content and the narrow-minded thrust of textbooks taught in the public and the so-called elite English-medium schools today.
This systematic social engineering is based on a post-Jinnah, trumped-up ideology, which in the words of the Quaid-i-Azam himself would have served its purpose as soon as Pakistan was achieved when he declared before the first Constituent Assembly that every Pakistani thenceforth was an equal citizen of the state.
The historic speech, which defined the contours of the state that should have emerged from the 1940s’ struggle by Indian Muslims for political equality, used to be part of the university syllabus. Not anymore; because the state subsequently did the exact opposite by enacting laws that discriminate against minorities.
More Gojras, and the like, cannot be prevented unless they are actively taken up for prevention. Pakistan’s minorities will remain on the wrong side of the state, and a people fed on a dangerously communal rhetoric that has been reshaping the soul of the state as it were. A nation’s need for repeated reassurance is a malady. It cannot be treated by putting down all that it perceives as being alien. Exclusion of any one group, or sets of religious and ethnic minorities, only breeds contempt, at best a forced conformity.
Only inclusive societies can realise the promise of achieving their collective aspirations. This, in our case, was equal opportunity for all citizens regardless of their caste, creed, gender or faith — the very fault-lines we have religiously drawn and maintained to divide ourselves along. A fragmented, motley crowd hardly makes a nation.
Re: Armed mob sets fire to 20 houses, casualties feared
Nice article mostar. As of right now, there still has been NO justice for the victims of Gojra, Punjab.