Would you support the abolition of blasphemy laws in Pakistan?

[Tubs]

Being a British Pakistani (who is an atheist if that matters), the idea of a blasphemy laws is simply archaic. Surely this has no place in the 21st century?

 

[Adijazz1706]

Being a British Pakistani (who is an atheist if that matters), the idea of a blasphemy laws is simply archaic. Surely this has no place in the 21st century?

British Pakistani who is an atheist to boot, can't possibly be more out of touch with ground reality in Pakistan h:

This thread should be fun

 

[warcry]

blasphemy laws are not used the way they should have been used.
The purpose of blasphemy laws, should be to prevent any unislamic activity from labelled as an islamic activity, to keep islam pure and unadulterated, and to prevent any unislamic laws from being passed.

for example, maintaining an interest based economy is UN-ISLAMIC as Interest is Haraam, Yet despite calling itself an Islamic republic nothing is done. no blasphemy here for some reason.

Now instead of safeguarding islam, these laws are being used to terrorize non muslims, Usage of blasphemy laws is 21st century Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Tubs]

British Pakistani who is an atheist to boot, can't possibly be more out of touch with ground reality in Pakistan h:

This thread should be fun

So because I'm British and atheist, I can't understand why killing people for criticising Muhammad is lawful? Please tell me how so.

blasphemy laws are not used the way they should have been used.
The purpose of blasphemy laws, should be to prevent any unislamic activity from labelled as an islamic activity, to keep islam pure and unadulterated, and to prevent any unislamic laws from being passed.

for example, maintaining an interest based economy is UN-ISLAMIC as Interest is Haraam, Yet despite calling itself an Islamic republic nothing is done. no blasphemy here for some reason.

Now instead of safeguarding islam, these laws are being used to terrorize non muslims, Usage of blasphemy laws is 21st century Spanish Inquisition.

Right well that doesn't sound too bad, but that doesn't sound like blasphemy to me. There are some hadith that mention death for blasphemy. It's these blasphemy laws which have perpetuated the terrible treatment of minority sects and religions, and surely they should be done away with. I don't buy this whole 'protecting Islam' thing. It is meant to be the immutable ideology of God, as Muslims, you guys shouldn't be so insecure in your religion. If one guy wants to reform Islam, for example, is it that much of an issue?

 

[Adijazz1706]

So because I'm British and atheist, I can't understand why killing people for criticising Muhammad is lawful? Please tell me how so.



Right well that doesn't sound too bad, but that doesn't sound like blasphemy to me. There are some hadith that mention death for blasphemy. It's these blasphemy laws which have perpetuated the terrible treatment of minority sects and religions, and surely they should be done away with. I don't buy this whole 'protecting Islam' thing. It is meant to be the immutable ideology of God, as Muslims, you guys shouldn't be so insecure in your religion. If one guy wants to reform Islam, for example, is it that much of an issue?

Re-form implies Islam, the religion created by God is flawed and needs to be recreated by humans, that should be enough to understand why it's seen as a terrible idea

 

[Sirris]

At the moment keeping the current situation in mind, no I won't.

I think proper education of the society at large and actually changing the mindset of the people is necessary before touching such sensitive and emotional issues.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Being a British Pakistani (who is an atheist if that matters), the idea of a blasphemy laws is simply archaic. Surely this has no place in the 21st century?

Well Pakistan's version of the 21st century is clearly different to ours, hence as British Pakistanis we can have our opinions but how relevant they are over there is a totally different ball game. I can see how the Blasphemy law could definitely be abused in an ignorant society, but unless Pakistani people see it that way our opinions aren't worth that much.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

I suppose this is really the only control Islam still has on Pakistan

If this law was to go, that would really be the last barrier between religion and state

I reckon a few hundred people would have to do before it was fully abolished

 

[Madplayer]

Blasphemy law should be implemented when Pakistan becomes Islamic. At that time even non-muslims will welcome this law.

 

[PakLFC]

Yes I would support such an act. There is nothing Islamic about oppressing non Muslims.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Blasphemy law should be implemented when Pakistan becomes Islamic. At that time even non-muslims will welcome this law.

You could say that about most Muslim countries I suppose. Is there any one where blasphemy law is implemented satisfactorily?

 

[Sirris]

It's necessary to realize that it's not the existence of the law in the constitution that is causing persecution of the minorities. It is the mindset and attitude of the ignorant masses of the society.

If people didn't have the motivation to persecute their fellow citizen they wouldn't do it to begin with regardless of what the law says.

Likewise you can get rid of the law, however if the mindset is still there the persecution would continue and even worse I believe it might even become worse than it is.

At the moment you could strengthen the courts have such cases officially examined and protect any victims.

I believe it would be premature to artificially remove the law when a vast majority of the population agrees with its spirit just based on emotional sentiments even if in their regular life they might not be religious.

I wish I could say that removing it is a first step towards progress or even a band-aid solution. It is not. It will only cause an increase in fanaticism and give more power to the ignorant voices.

Therfore you first need to have public debate where people from within the society are educated enough to challenge the nature of such a law.

 

[Sirris]

It's necessary to realize that it's not the existence of the law in the constitution that is causing persecution of the minorities. It is the mindset and attitude of the ignorant masses of the society.

If people didn't have the motivation to persecute their fellow citizen they wouldn't do it to begin with regardless of what the law says.

Likewise you can get rid of the law, however if the mindset is still there the persecution would continue and even worse I believe it might even become worse than it is.

At the moment you could strengthen the courts have such cases officially examined and protect any victims.

I believe it would be premature to artificially remove the law when a vast majority of the population agrees with its spirit just based on emotional sentiments even if in their regular life they might not be religious.

I wish I could say that removing it is a first step towards progress or even a band-aid solution. It is not. It will only cause an increase in fanaticism and give more power to the ignorant voices.

Therfore you first need to have public debate where people from within the society are educated enough to challenge the nature of such a law.

To sum it up:

I see it as an high risk, low reward approach.

 

[Madplayer]

You could say that about most Muslim countries I suppose. Is there any one where blasphemy law is implemented satisfactorily?

Blasphemy laws arent meant to be implemented in a strict sense. That was never their purpose. It was meant for the hypocrites so that they dont move back and forth from faith. It was a deterrent. And you will barely find it implemented in Islamic (religious) history. However, we are in such a pathetic state now that implementing this law seems to give us a sense of accomplishment for Islam.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Absolutley.

 

[Tubs]

Re-form implies Islam, the religion created by God is flawed and needs to be recreated by humans, that should be enough to understand why it's seen as a terrible idea

I used that example for this very reason. I won't inject my opinion (and it's very hard not to), I will simply ask if it's okay to jail, or even sentence to death, reformers?

Well Pakistan's version of the 21st century is clearly different to ours, hence as British Pakistanis we can have our opinions but how relevant they are over there is a totally different ball game. I can see how the Blasphemy law could definitely be abused in an ignorant society, but unless Pakistani people see it that way our opinions aren't worth that much.

Yes, very true. Just in an ideal world, I think blasphemy laws wouldn't even be a thought.

Blasphemy law should be implemented when Pakistan becomes Islamic. At that time even non-muslims will welcome this law.

Are you sure? If someone proclaims that their religion is superior (at least to them) to Islam, would they really be welcoming of the punishment? Your later post also seems like a bunch of excuses for the blasphemy law. Is it so wrong if people leave the faith?

It's necessary to realize that it's not the existence of the law in the constitution that is causing persecution of the minorities. It is the mindset and attitude of the ignorant masses of the society.

If people didn't have the motivation to persecute their fellow citizen they wouldn't do it to begin with regardless of what the law says.

Likewise you can get rid of the law, however if the mindset is still there the persecution would continue and even worse I believe it might even become worse than it is.

At the moment you could strengthen the courts have such cases officially examined and protect any victims.

I believe it would be premature to artificially remove the law when a vast majority of the population agrees with its spirit just based on emotional sentiments even if in their regular life they might not be religious.

I wish I could say that removing it is a first step towards progress or even a band-aid solution. It is not. It will only cause an increase in fanaticism and give more power to the ignorant voices.

Therfore you first need to have public debate where people from within the society are educated enough to challenge the nature of such a law.

Best post in the thread. I was going to get onto the fact that the abolition of it would indeed cause an uproar, I am unsure how that could be alleviated, I guess education would be a start. Real education, less madrassas and more schools.

 

[Pete Rose]

yes. but we would be in a minority if its put to a referendum

 

[Tubs]

yes. but we would be in a minority if its put to a referendum

Most definitely, it wouldn't be passed in our lifetime, I'd imagine. I find that incredibly sad.

 

[Pete Rose]

Most definitely, it wouldn't be passed in our lifetime, I'd imagine. I find that incredibly sad.

There are ways to de-fang the law without asking for a referendum. Increase court fees for filing, punishment for false accusations, etc etc.

 

[Savak]

Can't be removed now. Anyone who dares to do so is committing suicide.

 

[Sirris]

There are ways to de-fang the law without asking for a referendum. Increase court fees for filing, punishment for false accusations, etc etc.

Yes strengthn the courts and improve their quality and independence.

False accusations should lead to the same punishment the accused would have get ie death penalty. It thats too extreme than at least 20 years in prison. Can't joke with this stuff. The person making the false accusation was basically trying tk get the accused murdered through legal means.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There are ways to de-fang the law without asking for a referendum. Increase court fees for filing, punishment for false accusations, etc etc.

This sort of approach is the way to go. It will lead to national introspection if done right rather than fear and polarising of opinion defending the faith rather than serving justice.

 

[ahsan17]

Not just blasphemy law, but I would support Pakistan becoming a secular state.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

The law is seeped in intolerance and intolerance decimate people and nations. Either way, the law wouldn't last for long. The question is whether we are willing to pay the ultimate price or the sanity prevails.

 

[Loralai]

It is 2019. There is absolutely no need for a blasphemy law these days and the only reason it is used is to go after already persecuted minorities. It should be removed and would be a good step for us to move onto a secular route and become a fully secular state. Many of our problems come from mixing religion with law and politics.

 

[saeedhk]

According to a survey of past blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, 80% of them were bogus, with the majority of them stemming from land disputes.

 

[The_Odd_One]

What century is it? Does a person really need to be killed just because he said something about some religion?

 

[moghul]

This law is non-islamic and against Islam's spirit, created by moulvis , total non-sense and should be abolished.

 

[moghul]

According to a survey of past blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, 80% of them were bogus, with the majority of them stemming from land disputes.

100% bogus.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Definitely

 

[Swashbuckler]

Mirpurkhas Hindu doctor booked on blasphemy charge

https://www.samaa.tv/news/2019/05/mirpurkhas-hindu-doctor-booked-on-blasphemy-charge/

It looks like there is rioting in that area with Hindu shops and houses being burnt.

 

[Abdullah719]

Mirpurkhas Hindu doctor booked on blasphemy charge

https://www.samaa.tv/news/2019/05/mirpurkhas-hindu-doctor-booked-on-blasphemy-charge/

It looks like there is rioting in that area with Hindu shops and houses being burnt.

In many of these cases, it's revealed that there was some personal enmity or what not, behind the allegations.

By then, it's too late.

 

[Madplayer]

Are you sure? If someone proclaims that their religion is superior (at least to them) to Islam, would they really be welcoming of the punishment? Your later post also seems like a bunch of excuses for the blasphemy law. Is it so wrong if people leave the faith?

You can never be sure but you can make the best case. If someone claims that their religion is superior, then thats not blasphemy. They will be invited to a debate and this is an Islamic tradition. They wont be punished for claiming such a thing. Which bunch of excuses are you referring to in particular? People leaving the faith is apostasy, not blasphemy.

 

[Tubs]

You can never be sure but you can make the best case. If someone claims that their religion is superior, then thats not blasphemy. They will be invited to a debate and this is an Islamic tradition. They wont be punished for claiming such a thing. Which bunch of excuses are you referring to in particular? People leaving the faith is apostasy, not blasphemy.

Okay, saying something negative about Muhammad. Should that person be punished?

When you said that blasphemy laws weren't meant to be strict, and are to deter 'hypocrites' (are they that much of an issue that blasphemy should be dealt with by death??) seem like excuses to me.

I am very happy to see the response of most posters here, most of us realise that the blasphemy laws are archaic and have no place in this century.

 

[Madplayer]

Okay, saying something negative about Muhammad. Should that person be punished?

It depends on the time and place where such a negative thing was said. If an intellectual criticism was done during a debate or in a scholarly discourse using civil language then such a person would not be punished. However public slander of any prophet or God is a different issue. In an Islamic state, the state would be allowed to punish a slanderer but still it's not set in stone. And mob justice is not allowed. Only the state can punish or pardon.The thing to understand here is that in an Islamic political set up, every muslim and the minorities are bound by a covenant with the state whose ideals have been put down by God through his Prophet. In this context, if you slander the Prophet or God, then you are in open rebellion against the state which has been set up because of them in the first place. You can slander anyone in privacy of your home. Thats not a problem of the state.

And thats why i said that Pakistan is not a purely Islamic nation and blasphemy laws dont apply there. These blasphemy laws were put in place by British in Pakistan and India. And they have snow balled into a massive problem today. I am totally for removal of these blasphemy laws in Pakistan because of aforementioned reasons.

When you said that blasphemy laws weren't meant to be strict, and are to deter 'hypocrites' (are they that much of an issue that blasphemy should be dealt with by death??) seem like excuses to me.

I said at the time of Prophet the hypocrites posed a threat to the very existence of muslims. Because they would often turn on muslims and join hands with enemies. So Yes it had to be dealt with severe punishment at that time. But afterwards the purpose became different where it was put in place to deter open rebellion. However, it was rarely put into practice in Islamic history because mercy acts as the baseline of Islam in general. You had Imam Abu Hanifa (Ra) holding open public debates with Athiests and not one of them were harmed for their ideas. Scholarly debates and discussions are a part of Islamic tradition.

I am very happy to see the response of most posters here, most of us realise that the blasphemy laws are archaic and have no place in this century.

They are archaic. And should not exist in the political set ups of 21st century.

 

[Tubs]

It depends on the time and place where such a negative thing was said. If an intellectual criticism was done during a debate or in a scholarly discourse using civil language then such a person would not be punished. However public slander of any prophet or God is a different issue. In an Islamic state, the state would be allowed to punish a slanderer but still it's not set in stone. And mob justice is not allowed. Only the state can punish or pardon.The thing to understand here is that in an Islamic political set up, every muslim and the minorities are bound by a covenant with the state whose ideals have been put down by God through his Prophet. In this context, if you slander the Prophet or God, then you are in open rebellion against the state which has been set up because of them in the first place. You can slander anyone in privacy of your home. Thats not a problem of the state.

And thats why i said that Pakistan is not a purely Islamic nation and blasphemy laws dont apply there. These blasphemy laws were put in place by British in Pakistan and India. And they have snow balled into a massive problem today. I am totally for removal of these blasphemy laws in Pakistan because of aforementioned reasons.



I said at the time of Prophet the hypocrites posed a threat to the very existence of muslims. Because they would often turn on muslims and join hands with enemies. So Yes it had to be dealt with severe punishment at that time. But afterwards the purpose became different where it was put in place to deter open rebellion. However, it was rarely put into practice in Islamic history because mercy acts as the baseline of Islam in general. You had Imam Abu Hanifa (Ra) holding open public debates with Athiests and not one of them were harmed for their ideas. Scholarly debates and discussions are a part of Islamic tradition.



They are archaic. And should not exist in the political set ups of 21st century.

It's quite disgusting that you think someone should be punished for speaking badly of Muhammad and Allah, but oh well.

Regarding the 'it was okay at the time of the prophet' thing, if it isn't right now, it wasn't then. Just because it was a time of ignorance it doesn't make it right. Also this leads on to other issues (like Islam being a product of its time and not divine/true but that's a different discussion). The fact that 'rebellion' is /was such a fear is also very suspect.

I don't care what Hanifa did, the bottom line is that classically, atheists (as you used them as an example) aren't part of the dhimmi, so wouldn't be protected under Shariah. This is why secularism is superior, and any forms of theocracy are archaic, and have no place in the modern world- I'm glad you think that about blasphemy laws.

 

[Madplayer]

It's quite disgusting that you think someone should be punished for speaking badly of Muhammad and Allah, but oh well.

No its not disgusting. I dont think you understood what i wrote. Perhaps read it one more time so that you understand what public Slander of Prophet and God actually means in the context of an Islamic state. It means that you reject the ideals of the state that you are living in. It would be tantamount to treason in many countries even today depending on what extent you take your actions to. Like i said, criticism in a scholarly discourse or a debate is not seen as an issue at all. But you seem to be hell bent on allowing public slander and abuse of religious figures. That is not acceptable in an Islamic state even though it is not set in stone that the culprit should be punished always. Anyway, Sorry if that stops you from abusing religious figures. You seem to want to abuse really badly.

Regarding the 'it was okay at the time of the prophet' thing, if it isn't right now, it wasn't then. Just because it was a time of ignorance it doesn't make it right. Also this leads on to other issues (like Islam being a product of its time and not divine/true but that's a different discussion).

First of all, I didnt even talk about time frame here. I talked about different political set ups and why putting one set of laws in a completely alien political set up is not right. I'm sorry that you are having a hard time understanding me. Secondly, what a naive statement to make that if something isnt right now it was not be right back then. But thats a different topic so i wouldnt digress.

The fact that 'rebellion' is /was such a fear is also very suspect.

Why so? You dont think muslims were at the verge of losing everything many a times because of turncoats and treaty breakers?

I don't care what Hanifa did, the bottom line is that classically, atheists (as you used them as an example) aren't part of the dhimmi, so wouldn't be protected under Shariah. This is why secularism is superior, and any forms of theocracy are archaic, and have no place in the modern world- I'm glad you think that about blasphemy laws.

So you know better than one of the greatest Faqih in the history of Islam who is followed to this day by the Hanfi Madhab of the Ahlus sunnah. Then how can a normal person like me discuss anything with you. I am not worthy or capable enough. By the way Islamic politics and administration isnt theocratic in the strictest sense if you read about it in an unbiased manner. There is plenty of room for human judgement. Hence the science of jurisprudence.

 

[Pakpak]

Another day another minority booked under the most ridiculous laws made. Sadly a large segment of the population support this law so I can't see it going away.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Mirpurkhas Hindu doctor booked on blasphemy charge
https://www.samaa.tv/news/2019/05/mirpurkhas-hindu-doctor-booked-on-blasphemy-charge/

It looks like there is rioting in that area with Hindu shops and houses being burnt.

Rioting? Uncultured maniacs. Thank lord for the partition.

As a minority, I don't find India really good, but its not a hell like Pakistan either. Yet..

 

[saeedhk]

Rioting? Uncultured maniacs. Thank lord for the partition.

As a minority, I don't find India really good, but its not a hell like Pakistan either. Yet..

Muslims are safer in India than they are in Pakistan.

Very unfortunate! Pakistan was created to safeguard the lives of Muslims. The irony!!!

 

[MenInG]

Islamabad, Pakistan - Bishop John Joseph, 65, one of Pakistan’s most prominent human rights activists, had been campaigning for decades to reform the country's strict blasphemy laws.

On the morning of May 6, 1998, he led a procession to the steps of the court in the central Pakistani town of Sahiwal, where a young man, Ayub Masih, had been convicted and sentenced to death for blasphemy days earlier.

Masih, an illiterate man, had been accused of quoting from Salman Rushdie's controversial book The Satanic Verses in an argument with a Muslim man. In a controversial trial, a judge found him guilty of having insulted Islam's prophet and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty.

Joseph led prayers for Masih and walked protesters to the doors of the court. He then pulled out a pistol and shot himself in the head.

The bishop's suicide was a striking protest against Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws, initially a holdover from British colonial rule that were strengthened in independent Pakistan due to pressure from the religious right wing.

In recent years, record numbers of cases are being filed under the law, which can carry a death sentence, inside or outside the courtroom. Last month, several cases were filed against members of the country's Shia Muslim minority, who form roughly 20 percent of the country’s 207 million population.


Currently, there are about 80 convicts on death row or serving life imprisonment terms in Pakistan for committing "blasphemy", according to (PDF) the US Commission for International Religious Freedom.


Pakistan: 31 convicted over student lynching
In the last decade, the "offences" committed by those accused of blasphemy have been as absurd as throwing a business card into the rubbish (the man's name was Muhammad), a rural water dispute, spelling errors, the naming of a child, the design of a place of worship, burning a (non-religious) talisman or sharing a picture on Facebook.

Increasingly, cases are being settled with violence outside the courtroom, with mob and targeted attacks against those accused. In many cases, families and lawyers of the accused, and even judges who have acquitted defendants, have been targeted.

Since 1990, at least 77 people have been killed in connection with such accusations, the latest murder occurring in a courtroom last month.

What makes this issue so emotive in Pakistan?

'Religious identity tied to the authority of the state'

"There's no simple answer to this question," says Arsalan Khan, an anthropologist who studies Islamic revivalist movements.

"In a sense, all religious traditions have deep connections to specific sacred objects and would be hurt by perceived defilement of their religious traditions, but this has certainly taken heightened political significance in Pakistan."

Khan argues that the heightened significance of "blasphemy" in Pakistan, as opposed to other Muslim countries (including theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran), is linked to the formation of the country in 1947 as a homeland for South Asia’s Muslims.

"Religious identity has been centred as one of the core bases for national belonging in Pakistan," he says. "When] the state has defined Islam as the ultimate source of sovereignty, such battles have taken on deeper political significance."

When religious identity and authenticity is tied to the authority of the state, "blasphemy" becomes a site for political contestation.

"What is important in Pakistan is the jostling for position as the true, authentic and passionate representatives of Islam, that has given blasphemy accusations its real force in political life," explains Khan.

Increasingly, this has seen far-right religious parties rise to prominence campaigning explicitly on the basis of protecting the "honour" and "sanctity" of Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.

That rise can be traced to the murder of Salman Taseer, then-governor of Pakistan's most populous Punjab province, in January 2011. Taseer had been campaigning for months to reform the country’s blasphemy laws as he sought justice for a young Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, who had been sentenced to death for the crime.

He was killed by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, for his campaign against the controversial law. Qadri was executed five years later for the shocking murder, but he was hailed as a hero, even a saint, by many in Pakistan for his act of killing a perceived blasphemer.

Two months after Taseer’s murder, a federal minister was shot dead by the Pakistan Taliban for the same reason.

The murders, and subsequent public mobilisation in support of violence in the name of the blasphemy law, gave religious parties that represented the country's majority Sunni Muslim Barelvi sect, long sidelined from political prominence, an opportunity to regain lost political ground, say analysts.

"After Taseer's assassination and the lionisation of Mumtaz Qadri, it is clear that Barelvis begin to position themselves as the group that are the true 'ashiq-e-Rasool' [lovers of the Prophet] and assume the position as true representatives of Islam in the public arena through blasphemy," says Khan.

Barelvis form roughly half of Pakistan's population, and their beliefs are a synthesis of conservative Islam and South Asian Sufi practices, including the veneration of saints and a particular devotion to the Prophet Muhammad.

The Sunni Tehreek (ST) political party, then the largest Barelvi political party, saw its ranks swell. With hardline Barelvi clerics across the country taking up the issue of blasphemy to whip up public outrage, a new political party, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), was formed in the run-up to the 2018 general election.

The TLP led large anti-government protests over perceived "blasphemy" in 2017. Though it could not win a seat in the national parliament in the 2018 polls, it did gain the fourth-highest share of the popular vote in that general election.

"Electoral success is ultimately a secondary goal for these religious movements," says Khan. "The aim of blasphemy politics is ultimately about defining yourself as the authentic representative of Islam in the public sphere […] which in turn forces the Pakistani state, which defines its own sovereignty in relationship to Islam, to yield to this power."

The laws, lawyers and analysts say, are treated by followers of the TLP and others who support them as "sacred", having been laid down by God.

But are they?

All religious traditions have deep connections to specific sacred objects and would be hurt by perceived defilement of their religious traditions, but this has certainly taken heightened political significance in Pakistan

A law inherited from British colonial rulers

Pakistan inherited its blasphemy laws from its former British colonial rulers, who in 1860 introduced a set of laws related to religion in order to quell Hindu-Muslim violence in the Indian subcontinent.

The laws were strengthened in 1927 with the addition of a vague clause to criminalise "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious believers", in response to a high-profile case that ultimately ended in the murder of a Hindu man who published a pamphlet deemed "blasphemous" by some Muslims.

Between 1860 and 1947, when Pakistan gained independence from the British and broke away from India, there were just seven recorded cases of blasphemy, according to a report by the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).

Use of the law remained rare in the following decades, with just 10 judgments relating to offences against religion reported until 1977, according to a report by the International Commission of Jurists.

In 1974, however, then-Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's government oversaw the introduction of a constitutional amendment that declared members of the Ahmadiyya sect "non-Muslim".

Between 1980 and 1986, the military government of General Zia-ul-Haq further strengthened the laws, adding five new clauses, all specific to Islam and criminalising offences such as defiling the Holy Quran, insulting Islam’s Prophet or using "derogatory" language against certain religious figures.

During Haq's rule, from 1977-1988, the number of cases skyrocketed, with more than 80 blasphemy cases filed in that period, according to the CRSS.

That trend continued through the 1990s, in particular after a controversial higher Islamic court decision in 1991 that made the imposition of the death penalty mandatory for the crime of insulting Islam's prophet.

Between 2011 and 2015, the latest period for which consolidated data is available, there were more than 1,296 blasphemy cases filed in Pakistan.

The laws are now treated as sacred, but experts say there is no clear definition of "blasphemy" in Islamic jurisprudence, nor is there agreement on the punishment for it.

"There are as many definitions and positions on blasphemy as there are Muslim countries and scholars," says Arafat Mazhar, a filmmaker and director of the Engage Pakistan research collective. "Many Muslim countries have laws that deal with religious or sacred figures, or religion as a whole, as opposed to the very specific laws enacted in Pakistan."

Pakistan's laws are some of the strictest in the world, harsher and more specific than comparable laws in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan and other countries.

Mazhar says other countries' laws appear to be informed by the variance in Islamic scholars' views on the issue.

"Scholars consider a range of factors - such as whether the offender is Muslim or non-Muslim, the severity of the insult, whether or not the person is a habitual offender, the mental state of the offender, whether what they said is a part of their faith, intent to insult, whether or not they repent […] - to reach an incredibly wide range of conclusions," he told Al Jazeera.

Pakistan's strict interpretation of the issue, he says, "is based on manufactured interpretations".

"The legislative process for [a key clause] which made the death penalty mandatory, are full of misleading and edited references to books of Islamic jurisprudence," he says, citing several examples.

Since 2011, with the rise of a new wave of Barelvi politicians and clerics campaigning on "blasphemy", experts say there has also been a change in the motive for blasphemy accusations.

Previously, lawyers told Al Jazeera, most accusations could be traced to pre-existing disputes between the two parties. These were often personal disputes, arguments or ongoing battles over land ownership.

In recent times, however, that has changed.

"With the rise of TLP and, in particular, the weaponisation and politicisation of 'ishq-e-Rasool', there is a greater ideological interest in blasphemy cases regardless of personal altercations," says Mazhar.

The shift in vested interest, argues Mazhar, has now moved from being personal, between the plaintiff and the accused, to being in the interest of political and religious groups.

"The personal vested interest in blasphemy cases has shifted to another form of vested interest: one that is much more organised and has to do with political and social power."

In that situation, when such groups repeatedly bring thousands onto the streets over any perceived sign that the laws may be reformed, will it ever be possible for the laws to change?

"The assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer in 2011 turned a debate on the blasphemy law into a death sentence," says Cyril Almeida, a senior journalist.

Pakistan clears Christian woman in landmark blasphemy case

"Since then, even the semblance of momentum towards legislative debate has stalled and, more recently, been entirely reversed - far-right religious groups now campaign explicitly on protecting the blasphemy laws from any tampering."

Given a vast structure designed to create public pressure on the issue of blasphemy, lower-court conviction rates for blasphemy cases remain high, even in cases where the evidence is flimsy. For Ayub Masih, over whose case Bishop John Joseph took his own life, the pendulum swung towards justice.

He was acquitted by the country’s Supreme Court in 2002, after six years in prison.

Joseph, who never lived to see that day, wrote a letter to the media on the day of his suicide, the words of which may still echo for those who continue to fight against injustice in the name of blasphemy.

"Now we must act strongly and in unity, Christians and Muslims, in order, not only, to get [Masih's] death sentence suspended, but to get [the blasphemy laws] repealed without worrying about the sacrifice we will have to offer.


"Dedicated persons do not count the cost."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...us-pandemic-live-updates-200921134956943.html

 

[TSA321]

Should be abolished without a doubt. Won't be though.

 

[MenInG]

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has acquitted a Christian man on death row six years after his conviction for alleged blasphemy, which also led to torching of more than 100 houses at Joseph Colony, a Christian-dominated neighbourhood in Badami Bagh.

A two-judge LHC bench comprising Justice Asjad Javed Ghural and Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali through a short order on Monday allowed the appeal of Sawan Masih against his conviction by a trial court.

A detailed verdict of the bench was yet to be released, Nadeem Anthony, a member of the appellant’s legal team, told Dawn.

Sawan was booked and arrested on the complaint of Shahid Imran on March 8, 2013. After a year-long trial, an additional district and sessions judge on March 27, 2014, handed down death penalty to him under Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code.



https://www.dawn.com/news/1583600/man-acquitted-of-blasphemy-charge-after-six-years

 

[Madplayer]

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has acquitted a Christian man on death row six years after his conviction for alleged blasphemy, which also led to torching of more than 100 houses at Joseph Colony, a Christian-dominated neighbourhood in Badami Bagh.

A two-judge LHC bench comprising Justice Asjad Javed Ghural and Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali through a short order on Monday allowed the appeal of Sawan Masih against his conviction by a trial court.

A detailed verdict of the bench was yet to be released, Nadeem Anthony, a member of the appellant’s legal team, told Dawn.

Sawan was booked and arrested on the complaint of Shahid Imran on March 8, 2013. After a year-long trial, an additional district and sessions judge on March 27, 2014, handed down death penalty to him under Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code.



https://www.dawn.com/news/1583600/man-acquitted-of-blasphemy-charge-after-six-years

Will shahid imran be punished now?

 

[saeedhk]

Will shahid imran be punished now?

Never in a 1000 years!

 

[Greenstorm]

Mocking of all founders of religions (and prophets) should be banned to maintain order in our country.

 

[MenInG]

Islamabad, Pakistan – A Pakistani appeals court has acquitted a Christian man who spent about seven years in jail on the accusation of blasphemy, a charge that led to communal rioting that saw more than 120 houses in a Christian-majority area in Lahore city burned down by an enraged mob in 2013.

Sawan Masih, 40, was arrested in 2013 on blasphemy charge following an argument with a Muslim man in the eastern Pakistani city.

A two-member bench of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday acquitted Masih of all charges, with a full verdict detailing the reasons for the acquittal to be issued at a later date.

Masih was convicted and sentenced to death under Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws by a lower court in 2014. The court had convicted him of insulting Prophet Muhammad, a charge that carries a mandatory death penalty under Pakistani law.

Blasphemy is an emotive subject in Pakistan, where the country’s strict laws criminalise insulting Islam, its prophet and the holy book, as well as other offences against the religion.

These crimes can carry a death sentence and, increasingly, mobs and vigilantes have been taking matters into their own hands. At least 77 people have been killed in mob and targeted attacks in connection with blasphemy allegations since 1990, according to an Al Jazeera tally.

The latest such attack took place in the northwestern city of Peshawar in July, when a man accused of blasphemy was shot dead in a court during a hearing in his case.

In 2013, a day after the accusations against Masih surfaced, a mob attacked his Christian-majority neighbourhood of Joseph Colony, in Lahore’s Badami Bagh area, in what was then one of the worst incidents of violence around the blasphemy laws.

More than 120 homes were burned down, in addition to a church and several shops, as hundreds of protesters armed with sticks, pipes, and stones ransacked the colony before setting it on fire.

In 2017, all 115 suspects who were under trial for the arson were acquitted by a Lahore court for want of evidence.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...uits-christian-man-on-death-row-for-blasphemy

 

[miandadrules]

Mocking of all founders of religions (and prophets) should be banned to maintain order in our country.

Ahmedi leaders too?

 

[Greenstorm]

Ahmedi leaders too?

Yes their prophets as well.

 

[miandadrules]

Yes their prophets as well.

Let’s see if that becomes a reality.

But until then, what do we do?

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

You have to realize that Pakistan is not a secular state . The whole state was created on the basis of religion so there will always be some "inspiration" from religion when it comes to the laws. The same can be said about a lot of western countries, they may be secular but a lot of their laws still draw inspiration from Christianity ; specially when you define what's moral ,Public holidays etc. Still I'd favor not to abolish but to make changes to the law. Make the burden of proof stupid high and if the accuser turns out to be lying then he or she gets the same punishment as a blasphemer

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Mocking of all founders of religions (and prophets) should be banned to maintain order in our country.

Would you support extending the ban on mocking to Political leaders too? For some people, politicians are no less than religious leaders.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

This law is non-islamic and against Islam's spirit, created by moulvis , total non-sense and should be abolished.

How is it non-Islamic? Ever heard the story of Asma Bint Marwan?

 

[Tubs]

Mocking of all founders of religions (and prophets) should be banned to maintain order in our country.

What if I founded a religion? Should I be exempt from all criticism by law? I understand that Pakistani society likely isn't ready for free speech (though steps should be made), but to outright ban all that? Pretty preposterous to me.

 

[Tubs]

You have to realize that Pakistan is not a secular state . The whole state was created on the basis of religion so there will always be some "inspiration" from religion when it comes to the laws. The same can be said about a lot of western countries, they may be secular but a lot of their laws still draw inspiration from Christianity ; specially when you define what's moral ,Public holidays etc. Still I'd favor not to abolish but to make changes to the law. Make the burden of proof stupid high and if the accuser turns out to be lying then he or she gets the same punishment as a blasphemer

You'd still think it's acceptable for someone to be imprisoned, and even killed, for being disparaging about Muhammad?

Sure, the UK was very, very religious once upon a time, and there are vestiges of a religious past, but no one will be punished (by law) for saying offensive stuff about religion.

 

[Third_Umpire]

Those who really believe in the killing of apostates will never come here and own up, because it is a shameful piece of the religion they believe in. They are compelled to believe in it because it's part of their religious gospel, but know that it is abhorrent and barbaric.

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

You'd still think it's acceptable for someone to be imprisoned, and even killed, for being disparaging about Muhammad?

Sure, the UK was very, very religious once upon a time, and there are vestiges of a religious past, but no one will be punished (by law) for saying offensive stuff about religion.

Personally I don't but I am also realistic and know there is no way in hell you can make consensus in a country like Pakistan to outright get rid of the law. The next PRACTIAL option is to take away its teeth . Even after slavery was abolished it took a country like the US a while to get where it is today(still not prefect) . Lets get real, we are talking about a super conservative society which likes to wear its religion on its sleeves . Also, maybe follow the law of the land and not disrespect the Prophet to begin with . What is hard about biting your tongue when it hurts the feelings of billons of people and does not affect your personal life in any way .

 

[Madplayer]

Blasphemy law should not exist in Pakistan. It doesn't make sense due to a multitude of reasons like Pakistan not being an Islamic country and implementation of blasphemy law itself not being a part of Islamic tradition etc.

 

[topspin]

If you don't support for these blasphemy laws to be abolished then you're part of the problem.

These laws have been exploited by certain Muslims when they come across disagreements with non-Muslims. Unfortunately, the word of the Muslim is always taken as the truth at face value, even without evidence. Nothing Islamic about that, if anything this kind of deception is satanic if anything.

This is a prime example of why uniting people by religion doesn't work.

 

[uberkoen]

Personally I don't but I am also realistic and know there is no way in hell you can make consensus in a country like Pakistan to outright get rid of the law. The next PRACTIAL option is to take away its teeth . Even after slavery was abolished it took a country like the US a while to get where it is today(still not prefect) . Lets get real, we are talking about a super conservative society which likes to wear its religion on its sleeves . Also, maybe follow the law of the land and not disrespect the Prophet to begin with . What is hard about biting your tongue when it hurts the feelings of billons of people and does not affect your personal life in any way .

What an idiotic comment. No one says anything about the Prophet the law is used to oppress the minorities. It’s a stupid law which should be done away with and if you’re making excuses for keeping the law as [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] mentioned in his comment above you’re part of the problem.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What an idiotic comment. No one says anything about the Prophet the law is used to oppress the minorities. It’s a stupid law which should be done away with and if you’re making excuses for keeping the law as [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] mentioned in his comment above you’re part of the problem.

Blasphemy law needs amendment, not abolition. It should protect all religions from blasphemy and there must be proof of the blasphemy, otherwise the accuser should get punishment. If the law is abolished, it will be a free for all and will lead to unnecessary fitna and fasaad.

 

[Greenstorm]

Would you support extending the ban on mocking to Political leaders too? For some people, politicians are no less than religious leaders.

No, people are not killing each other for mocking politicians in Pakistan.

 

[Greenstorm]

What if I founded a religion? Should I be exempt from all criticism by law? I understand that Pakistani society likely isn't ready for free speech (though steps should be made), but to outright ban all that? Pretty preposterous to me.

Criticism is fine but yes you should not be mocked if you have founded a religion and have a decent number of followers.

 

[Greenstorm]

Blasphemy law should not exist in Pakistan. It doesn't make sense due to a multitude of reasons like Pakistan not being an Islamic country and implementation of blasphemy law itself not being a part of Islamic tradition etc.

It has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic traditions.

These laws are needed to maintain peace and order in our society as then no one will have any excuse to take law into their hands.

 

[Madplayer]

It has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic traditions.

These laws are needed to maintain peace and order in our society as then no one will have any excuse to take law into their hands.

At the moment it is proving to be counter productive on many fronts including winnowing out fake cases from real ones and the international ridicule associated with such a law. I completely agree that these laws cannot be removed all of a sudden without causing social unrest. However, i believe that the time has come when values of tolerance are actually made part of the school curriculum and in future when education pays off, these laws could be diluted and done away with.

 

[Tubs]

Criticism is fine but yes you should not be mocked if you have founded a religion and have a decent number of followers.

Mockery can be upsetting and offensive, but should that warrant imprisonment or execution?

What if I revere something seemingly mundane (perhaps a certain tree), should someone be imprisoned or killed for insulting my beloved tree?

 

[Pakpak]

Those who really believe in the killing of apostates will never come here and own up, because it is a shameful piece of the religion they believe in. They are compelled to believe in it because it's part of their religious gospel, but know that it is abhorrent and barbaric.

Spot on.

Someone saying something, saying words, should never be killed for them. People who support it know its barbaric but don't have the internal courtage to admit it. Educated people here defending it shows how far how our nation still has to go to get rid of stone age era laws. Sadly its a hallmark, instead of debating the same people love to ban. The ad thread is an example where certain posters found a benign ad by Mehwish Hayat vulgar and were supporting Pemra banning it. If you don't like it, don't watch it instead of throwing your toys out of the tram.

 

[Pakpak]

Mockery can be upsetting and offensive, but should that warrant imprisonment or execution?

What if I revere something seemingly mundane (perhaps a certain tree), should someone be imprisoned or killed for insulting my beloved tree?

You might as well be talking to a wall. The same poster found a normal dance ad, with a fully clothed actress vulgar. And supported banning it. Shows how weak their mentality is. I don't like the idea of televangelists who swindle people out of money but I don't support banning it, I simply don't watch them. I wish our religious brethren were the same.

 

[Greenstorm]

At the moment it is proving to be counter productive on many fronts including winnowing out fake cases from real ones and the international ridicule associated with such a law. I completely agree that these laws cannot be removed all of a sudden without causing social unrest. However, i believe that the time has come when values of tolerance are actually made part of the school curriculum and in future when education pays off, these laws could be diluted and done away with.

We cannot say that these laws are counterproductive because most probably things will get worse if these laws are abolished. There are issues of fake cases etc and that is down to our pathetic judicial and police system.

These laws must be amended for now and obviously populace should be educated so that we do not need them later.

 

[Greenstorm]

Mockery can be upsetting and offensive, but should that warrant imprisonment or execution?

What if I revere something seemingly mundane (perhaps a certain tree), should someone be imprisoned or killed for insulting my beloved tree?

You are thinking in general terms whereas I am keeping situation of our country (peace and stability) in mind.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You'd still think it's acceptable for someone to be imprisoned, and even killed, for being disparaging about Muhammad?

Sure, the UK was very, very religious once upon a time, and there are vestiges of a religious past, but no one will be punished (by law) for saying offensive stuff about religion.

I think there are two options then. We can either move everyone from Pakistan to the UK so they have to live under British rule of law. Or alternatively we can re-incorporate Pakistan into the British empire and send Tea companies backed by her Majesty's military to administer the repeal of the Blasphemy laws.

 

[Greenstorm]

You might as well be talking to a wall. The same poster found a normal dance ad, with a fully clothed actress vulgar. And supported banning it. Shows how weak their mentality is. I don't like the idea of televangelists who swindle people out of money but I don't support banning it, I simply don't watch them. I wish our religious brethren were the same.

I have every right to express my views against an ad which, in my view, does not conform to our cultural and religious values just like your right to endorse that ad.

 

[Technics 1210]

In the UK, as a Christian, you do NOT have the right to refuse services to Homosexuals since same sex marriages became law.

Famous case (Asher's bakery) where a bakery owned by Christians refused to make a wedding cake for homosexuals because their faith rejected Homosexuality. It went legal. This happened in 2018.

Please stop pretending the UK has laws which protect the belief of the religious, UK does not. The laws are designed to attack religion, and restrict expression of religion.

UK isn't the beacon of freedom as some deluded Brit Pakistanis believe.

 

[Technics 1210]

You could say that about most Muslim countries I suppose. Is there any one where blasphemy law is implemented satisfactorily?

Do Holocaust Denial laws count? After all, in 14 western countries it is blasphemous to criticise let alone question the Holocaust. Many have been sent to prison for doing so. The latest being an 89 year old grand mother :

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853

 

[from_da_lost_dim3nsion]

What an idiotic comment. No one says anything about the Prophet the law is used to oppress the minorities. It’s a stupid law which should be done away with and if you’re making excuses for keeping the law as [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] mentioned in his comment above you’re part of the problem.

ok , keep living in LALA land . This is the problem with you radical left types. No idea of how the world works but ready to jump on any bandwagon . Read my post again I do not support the law but I do acknowledge that its there and gave my opinion on how to make thigs better . All you did was throw a tantrum and started name calling .

 

[Tubs]

In the UK, as a Christian, you do NOT have the right to refuse services to Homosexuals since same sex marriages became law.

Famous case (Asher's bakery) where a bakery owned by Christians refused to make a wedding cake for homosexuals because their faith rejected Homosexuality. It went legal. This happened in 2018.

Please stop pretending the UK has laws which protect the belief of the religious, UK does not. The laws are designed to attack religion, and restrict expression of religion.

UK isn't the beacon of freedom as some deluded Brit Pakistanis believe.

Victim mentality.

While I think a gay person would be better off taking their business elsewhere, do you really think it's right to deny someone service because of an immutable characteristic? I would be against anyone who denies someone service on the basis of their religion, and that's mutable. You can dislike gays, that's your prerogative in a free society, just don't be discriminatory.

You would not be saying the same if someone tried to refuse a Muslim service, and I would agree that it's reprehensible to do so.

Do Holocaust Denial laws count? After all, in 14 western countries it is blasphemous to criticise let alone question the Holocaust. Many have been sent to prison for doing so. The latest being an 89 year old grand mother :

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42164853

I agree that the Holocaust is seen as untouchable. I don't think questioning whether the total number is correct, or questioning the methods should be seen as 'denial'. I also think that even if someone flat-out denies it, they shouldn't face repercussions. I'm sure there are people who deny the Bosnian genocide, Armenian genocide, Bengali genocide, etc and aren't punished. Hell, more recently, one of the few good things out of BLM was the highlighting of the Bengali famine that Churchill had a hand in, and no one got in trouble for that. However the Holocaust and the criticism of Israel are treated differently- the historical treatment of Jews (while terrible) has been used as an excuse to stifle free speech for too long.

The West certainly isn't perfect, but it is undeniably ahead of the world when it comes to free speech. More work needs to be done.

 

[uberkoen]

I have every right to express my views against an ad which, in my view, does not conform to our cultural and religious values just like your right to endorse that ad.

This guy wants to ban a Pakistani ad with dancing in it but goes on and watches movies from hollywood and bollywood without any issues. Typical Pakistani mullah mentality.

 

[uberkoen]

In the UK, as a Christian, you do NOT have the right to refuse services to Homosexuals since same sex marriages became law.

Famous case (Asher's bakery) where a bakery owned by Christians refused to make a wedding cake for homosexuals because their faith rejected Homosexuality. It went legal. This happened in 2018.

Please stop pretending the UK has laws which protect the belief of the religious, UK does not. The laws are designed to attack religion, and restrict expression of religion.

UK isn't the beacon of freedom as some deluded Brit Pakistanis believe.

The fact that UK has laws which discourage discrimination is the very definition of freedom. However, the concept must be extremely difficult for mullah's to understand

 

[Technics 1210]

Victim mentality.

While I think a gay person would be better off taking their business elsewhere, do you really think it's right to deny someone service because of an immutable characteristic? I would be against anyone who denies someone service on the basis of their religion, and that's mutable. You can dislike gays, that's your prerogative in a free society, just don't be discriminatory.

You would not be saying the same if someone tried to refuse a Muslim service, and I would agree that it's reprehensible to do so.

So no need to question the motives of the homosexual couple who deliberalty provoked a religious family business? What gives them the right to offend?

I agree that the Holocaust is seen as untouchable. I don't think questioning whether the total number is correct, or questioning the methods should be seen as 'denial'. I also think that even if someone flat-out denies it, they shouldn't face repercussions. I'm sure there are people who deny the Bosnian genocide, Armenian genocide, Bengali genocide, etc and aren't punished. Hell, more recently, one of the few good things out of BLM was the highlighting of the Bengali famine that Churchill had a hand in, and no one got in trouble for that. However the Holocaust and the criticism of Israel are treated differently- the historical treatment of Jews (while terrible) has been used as an excuse to stifle free speech for too long.

The West certainly isn't perfect, but it is undeniably ahead of the world when it comes to free speech. More work needs to be done.

Free speech? Lol. 99% of the people who use this phrase don't even understand what it means. Free speech actually means the right to criticise a government without any fear, hindrance, or consequence; free speech doesn't mean the right to offend.

 

[Technics 1210]

The fact that UK has laws which discourage discrimination is the very definition of freedom. However, the concept must be extremely difficult for mullah's to understand

Oh please get real. Laws which discourage discrimination define equality not freedom.

Forget Mullahs, pick up a dictionary.

What would you know about the UK anyway, you live in Lahore.