Would you support the abolition of blasphemy laws in Pakistan?

[uberkoen]

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.

I've lived there a good 5 years. The fact that we have discriminatory laws in Pakistan specially the ones targeting Ahmedi's clearly shows what freedom certain communities have in the country to practice their religion

 

[Technics 1210]

I've lived there a good 5 years. The fact that we have discriminatory laws in Pakistan specially the ones targeting Ahmedi's clearly shows what freedom certain communities have in the country to practice their religion

We have discriminatory laws in Europe which target Judaism and Islam banning the practise of slaughtering animals for Halaal/Kosher meat, and of course banning the Burka.

You need to live and breathe the UK for a lot longer than 5 years to understand in the West, we only have freedom in our private abodes (our homes), not in public.

 

[Greenstorm]

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.

'This guy' supports banning of hijab and niqab in France but has issues with supposed banning of a biscuit ad in Pakistan. Typical fake liberal mentality.

 

[Tubs]

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?




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.

That's just like saying a woman in full niqab and her husband in a thawb going to a shop of a person who is known not to like Muslims. What gives them a right to offend them? See how ridiculous that argument is? Is it right to refuse service on the basis of an immutable characteristic? If yes, then surely you can refuse service on the basis of a mutable characteristic (religion)?

Yes, free speech to you is going to mean something different as you think you shouldn't be allowed to offend on the basis of religion (you're a snowflake). Religious scriptures can certainly be seen as offensive to gays, women, other religious people, should we ban them?

Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion in general, not just about a government.

 

[Technics 1210]

That's just like saying a woman in full niqab and her husband in a thawb going to a shop of a person who is known not to like Muslims. What gives them a right to offend them? See how ridiculous that argument is? Is it right to refuse service on the basis of an immutable characteristic? If yes, then surely you can refuse service on the basis of a mutable characteristic (religion)?

Yes, free speech to you is going to mean something different as you think you shouldn't be allowed to offend on the basis of religion (you're a snowflake). Religious scriptures can certainly be seen as offensive to gays, women, other religious people, should we ban them?

Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion in general, not just about a government.

It's not a ridiculous argument. The court upheld the baker's right, and the homosexual couple got a whooping.

Free speech is the right to criticise your government; it's the exact phrase the west uses this phrase to distinguish between democracies and dictatorships/regimes. Check the history of the phrase and how it developed post WW2.

You don't have free speech in the UK, you have the right to expression. Look up the law when you move out to the real world next week.

Your idea of freedom is anything that opposes and offends religion. Thank god you are in a minority.

 

[Tubs]

It's not a ridiculous argument. The court upheld the baker's right, and the homosexual couple got a whooping.

Free speech is the right to criticise your government; it's the exact phrase the west uses this phrase to distinguish between democracies and dictatorships/regimes. Check the history of the phrase and how it developed post WW2.

You don't have free speech in the UK, you have the right to expression. Look up the law when you move out to the real world next week.

Your idea of freedom is anything that opposes and offends religion. Thank god you are in a minority.

I know you love gays getting discriminated against, but you're the first person to cry victim when it's a Muslim. By your logic, you're happy for an anti-Muslim person to refuse Muslims service.

That's simply untrue. It contains the right to criticise the government, but it's not limited to that.

Yes, freedom of speech isn't absolute in the UK. I even said much of the West isn't perfect- I think US has the closest thing to freedom of speech. It is, however, far better than Pakistan as you can be killed there for speech.

My view is that you should be able to express your opinion, doesn't matter on what. Just because you're a victim and see everything as an attack on religion, doesn't mean my position is due to religion itself. I don't think people should be punished for being sceptical about the holocaust numbers (flat-out denial is indefensible, but I don't think they should be punished, such as science-deniers like you shouldn't), for example. You just love to be a victim.

 

[Technics 1210]

I know you love gays getting discriminated against, but you're the first person to cry victim when it's a Muslim. By your logic, you're happy for an anti-Muslim person to refuse Muslims service.

That's simply untrue. It contains the right to criticise the government, but it's not limited to that.

Yes, freedom of speech isn't absolute in the UK. I even said much of the West isn't perfect- I think US has the closest thing to freedom of speech. It is, however, far better than Pakistan as you can be killed there for speech.

My view is that you should be able to express your opinion, doesn't matter on what. Just because you're a victim and see everything as an attack on religion, doesn't mean my position is due to religion itself. I don't think people should be punished for being sceptical about the holocaust numbers (flat-out denial is indefensible, but I don't think they should be punished, such as science-deniers like you shouldn't), for example. You just love to be a victim.

"The UK's highest court ruled that Ashers bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory."

UK law disagrees with you. The victim routine by the homosexual community failed and their deliberate stunt to offend the religious exposed.

As for the US and free speech. Their constituion applies to government and judicial services. The constitution doesn't apply to businesses or private sector.

Facebook and Twitter, social media platforms, can delete posts without breaking the constituion. Users think they can post whatever they want under the illusion of freedom, but this is not true. User's must follow guidelines, not the constituion.

 

[ElRaja]

if u removed blasphemy laws in pak ppl would just take matters into their own hands. the laws will change themselves when ppls mentality changes, until then no point to discussing it.

 

[Tubs]

"The UK's highest court ruled that Ashers bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory."

UK law disagrees with you. The victim routine by the homosexual community failed and their deliberate stunt to offend the religious exposed.

As for the US and free speech. Their constituion applies to government and judicial services. The constitution doesn't apply to businesses or private sector.

Facebook and Twitter, social media platforms, can delete posts without breaking the constituion. Users think they can post whatever they want under the illusion of freedom, but this is not true. User's must follow guidelines, not the constituion.

Hmm, so you think law makes something morally correct? Guess you'd be supportive of the French ban on the hjiab if you were born there! And I'm sure you'll support the right of a gay baker to refuse to make a cake which said 'Islam is peaceful' on there, right?

The first amendment covers freedom of speech, too. Go and read it. I never said private institutions don't have their own guidelines, either. And I'm aware that social media has their own rules too, you're just adding in unrelated things???

Yes, the West is a tolerant society. However, many people take that tolerance for granted (i.e, many religious people). Let's not forget the uproar about gay couples being mentioned in schools.

 

[Technics 1210]

if u removed blasphemy laws in pak ppl would just take matters into their own hands. the laws will change themselves when ppls mentality changes, until then no point to discussing it.

Exactly. Anti discrimination laws in the UK haven't reduced levels of racism, ageism, antisemitism, or what ever ism for which a law was created.

The main reason for this is anti discrimination laws only apply to the public/government sector. As a UK citizen I can be as racist and discriminating with my views as I want within my own home, not outside of it. This is precisely why the killers of Stephen Lawrence escaped prosecution first time round, evidence recorded within their private abode was not admissible because a UK citizen is entitled to his private views.

 

[Tubs]

if u removed blasphemy laws in pak ppl would just take matters into their own hands. the laws will change themselves when ppls mentality changes, until then no point to discussing it.

Why not have the strict punishment which is reserved for blasphemy, in place for vigilante justice instead? I definitely get that there are times when social change is required before something can be put in place, but would we say the same for slavery, subjugation of minorities, etc? No. I think discussions should be had about how the state executing people for speech should be allowed and encouraged, at the very least.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why not have the strict punishment which is reserved for blasphemy, in place for vigilante justice instead? I definitely get that there are times when social change is required before something can be put in place, but would we say the same for slavery, subjugation of minorities, etc? No. I think discussions should be had about how the state executing people for speech should be allowed and encouraged, at the very least.

You can't impose laws on people without changing their ideology and mindset first. All that will happen is that the police and judges will find a way to manipulate the evidence to give a verdict acceptable to the people.

You only have to look at what happens in India to see this for yourself. Former MP Ehsan Jafri was chopped to pieces in the Gujarat riots of 2002 by enraged mobs, Babri Masjid was destroyed, thousands lost their lives. Yet all the ring leaders were let off the hook and Modi is now a heralded leader of his country.

You are sitting in the west thinking you can imply a whole different mindset on foreign lands.

 

[Bigboii]

'This guy' supports banning of hijab and niqab in France but has issues with supposed banning of a biscuit ad in Pakistan. Typical fake liberal mentality.

100% agreed this is HYPOCRISY

freedoms in society are not one sided! different rules for different people is unfair
(tbf I also have issues with banning the biscuit ad but at least I know banning of hijab means France is taking away basic rights of an individual so that's not hypocrisy imo)

 

[Greenstorm]

100% agreed this is HYPOCRISY

freedoms in society are not one sided! different rules for different people is unfair
(tbf I also have issues with banning the biscuit ad but at least I know banning of hijab means France is taking away basic rights of an individual so that's not hypocrisy imo)

I also think that banning is harsh as there was no clearly formulated policy regarding permissible content. But I welcome the general change in PEMRA's approach now, which as a regulatory authority, has the job of preserving our nation's cutural and religious values.

 

[ElRaja]

Why not have the strict punishment which is reserved for blasphemy, in place for vigilante justice instead? I definitely get that there are times when social change is required before something can be put in place, but would we say the same for slavery, subjugation of minorities, etc? No. I think discussions should be had about how the state executing people for speech should be allowed and encouraged, at the very least.

the legal framework for apartheid or slavery or racial oppression were unacceptable to a very large group of people (even if a minority) at the time of their removal.

blasphemy laws have no grey areas, most pakistanis support them virtually unilaterally, and its acts to impose the will of a massive majority on the minority.

if a political party was to repeal blasphemy laws it would mean certain removal from power, and whichever party promised to re enact them would come to power. political suicide for no long term gain.

the only way of removing blasphemy laws without popular support is to make pakistan a secular republic, which would make blasphemy laws anti-constitutional, which is not going to happen.

 

[Tubs]

You can't impose laws on people without changing their ideology and mindset first. All that will happen is that the police and judges will find a way to manipulate the evidence to give a verdict acceptable to the people.

You only have to look at what happens in India to see this for yourself. Former MP Ehsan Jafri was chopped to pieces in the Gujarat riots of 2002 by enraged mobs, Babri Masjid was destroyed, thousands lost their lives. Yet all the ring leaders were let off the hook and Modi is now a heralded leader of his country.

You are sitting in the west thinking you can imply a whole different mindset on foreign lands.

So oppression is okay if most people are okay with it? 2011 census shows that 79% of Indians are Hindu (with 14% being Muslim as a side-note, wow, didn't think it was that much). Let's say the majority of those Hindus support the subjugation of Muslims, is that okay? Is me saying that would be heinous and wrong just me 'sitting in the west thinking I can imply a whole different mindset on foreign lands'?

the legal framework for apartheid or slavery or racial oppression were unacceptable to a very large group of people (even if a minority) at the time of their removal.

blasphemy laws have no grey areas, most pakistanis support them virtually unilaterally, and its acts to impose the will of a massive majority on the minority.

if a political party was to repeal blasphemy laws it would mean certain removal from power, and whichever party promised to re enact them would come to power. political suicide for no long term gain.

the only way of removing blasphemy laws without popular support is to make pakistan a secular republic, which would make blasphemy laws anti-constitutional, which is not going to happen.

Are you certain blasphemy is that widely accepted? There could be even 5% of people against it- would that make it non-unilateral enough for their to be a 'sizable' argument against it? Again, if most Indians think subjugated Muslims is right, does that make it okay? Of course not. The bottom line is, people are being imprisoned and killed for hurting feelings. If you think that's okay, fine, but don't try and obfuscate the issue by talking about (alleged) implausibility of its implementation.

 

[ElRaja]

Are you certain blasphemy is that widely accepted? There could be even 5% of people against it- would that make it non-unilateral enough for their to be a 'sizable' argument against it?

yep, political power lies in the hands of mainstream muslims (sunni, shia) and im pretty sure advocates for the abolition of the blasphemy law are significantly under 5% in those groups.

Again, if most Indians think subjugated Muslims is right, does that make it okay? Of course not. The bottom line is, people are being imprisoned and killed for hurting feelings. If you think that's okay, fine, but don't try and obfuscate the issue by talking about (alleged) implausibility of its implementation.

i havn't obfuscated anything and your weak straw man is so far off the mark its laughable.

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan’s aide on Religious Harmony Tahir Ashrafi on Sunday said that the misuse of the blasphemy laws has stopped in Pakistan.

Talking to visiting delegates of the Christian community here, Ashrafi said no complaint of forced conversions had been reported in the country during the last two months. “With joint efforts of Ulema-Mashaikh and lawyers, instances relating to misuse of blasphemy laws witnessed a halt in the country,” he said.

The SAPM, according to a The News report, said that the government was pursuing PM Imran’s instructions to address the issues of minorities and his office was being used as a Special Coordination Center to resolve their issues.

Ashrafi urged all sections of the society to play their role in making Pakistan a peaceful and prosperous country.

He said the leadership of Christian Community had assured the government of implementation of COVID-19 SOPs during the Christmas festivities.

He urged the world leaders, including the US, the UK and European countries, not to be misled by the false propaganda made against Pakistan on account of religious freedom.

The PM’s aide said minorities in Pakistan had all the rights as defined in the laws and Constitution of Pakistan and no one could seize their rights and privileges.

He said the struggle and endeavours made by minorities in the making of Pakistan could not be forgotten and any hateful content and material aimed at making anarchy and chaos in the country will not be tolerated.

 

[saeedhk]

^He is lying regarding forced conversions. At least 5 such conversions have taken place in the last three weeks.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Regardless of what you believe about some of these laws, they are too easy to misuse in a country like Pakistan. Some of them should be put on temporary hold until we fix this country. However long that takes

 

[moghul]

This law has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teaching, should be abolished ASAP. But who has the courage to do that , Mullas are still strong in Pakistan. One recently went to hell but there are too many trouble makers still there in Pakistan .

Thats why I wish Pakistan should be ruled by a strongman, briefly at least , who would abolish laws like this and many others like one against Mirzais .

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

This law has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teaching, should be abolished ASAP. But who has the courage to do that , Mullas are still strong in Pakistan. One recently went to hell but there are too many trouble makers still there in Pakistan .

Thats why I wish Pakistan should be ruled by a strongman, briefly at least , who would abolish laws like this and many others like one against Mirzais .

Forget about Mullahs. Pseudo Intellectuals like Orya Maqbool Jan openly support killings of supposed Gustaqh e Rasool. Pretending intellectuals like Hassan Nisar praise Khadim Rizvi for his efforts and services. It's a long road ahead for Pakistan.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Forget about Mullahs. Pseudo Intellectuals like Orya Maqbool Jan openly support killings of supposed Gustaqh e Rasool. Pretending intellectuals like Hassan Nisar praise Khadim Rizvi for his efforts and services. It's a long road ahead for Pakistan.

Did Hasan Nisar really? I used to have a lot of respect for him because he used to always talk sense and his views were generally quite anti-Mullah. This is somewhat of a surprise to hear.

Orya Maqbool Jan on the other hand is a hatemonger. He shouldn't even be called a pseudo intellectual.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

This law has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teaching, should be abolished ASAP. But who has the courage to do that , Mullas are still strong in Pakistan. One recently went to hell but there are too many trouble makers still there in Pakistan .

Thats why I wish Pakistan should be ruled by a strongman, briefly at least , who would abolish laws like this and many others like one against Mirzais .

Even a strongman like Musharraf, who was quite liberal in his outlook of life didn't have the courage to abolish this black law which speaks to how impossible it is to abolish.

 

[MenInG]

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority on Sunday moved to block content in the country pertaining to what it termed the "sacrilegious" film titled "Lady in Heaven".

The authority, in a statement, said that keeping in view "different reports" regarding the movie and its "sacrilegious content", social media platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, have been directed "for immediate blocking of all content related to the said movie from their platforms".

It said that so far, 336 links containing promotional material of the movie have been reported to the different social media platforms.

PTA sends notices to Google, Wikipedia
On December 25, PTA said it has sent notices to tech giant Google and online encyclopedia Wikipedia for disseminating "sacrilegious content" through the platforms.

In a press release, the regulator said that it was acting against Google after receiving “complaints regarding misleading search results associated with ‘Present Khalifa of Islam’ and unauthentic version of Holy Quran uploaded on Google Play Store”.

The PTA said that it has approached Google with the directives "to immediately remove the unlawful content" as it was a matter of a "very serious nature".

Read more: Pakistan issues notices to Google and Wikipedia for disseminating 'sacrilegious content'

The PTA also said that it had received complaints against Wikipedia for "hosting of caricatures of Holy Prophet (PBUH) and dissemination of misleading, wrong, deceptive and deceitful information through articles portraying Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim".

The PTA said that they have served Wikipedia a notice after "extensive communication" to remove the "sacrilegious content to avoid any legal action".

 

[Vegitto1]

I for one will not support the abolishment of the Blasphemy law. There is nothing wrong with the law itself, it just needs to be implemented better. the burden of proof threshold should be set much higher so that it is not exploited for malicious purposes.

Furthermore, if the allegation is not proven, the accuser should face serious consequences, this would make sure that in the future a person thinks twice before using this law for their own ends.

We are Muslims, we live our lives according to the Quran and according to the teachings of our Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and all Prophets before him. The new generation of Pakistanis, inspired by the west, want a society where they are free to do as they please without state interference on religious grounds.

1. Adultery/LBGT (consenting adults) - normalised in the West - forbidden in Islam and hence in Pakistan - It obviously happens in all societies. It is a punishable crime in Pakistan. Our Gen X would prefer "State not to interfere in private lives and let God Judge on the day of Judgement"

2. Alcohol - Night-clubs - Casinos - Again all normal in the West - forbidden in Islam and hence forbidden in Pakistan. Again there is an underground scene but Gen X wants to be able to do it openly. You only have to look at what our weddings have become. Some of the events are nothing short of night-clubs.

3. Women rights - The struggle for women rights in Pakistan is unsurprisingly limited to "freedom to dress as they want" "freedom to use any type of abusive language that they want" basically freedom akin to their Western counter-parts. Again a Woman has a very special place in Islam. Women are the keepers of family values and at the heart of our family structure. Gen X wants to break that mould, which would result in the break-up of our traditional family structure and society.

Islam is only oppressive if you want to engage in acts which are divergent to the teachings of Islam, otherwise it is no different to living under a set of rules/laws as in any other State. People feel aggrieved because our pillars of State have miserably failed, so far, to implement them properly. Therefore, without proper structure to enforce law, even if you bring laws in to make Pakistan more 'secular' you are bound to face the same problems.

 

[Tubs]

I for one will not support the abolishment of the Blasphemy law. There is nothing wrong with the law itself, it just needs to be implemented better. the burden of proof threshold should be set much higher so that it is not exploited for malicious purposes.

Furthermore, if the allegation is not proven, the accuser should face serious consequences, this would make sure that in the future a person thinks twice before using this law for their own ends.

We are Muslims, we live our lives according to the Quran and according to the teachings of our Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and all Prophets before him. The new generation of Pakistanis, inspired by the west, want a society where they are free to do as they please without state interference on religious grounds.

1. Adultery/LBGT (consenting adults) - normalised in the West - forbidden in Islam and hence in Pakistan - It obviously happens in all societies. It is a punishable crime in Pakistan. Our Gen X would prefer "State not to interfere in private lives and let God Judge on the day of Judgement"

2. Alcohol - Night-clubs - Casinos - Again all normal in the West - forbidden in Islam and hence forbidden in Pakistan. Again there is an underground scene but Gen X wants to be able to do it openly. You only have to look at what our weddings have become. Some of the events are nothing short of night-clubs.

3. Women rights - The struggle for women rights in Pakistan is unsurprisingly limited to "freedom to dress as they want" "freedom to use any type of abusive language that they want" basically freedom akin to their Western counter-parts. Again a Woman has a very special place in Islam. Women are the keepers of family values and at the heart of our family structure. Gen X wants to break that mould, which would result in the break-up of our traditional family structure and society.

Islam is only oppressive if you want to engage in acts which are divergent to the teachings of Islam, otherwise it is no different to living under a set of rules/laws as in any other State. People feel aggrieved because our pillars of State have miserably failed, so far, to implement them properly. Therefore, without proper structure to enforce law, even if you bring laws in to make Pakistan more 'secular' you are bound to face the same problems.

Spoken like a true boomer. Pretty embarrassing stuff. You may want to live in medieval Arabia, but not everyone else does. Mentality is like this is why Pakistan is behind so many other countries, why women aren't taken seriously, why honour killings are so rampant, why vigilante violence is so common, why minorities are treated so badly, and so on. You really think that someone should be killed for mocking a long-dead historical figure. That says a lot about you.

Jinnah wanted a secular state, you spit on his grave everytime you say something as ridiculous as you just said. A move towards modernity is necessary if you want any semblance of progress. I'm not saying to make Pakistan less religious, but it shouldn't be state-enforced. LGBT people shouldn't be persecuted. Consenting adults having a pre-marital relation shouldn't be persecuted. I don't feel that strongly about the alcohol case, it is still available in Pakistan if someone really wants it. But the nightclub thing, what's wrong with it being open if it is so prevalent already? But again, I don't feel that strongly about it. And your paragraph about women is exactly why women's rights is a big issue. Women have such a special place in Islam, yet they can't choose what place they want to occupy? What if someone isn't religious, why must they stick to that religious norm? These are all ridiculous statements.

 

[Vegitto1]

Spoken like a true boomer. Pretty embarrassing stuff. You may want to live in medieval Arabia, but not everyone else does. Mentality is like this is why Pakistan is behind so many other countries, why women aren't taken seriously, why honour killings are so rampant, why vigilante violence is so common, why minorities are treated so badly, and so on. You really think that someone should be killed for mocking a long-dead historical figure. That says a lot about you.

Jinnah wanted a secular state, you spit on his grave everytime you say something as ridiculous as you just said. A move towards modernity is necessary if you want any semblance of progress. I'm not saying to make Pakistan less religious, but it shouldn't be state-enforced. LGBT people shouldn't be persecuted. Consenting adults having a pre-marital relation shouldn't be persecuted. I don't feel that strongly about the alcohol case, it is still available in Pakistan if someone really wants it. But the nightclub thing, what's wrong with it being open if it is so prevalent already? But again, I don't feel that strongly about it. And your paragraph about women is exactly why women's rights is a big issue. Women have such a special place in Islam, yet they can't choose what place they want to occupy? What if someone isn't religious, why must they stick to that religious norm? These are all ridiculous statements.

All those things in bold are forbidden in Islam anyway so I don't see how you can blame religion for it.

There is nothing to suggest that being an Islamic State means you cannot be a secular state as well. Both are not exclusive.

In my opinion, no one should be persecuted. However, there should be laws to prevent LGBT from being open about who they are in public. Cry as much as you want but I am not going to apologise for my beliefs and for being a Muslim.

You have to follow the law of the land. How the law comes about or its purpose becomes irrelevant once it has been passed. Everyone must follow it. That is what our Indian counter-parts tell us when they justify the killings of Muslims in India, and what French tell us when the pull the scarfs off Muslim women's heads.

 

[Tubs]

All those things in bold are forbidden in Islam anyway so I don't see how you can blame religion for it.

There is nothing to suggest that being an Islamic State means you cannot be a secular state as well. Both are not exclusive.

In my opinion, no one should be persecuted. However, there should be laws to prevent LGBT from being open about who they are in public. Cry as much as you want but I am not going to apologise for my beliefs and for being a Muslim.

You have to follow the law of the land. How the law comes about or its purpose becomes irrelevant once it has been passed. Everyone must follow it. That is what our Indian counter-parts tell us when they justify the killings of Muslims in India, and what French tell us when the pull the scarfs off Muslim women's heads.

If we are going into the weeds, then there is scriptural justification for the subjugation of women, minorities and vigilante violence for blasphemy.

You can't be an Islamic state and secular. But you can be a majority-Muslim country, and secular, which is what I hope Pakistan leans towards.

Laws preventing LGBT being open is persecution, stop being ridiculous. I'm not saying I want to see pride parades in Islamabad, I just want them to have the right to exist as a normal person in society. Yeah, don't apologise for being a bigot, so China won't have to apologise for putting Muslims in concentration camps. Great logic there.

The laws of the land shouldn't be discriminatory. I will speak out against any laws of a country which are unfair. There is no Indian law which says it's okay to kill Muslims, but the terrorists who do so should be punished with the full force of the law. France doesn't uniquely discriminate against Muslims, but they should allow hijab in schools and government positions (which are the only restrictions- though I understand the need to want to prevent girls being forced to wear it, not allowing them to wear it isn't the way to go). Are you really going to say that you're okay with China putting Muslims in concentration camps because it's accepted there? Then I suppose you're fully against the Birmingham protests of the tolerance lessons in primary schools (which cover many areas, one of which being that there are gay people in the UK- it doesn't mention anything related to sex, just that there are gay people and they exist) since that is the national curriculum? I know that you won't be consistent in your views, you are just pointing at isolated incidents which may make you seem consistent.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So oppression is okay if most people are okay with it? 2011 census shows that 79% of Indians are Hindu (with 14% being Muslim as a side-note, wow, didn't think it was that much). Let's say the majority of those Hindus support the subjugation of Muslims, is that okay? Is me saying that would be heinous and wrong just me 'sitting in the west thinking I can imply a whole different mindset on foreign lands'?

What difference does it make if we think it's ok or we don't? You still can't change the situation unless you are suggesting democracy is replaced by some other system. Unless you think you can somehow impose your mindset on current day India.

 

[Tubs]

What difference does it make if we think it's ok or we don't? You still can't change the situation unless you are suggesting democracy is replaced by some other system. Unless you think you can somehow impose your mindset on current day India.

The way to begin changing minds is by discussion, debate and dialogue. Are you really criticising me for saying it's wrong for the Hindu extremists to subjugate Muslims? If I see an injustice, I will call it out. I'm not saying it's a problem of democracy, it's a problem of bigotry and ignorance. What the Hinduvta thugs are doing is illegal, but the corrupt, borderline-fascist BJP government turns a blind eye to it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The way to begin changing minds is by discussion, debate and dialogue. Are you really criticising me for saying it's wrong for the Hindu extremists to subjugate Muslims? If I see an injustice, I will call it out. I'm not saying it's a problem of democracy, it's a problem of bigotry and ignorance. What the Hinduvta thugs are doing is illegal, but the corrupt, borderline-fascist BJP government turns a blind eye to it.

Agreed. Although the hindutva thugs may argue that what they are doing is not illegal until the Indian courts find them guilty.

 

[MenInG]

Seems some strange laws in Europe(an football) Also!

===
MILAN, ITALY - Juventus goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon was on Tuesday handed a one-match ban for blasphemy which would rule him out of next weekend's Turin derby.

The 43-year-old Italian World Cup winner had been fined 5,000 euros ($6,000) last month by the Italian Football Federation but escaped a ban.

However, the FIGC's Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Prosecutor's appeal and imposed a ban, meaning Buffon will be ruled out of Saturday's game at Torino.

Buffon was overheard using a "blasphemous expression" towards teammate Manolo Portanova during Juve's 4-0 league win over Parma on December 19.

Buffon, who holds the record for Serie A matches played with 654, was not caught on camera but there was an audio recording of the incident.

Since 2010, the Italian FA have taken disciplinary action against several players and coaches heard disrespecting God or the sacred.

But the penalties have increased this season with empty stadiums allowing the microphones and cameras to capture heated exchanges between players and coaches.

AS Roma midfielder Bryan Cristante and Lazio's Manuel Lazzari were both suspended for a match this season for "blasphemous" remarks.

https://ewn.co.za/2021/03/30/juvent...emy-ban?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Tubs]

Seems some strange laws in Europe(an football) Also!

===
MILAN, ITALY - Juventus goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon was on Tuesday handed a one-match ban for blasphemy which would rule him out of next weekend's Turin derby.

The 43-year-old Italian World Cup winner had been fined 5,000 euros ($6,000) last month by the Italian Football Federation but escaped a ban.

However, the FIGC's Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Prosecutor's appeal and imposed a ban, meaning Buffon will be ruled out of Saturday's game at Torino.

Buffon was overheard using a "blasphemous expression" towards teammate Manolo Portanova during Juve's 4-0 league win over Parma on December 19.

Buffon, who holds the record for Serie A matches played with 654, was not caught on camera but there was an audio recording of the incident.

Since 2010, the Italian FA have taken disciplinary action against several players and coaches heard disrespecting God or the sacred.

But the penalties have increased this season with empty stadiums allowing the microphones and cameras to capture heated exchanges between players and coaches.

AS Roma midfielder Bryan Cristante and Lazio's Manuel Lazzari were both suspended for a match this season for "blasphemous" remarks.

https://ewn.co.za/2021/03/30/juvent...emy-ban?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Very disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. Italy is probably the most religious and conservative countries in 'Western Europe' (unsure if it entirely comes under Western Europe, I just mean not in Eastern Europe). At least it was a football federation, and not the government, but that is still disappointing.

 

[MenInG]

FAISALABAD: Police have registered a case against two nurses of the District Headquarters (DHQ) Hospital on the charge of committing blasphemy.

Scores of hospital employees staged a protest demonstration on Friday against the two nurses while alleging that both committed blasphemy by removing a sticker with sacred inscription from a cupboard.

Some of the unruly agitators attacked the police van parked inside the hospital to get custody of one of the nurses but the police locked her inside the van to keep her safe from the the protesters.

A police officer said it had been reported that two nurses committed blasphemy on Thursday by removing a sticker in a ward where psychiatric patients are being treated.

Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr Mohammad Ali submitted an application to the Civil Lines police claiming that the allegation of blasphemy had been proved by the hospital committee. He said the head nurse had taken the removed sticker into her custody and she apprised him of the issue on Friday.

The hospital administration called police who immediately took the nurse into protective custody so that she could be moved to a safer place. Scores of people tried to get hold of her but police kept her inside the van.

Anti-riot police and Elite Force tackled the situation and a team led by Civil Lines DSP Rana Attaur Rehman after hectic struggle succeeded to move her from the hospital premises.

Among the protesters were clerics who demanded action against the prime suspect.

Police booked both nurses under section 295-B of the PPC.

Published in Dawn, April 10th, 2021

 

[MenInG]

FAISALABAD: Police have registered a case against two nurses of the District Headquarters (DHQ) Hospital on the charge of committing blasphemy.

Scores of hospital employees staged a protest demonstration on Friday against the two nurses while alleging that both committed blasphemy by removing a sticker with sacred inscription from a cupboard.

Some of the unruly agitators attacked the police van parked inside the hospital to get custody of one of the nurses but the police locked her inside the van to keep her safe from the the protesters.

A police officer said it had been reported that two nurses committed blasphemy on Thursday by removing a sticker in a ward where psychiatric patients are being treated.

Deputy Medical Superintendent Dr Mohammad Ali submitted an application to the Civil Lines police claiming that the allegation of blasphemy had been proved by the hospital committee. He said the head nurse had taken the removed sticker into her custody and she apprised him of the issue on Friday.

The hospital administration called police who immediately took the nurse into protective custody so that she could be moved to a safer place. Scores of people tried to get hold of her but police kept her inside the van.

Anti-riot police and Elite Force tackled the situation and a team led by Civil Lines DSP Rana Attaur Rehman after hectic struggle succeeded to move her from the hospital premises.

Among the protesters were clerics who demanded action against the prime suspect.

Police booked both nurses under section 295-B of the PPC.

Published in Dawn, April 10th, 2021

There is some basic education issues at hand.

 

[saeedhk]

The nurses removed a sticker with had the darood sharif on it; one of the nurses was stabbed by a hospital employee. There is a video that shows the stabber saying he would kill the nurse if given a chance again.

 

[Last Monetarist]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1621254/eu-parliament-adopts-resolution-calling-for-review-of-pakistans-gsp-status-over-blasphemy-law-abuse

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling for a review of the GSP+ status granted to Pakistan in view of an "alarming" increase in the use of blasphemy accusations in the country as well as rising number of online and offline attacks on journalists and civil society organisations, it emerged on Friday.

The resolution also calls on the Government of Pakistan to "unequivocally condemn" incitement to violence and discrimination against religious minorities in the country, and expresses "deep concern" at the prevailing anti-French sentiment in Pakistan.

The EU Parliament "calls on the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to immediately review Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP+ status in the light of current events and whether there is sufficient reason to initiate a procedure for the temporary withdrawal of this status and the benefits that come with it, and to report to the European Parliament on this matter as soon as possible", according to the resolution.

Member of European Parliament (MEP) Charlie Weimers of Sweden, who co-authored the resolution, in his speech during the parliament's latest session cited various incidents of members of religious minorities killed or imprisoned in Pakistan over accusations of blasphemy.

"Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan, rather than defend his citizens' human rights against false accusers, [...] equated denial of the Holocaust and genocide to criticism of Islam's Prophet (PBUH)," he said in his remarks.

The lawmaker also tweeted: "Should Europe reward Pakistan’s mob justice targeting Christians and its Prime Minister relativising the Holocaust? My answer is no." Responding to the passage of the resolution, Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari while apparently referring to Weimers said: "It is unfortunate that the co-sponsor of the EU's anti-Pakistan resolution was a member of a party that the Swedish PM Stefan Lofven referred to as 'a neo-fascist single-issue party' with 'Nazi and racist roots'."

She said the pertinent question now was "whether GSP Plus is getting muddied in Islamophobia?"

"We have issues to resolve but there has been more movement now on our Human Rights International Convention commitments than in previous governments. The way forward is dialogue & negotiations, which we have been doing, not extreme public positionings. Unfortunate," she wrote, tagging the EU ambassador to Pakistan in her tweet. The EU resolution expresses particular concern regarding the case of couple Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel, who were sentenced to death on blasphemy charges in 2014. These charges emanated from the alleged sending of text messages disrespectful of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from a phone number registered to Kausar to the person accusing the couple of blasphemy.

"The evidence on which the couple were convicted can be considered deeply flawed," it states, noting that the couple had allegedly been in an argument with the accuser not long before the accusations were made.

The couple remain in jail pending a court ruling on their appeal against their death sentence. The appeal was due to be heard in April 2020, six years after they were sentenced, but has been postponed multiple times, most recently on February 15, 2021, according to the resolution.

It notes that there has been "an alarming increase" in accusations of blasphemy online and offline in Pakistan over the past year, with the highest number of accusations since 1987 taking place in 2020. Many of these allegations targeted human rights defenders, journalists, artists and the most marginalised segments. "Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are increasingly used for personal or political score‑settling in violation of the rights to freedom of religion and belief and of opinion and expression," it states.

According to the resolution, the situation in Pakistan "continued to deteriorate in 2020 as the government systematically enforced blasphemy laws and failed to protect religious minorities from abuses by non-state actors, with a sharp rise in targeted killings, blasphemy cases, forced conversions, and hate speech against religious minorities including Ahmadis, Shia Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Sikhs; whereas abduction, forced conversion to Islam, rape and forced marriage remained an imminent threat for religious minority women and children in 2020, particularly those from the Hindu and Christian faiths".

The text calls on the Pakistani government to "unequivocally condemn incitement to violence and discrimination against religious minorities in the country" and put in place "effective, procedural and institutional safeguards" to prevent the abuse of the blasphemy laws, while noting that it has been made a requirement that no police officer below the level of police superintendent may investigate charges before registering a case.

It also expresses concern over "an increasing number of online and offline attacks on journalists and civil society organisations, in particular against women and the most marginalised in society", noting that such attacks often include false accusations of blasphemy, which can lead to physical attacks, killings, arbitrary arrest and detention.

It urges the Pakistani government to take "immediate steps" to ensure the safety of journalists, human rights defenders and faith-based organisations and to carry out prompt and effective investigations in order to uphold the rule of law and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The resolution says Pakistan has benefited from trade preferences under the GSP+ programme since 2014, while the economic benefits from this unilateral trade agreement for the country are "considerable". However, the GSP+ status "comes with the obligation to ratify and implement 27 international conventions including commitments to guarantee human rights and religious freedom", it adds.

"In its latest GSP+ assessment of Pakistan of 10 February 2020, the Commission expressed a variety of serious concerns on the human rights situation in the country, notably the lack of progress in limiting the scope and implementation of the death penalty," the text says.

However, the resolution welcomes the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to ban the execution of prisoners with mental health conditions. It calls upon the Pakistani authorities to commute the sentences of all individuals who are facing the death penalty to ensure that their right to a fair trial is respected.

Apparently referring to the recent violent protests by the banned Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), the resolution says: "The repeated and deceptive attacks against the French authorities by radical Pakistani groups and recent statements by the Government of Pakistan on the grounds of blasphemy have escalated since the response of the French authorities to the terrorist attack against a French school teacher for defending freedom of expression."

It says the EU Parliament considers the violent demonstrations against France as "unacceptable" and is deeply concerned by the anti-French sentiment in Pakistan, which has led French nationals and companies to have to leave the country temporarily.

 

[saeedhk]

https://www.dawn.com/news/1621254/eu-parliament-adopts-resolution-calling-for-review-of-pakistans-gsp-status-over-blasphemy-law-abuse

This is good news but I am sure the government will not budge. Nobody is willing to speak about the blasphemy because even speaking about it is a blasphemy let alone calling for its review. The blasphemy law is here to stay and minorities will continue to suffer.

 

[MenInG]

The Foreign Office (FO) on Friday expressed disappointment over the European Parliament's resolution on Pakistan and said that the body lacks the contextual understanding of Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

“Pakistan is disappointed at the adoption of a resolution at the European Parliament on blasphemy laws in the country. The discourse in the European Parliament reflects a lack of understanding in the context of blasphemy laws and associated religious sensitivities in Pakistan – and in the wider Muslim world,” said Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri in a statement.

The statement added that the “unwarranted commentary” by the lawmaking body of the regional bloc “about Pakistan’s judicial system and domestic laws” was “regrettable”.

The FO reminded the EU that Pakistan is a “parliamentary democracy with a vibrant civil society, free media, and independent judiciary”. It reiterated that Pakistan remains “fully committed to the promotion and protection of human rights for all its citizens without discrimination”.

“We are proud of our minorities who enjoy equal rights and complete protection of fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution,” said the FO. It added that the judicial and administrative mechanisms and remedies are in place in the country to help guard any individual “against any human rights violations”.

“Pakistan has played an active role in promoting freedom of religion or belief, tolerance, and inter-faith harmony. At a time of rising Islamophobia and populism, the international community must exhibit a common resolve to fight xenophobia, intolerance, and incitement to violence based on religion or belief and work together to strengthen peaceful co-existence,” said the FO.

Chaudhri reminded that Pakistan and the regional bloc have multiple mechanisms to discuss “entire spectrum of bilateral relations, including a dedicated Dialogue on Democracy, Rule of Law, Governance and Human Rights”.

He added that Pakistan “would continue to remain positively engaged with the EU on all issues of mutual interest”.

EU parliament wants Pakistan's GSP plus status reviewed

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted a resolution against Pakistan which asks for a review of the country's GSP Plus (GSP+) status, citing an increase in laws that it sees as discriminatory towards minorities and fundamental rights.

The resolution was presented by Renew Europe, a liberal, pro-European political group of the European Parliament. It was adopted with a majority of 681 votes against six.

The resolution says Pakistan has violated the conditions of its Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus status.

The GSP+ is a special component of the GSP scheme that provides additional trade incentives to developing countries already benefitting from GSP.

The GSP+ status granted to Pakistan requires the country to demonstrate progress on the implementation of 27 international core conventions. This condition constitutes strong leverage for the European Union in terms of monitoring any direct advocacy with Pakistan, said the European Commission.

The EU Parliament session discussed the situation of religious freedoms in Pakistan under its “human rights and democracy resolutions” manifesto.

Sajjad Karim, a former negotiator on GSP plus and part of the EU Parliament trade committee says the adoption of this resolution is “serious.”

He said it is backed by the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee David McAllister and former chief election observer to Pakistan from EU Michael Ghaler - both of whom were previously always supportive of GSP+ for Pakistan.

He said Ghaler raised his concerns with him over the topic some time ago.

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistani police said Tuesday they foiled an attempt by a mob to lynch a blasphemy suspect recently arrested on charges of insulting Islam.

The mob stormed the Golra police station on the outskirts of Islamabad on Monday night, after police refused to hand over the suspect to the crowd outside for punishment, local police chief Asim Ghaffar said.

The suspect, Shaukat Ali, was unharmed while six police officials were slightly injured in the attack, Ghaffar said. Aali is accused of sharing anti-Islam content on social media.

Blasphemy carries the death penalty in Pakistan. Rights groups say that in this country, blasphemy allegations have often been used to intimidate religious minorities and settle personal scores.

A Punjab governor in Islamabad was shot and killed by his own guard in 2011, after he defended a Christian woman, Aasia Bibi, who was accused of blasphemy. She was acquitted after spending eight years on death row and left Pakistan for Canada to join her family after receiving threats.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/pa...GjdAd34UqZH3RIjQr8Y0WJzNkn8l22tWcQmsU2VhWBK4N

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD:Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told European Union lawmakers on Wednesday that no armed pressure group was being allowed to challenge the writ of the state or dictate government policies.

Addressing the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) virtually, the foreign minister stated that the federal government had dealt firmly with radical groups after the recent protests.

Qureshi went on to express disappointment at the adoption of a resolution by the European Parliament on blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

The foreign minister stated that the resolution, “Reflected a lack of understanding of blasphemy laws and associated religious sensitivities in Pakistan and in the wider Muslim world.”

He further stressed that: “We need to appreciate the religious sentiments attached to the personality of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and other religious symbols.”

The foreign minister said that Pakistan believed in the policy of restraint and peaceful coexistence and was well poised to assume an even greater role as a responsible and responsive member in the comity of nations.

“We want to anchor our international engagement in economic cooperation and the inextricable link between peace and development. Our focus is shifting from geo-politics to geo-economics,” he said.

Afghan peace process

Regarding the Afghan peace process, the FM said that peace and stability in Afghanistan were paramount in realising the government’s vision of regional economic integration and trans-regional connectivity.

“Pakistan had long maintained that there was “no military solution” in Afghanistan. We remain committed to an “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led” peace process, he added.

He further added that Pakistan had consistently supported the peace process and the facilitation culminated in the US-Taliban Peace Agreement and subsequent commencement of Intra-Afghan negotiations.

Qureshi further warned that continued violence following the withdrawal of the US and NATO forces could potentially lead to rise in drugs production and an exodus of Afghans from their country.

Pakistan stands as a gatekeeper in stemming the flow of illegal migrants and narcotics from Afghanistan, he said.

Relations with neighbours

On relations with neighbours, Qureshi said that Pakistan remained firmly committed to improving relations with all its neighbours, including India. However, he regretted that the overtures for peace were not reciprocated by India.

“Instead, it unilaterally and illegally moved to change the status of Jammu and Kashmir – a UN-recognised disputed territory - and vitiated the environment for dialogue. The onus is now on India to create an enabling environment, he said.

The foreign minister stated that Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) dispute was indeed the single biggest obstacle in the way of building a durable and lasting peace in South Asia.

“A solution in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people is indispensable, he added. “Region’s strategic stability was threatened by the growing conventional asymmetry between Pakistan and India.”

He recalled that the EU Disinfo Lab unearthed India’s nefarious activities and urged the EU authorities to take notice of this massive misinformation campaign against Pakistan and not let third countries misuse the name of EU institutions.

Trade opportunities

As an emerging market of 220 million people, 60 per cent of whom are below the age of 30 years, Pakistan offers a multitude of opportunities for trade and investment, the FM further told the EU lawmakers.

Pakistan was ready to play its part for a positive and productive partnership with the European Union as enormous potential existed in areas of trade, climate change and digitisation, he said.

“Pak-EU Strategic Engagement Plan signed in June 2019 had ushered in a new phase in a relationship,” Qureshi added.

He mentioned that the Pak-EU relationship had provided a solid foundation and framework for cooperation in multiple domains, including political and defence, trade and investment, promotion of democracy, rule of law, good governance and human rights, migration and mobility, sustainable development, education and culture and science and technology

Qureshi expressed satisfaction over the Pak-EU relationship moving steadily in a positive direction in all spheres of cooperation, and expressed commitment to “remain engaged to further expand our multidimensional partnership”.

“EU was a traditional friend and a major economic partner of Pakistan with their cooperation based on shared values of democracy, pluralism, mutual understanding and respect,” the foreign minister stated.

As an emerging market of 220 million people, 60 percent of whom are below the age of 30 years, Pakistan offers a multitude of opportunities for trade and investment, he added.

He further said that anchored in economic security, Pakistan was focused on connectivity by promoting trade, transit and energy flows among Central and South Asia and Middle-East, providing economic bases as a development strategy and peace within our borders and beyond.

Qureshi said trade was an important aspect of the Pakistan-EU multi-faceted relationship.

"While the GSP Plus has supported our exports, we have introduced reforms to attract foreign direct investment to maximally utilise this facility," he added.

“Pakistan offered an open and deregulated market with 100 per cent equity ownership and repatriation of capital and dividends,” he said. “Over the last five years, Pakistan’s IT exports had increased by 151 per cent and offered the EU to benefit from the country’s human resource in the IT sector to realise its digitisation goals.”

Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, FM Qureshi lauded the EU’s efforts and contributions in fighting the deadly disease.

 

[Jadz]

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.

There are no blasphemy or apostasy laws in Islam - nowhere in the Qur'an are these two even mentioned or referred to. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was attacked - both verbally and physically - during his lifetime, but he did not respond in kind. Furthermore, the pagan Arabs attributed daughters to Allah SwT and openly worshipped a plurality of deities, yet Allah SwT did not instruct His Messenger to arrest them, incarcerate or kill them.

People may reject Islam, mock the Prophet - as he was during his tenure as Messenger of Allah SwT (as, indeed, were all Prophets, some were martyred, such as Zachariah and his son, John) - and even reject belief in Allah SwT, they may change their belief system if they so wish ('There is no compulsion in Religion' Q2:256) and, thus, turn their backs on Islam. People may exercise their free will in any way they want, providing they are not warmongering or inviting the enemies of a State to invade, bomb, kill its citizens and occupy/steal their land, precious resources, in which case Muslims have a right to defend themselves and their nations.

Blasphemy and apostasy laws are probably derived from Christianity, both of which are deemed graves sins. Muslims should read the Qur'an for themselves and not depend upon scholars, whose translations, interpretations and explanations are bound to be subjective.

 

[guna]

There are no blasphemy or apostasy laws in Islam - nowhere in the Qur'an are these two even mentioned or referred to. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was attacked - both verbally and physically - during his lifetime, but he did not respond in kind. Furthermore, the pagan Arabs attributed daughters to Allah SwT and openly worshipped a plurality of deities, yet Allah SwT did not instruct His Messenger to arrest them, incarcerate or kill them.

People may reject Islam, mock the Prophet - as he was during his tenure as Messenger of Allah SwT (as, indeed, were all Prophets, some were martyred, such as Zachariah and his son, John) - and even reject belief in Allah SwT, they may change their belief system if they so wish ('There is no compulsion in Religion' Q2:256) and, thus, turn their backs on Islam. People may exercise their free will in any way they want, providing they are not warmongering or inviting the enemies of a State to invade, bomb, kill its citizens and occupy/steal their land, precious resources, in which case Muslims have a right to defend themselves and their nations.

Blasphemy and apostasy laws are probably derived from Christianity, both of which are deemed graves sins. Muslims should read the Qur'an for themselves and not depend upon scholars, whose translations, interpretations and explanations are bound to be subjective.

So all the Islamic countries that attribute punishment for Prophet Blasphemy are deluded. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran etc do not know their religion. Read about Asma Bint Marwan and her story.

The same for Apostasy laws too. The Islamic countries that prescribe death penalty for Apostasy are all ignorant according to you.

 

[Jadz]

So all the Islamic countries that attribute punishment for Prophet Blasphemy are deluded. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran etc do not know their religion. Read about Asma Bint Marwan and her story.

The same for Apostasy laws too. The Islamic countries that prescribe death penalty for Apostasy are all ignorant according to you.

Please quote chapter and verse from the Qur'an where blasphemy and apostasy are mentioned, are declared prohibited and therefore warrant the death penalty. Refrain from citing so-called 'Muslim' governments in the ME - if they were following Islam and implementing its statutes, according to the model and system of governance employed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Medina, Muslims would not be in such dire straits.

The death penalty in Islam is only used in extremely limited circumstances, for the most heinous of crimes - turning one's back on Islam or mocking the Prophet, even Allah SwT (a practice routinely engaged in by the pagan oligarchy in Mecca) are not punishable offences. People are free to believe in or say what they want. You need to provide evidence and proofs from the Qur'an to substantiate your assertion that a) blasphemy and apostasy laws exist and are specifically mentioned, and b) that both are such serious crimes that they warrant the death penalty.

Refrain from travelling around the Muslim world to instruct me on what Muslim rulers are doing - because I could not care less about anything except the truth from Allah SwT.

 

[Civil]

The sooner they trash these pathetic laws the better. What benefits does it provide?

Anytime you hear about these laws being applied, you can tell it is someone misusing it. Some dispute in a market or at work or picking on some poor minority kid who could not have known better etc.

Even worse it encourages morons to take it in their own hands and murder. It does zero to help society.

I consider myself somewhat religious, but one thing I can guarantee I don't give a rat's behind if someone insulted my religion, as long as they can't stop me from professing it or harm me physically ..who cares? Are we so insecure as a nation? Pakistan is in such a heavy muslim majority as it is.. why have these laws?

 

[saeedhk]

The blasphemy law in Pakistan is used extensively and exclusively against minorities to usurp their property and land or to settle personal disputes. Half of all blasphemy cases have been filed against 2% of the total Pakistan’s population. Minorities make-up 2% of our population. I do not see this law going away anytime soon because extremism has seeped into every segment of society. When 5 year old kids say their goal is to behead infidels and blasphemers, the country is already beyond a point of recovery.

 

[saeedhk]

Pakistan overturns Christian couple's blasphemy death sentences

A Pakistani court has overturned a death sentence handed down to a Christian couple for blasphemy, citing a lack of evidence.

Shagufta Kausar and her husband Shafqat Emmanuel were convicted in 2014 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.But on Thursday, the couple's lawyer Saif ul Malook said the Lahore High Court had acquitted them.A prosecution lawyer told the Reuters news agency that the latest ruling would be challenged.

Blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan, and though no-one has ever been executed for it, dozens have been killed by mobs after being accused.

I am very happy that we were able to get the release of this couple who are some of the most helpless people in our society," Mr Malook told the AFP news agency.He said he expected the pair to be freed next week after the court orders are published.
Human rights groups have welcomed the ruling.
"Today's decision puts an end to the seven-year long ordeal of a couple who should not have been convicted nor faced a death sentence in the first place," Amnesty International's South Asia Deputy Director Dinushika Dissanayake said in a statement.

What were the couple accused of?

The married couple were convicted in 2014 of sending blasphemous text messages insulting the Prophet Muhammad to a local imam from a phone number registered in Ms Kausar's name.
But her brother told the BBC last year that the couple were innocent, and he doubted they were literate enough even to have written the abusive messages.

Ms Kausar worked as a caretaker in a Christian school, whilst her husband is partially paralysed.

Human rights groups say blasphemy allegations are frequently used to settle personal scores or target religious minorities.

The couple's lawyer told the BBC last year that in their trial they suggested a Christian neighbour they had argued with might have purchased a SIM card in Shagufta Kausar's name and sent the messages in order to frame them.

In April, the European Parliament passed a motion condemning Pakistan for failing to protect religious minorities, focusing on the case of Ms Kausar and Mr Emmanuel.

Blasphemy convictions are often eventually overturned on appeal in Pakistan. Last year, Asia Bibi left the country after more than a decade in prison, having been acquitted by the Supreme Court. The verdict led to violent protests by hardline religious groups.

Source: https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57347604.amp

 

[saeedhk]

The European Parliament mentioned the case of this couple in late April when they passed a resolution, saying Pakistan has failed to protect its minorities and the EP called for the couple’s release.

All of a sudden, the couple has been released and that too within a month.

This show that Pakistan is willing to listen when it a matter of money and trade. I hope the world keeps piling pressure on Pakistan so that many other who are falsely accused of blasphemy could be set free.

 

[saeedhk]

Pakistani policeman kills man acquitted of blasphemy

Human rights activists in Pakistan have condemned the murder of a man who was acquitted of blasphemy charges last year.

Muhammad Waqas was hacked to death with a cleaver on July 2 as he was returning to his home in Sadiqabad, Punjab province.

Attacker Abdul Qadir, who had recently started training as a police constable, also injured his brother. He later surrendered to police.
Waqas was charged with blasphemy in 2016 for sharing blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Mohammad on social media. According to an initial investigation, Qadir planned to kill him but Waqas was sent to jail in 2017. Lahore High Court overturned his conviction in 2020 and Waqas was released from prison.

Photographs of a blood-soaked cleaver and the victim’s body are being shared on social media. “Just saw in a police [social media] group. All are raising slogans of Takbir [Allahu akbar] and saying Mashallah [God has willed],” stated Fareed Ahmed Fareed, a Muslim writer, in a Facebook post.

Peter Jacob, the Catholic director of the Centre for Social Justice, condemned the killing.
“This is another example of increasing religious extremism. The situation is so scary and serious that not a single entity can control it. This shadow of terrorism and obsession can’t be detected by any detector,” he said.

In 2016, Pakistan executed a former police bodyguard who gunned down Punjab governor Salman Taseer over his opposition to the country’s controversial blasphemy laws.

In 2011, Catholic businessman David Qamar was found dead in his prison cell in Karachi while serving life imprisonment for blasphemy. He was arrested in 2006 for being in possession of a phone used for sending derogatory messages insulting Prophet Mohammad.

The Catholic bishops’ National Commission for Justice and Peace suspected that Qamar had fallen prey to an active hate campaign by extremist groups.

In 2004, a policeman attacked Christian laborer Samuel Masih, who had been accused of blasphemy, with a hammer while Masih was receiving treatment at a government hospital. Masih, who was already suffering from tuberculosis, died three days later.

Source:https://www.ucanews.com/news/pakistani-policeman-kills-man-acquitted-of-blasphemy/93133#

 

[warcry]

"blasphemy" laws exist in islam. but under a different name,i i.e "bidah" or innovation.
creating unislamic practices such as bringing a caste system, or obseving pagan rituals such as Chaliswan, or the chuas of shah daula, and the veneration of saints are examples of bidah and innovation.

 

[guna]

Please quote chapter and verse from the Qur'an where blasphemy and apostasy are mentioned, are declared prohibited and therefore warrant the death penalty. Refrain from citing so-called 'Muslim' governments in the ME - if they were following Islam and implementing its statutes, according to the model and system of governance employed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Medina, Muslims would not be in such dire straits.

The death penalty in Islam is only used in extremely limited circumstances, for the most heinous of crimes - turning one's back on Islam or mocking the Prophet, even Allah SwT (a practice routinely engaged in by the pagan oligarchy in Mecca) are not punishable offences. People are free to believe in or say what they want. You need to provide evidence and proofs from the Qur'an to substantiate your assertion that a) blasphemy and apostasy laws exist and are specifically mentioned, and b) that both are such serious crimes that they warrant the death penalty.

Refrain from travelling around the Muslim world to instruct me on what Muslim rulers are doing - because I could not care less about anything except the truth from Allah SwT.

Not everything is mentioned in Holy Quran. The Sunnat comes from Hadees and Seerah of Prophet Muhammed PBUH. Asma Bint Marwan was a poetess who used to write poetry criticizing Prophet Muhammed PBUH. You should know the story as a Muslim.

If you just go by Holy Quran, you would not even know who Prophet Muhammed PBUH is. There is no mention of him there by name.

 

[King_Kohli]

SC moved against Christian couple’s acquittal

LAHORE:
A petitioner has challenged a Lahore High Court (LHC) order to acquit a Christian couple languishing in jail for years over blasphemy charges and contended that the LHC drew a wrong conclusion which resulted in a "gross miscarriage" of justice.

A trial court in Toba Tek Singh on April 4, 2014 sentence Shafqat Masih and his wife Shagufta Kausar to death under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with Section 34 for sending blasphemous messages through their mobile phones.

However, an LHC division bench – comprising Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh –on June 3 acquitted the couple after the prosecution “failed to establish the case beyond doubt”.

Read LHC acquits Christian couple in blasphemy case after 8 years in jail

Senior advocate Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhary has now challenged the LHC order by filing an appeal in the Supreme Court Lahore Registry. According to the appeal, the LHC’s bench "failed to appreciate the facts and law of the case in their true perspective and drew a wrong conclusion".

“The observation of the LHC’s division bench to the effect that ‘the appellants can be convicted only if the prosecution establishes that the handset (phone) belonged to them or was in their use and they authored and sent the text is a far-fetched imagination going much below the ground realities.”

It said the division bench did not mention, discuss or distinguish the precedent laws produced during arguments from the complainant side, adding that the evidence of judicial confession was important and the best evidence in the eye of law.

“[This is so] because Muhammad Nasir Siyal, superintendent of police (PW-11) before whom firstly the accused had confessed his guilt, had taken him to the magistrate immediately, where again confession was recorded …and it was not proved from any document that the said confession was not voluntarily.”

The appeal said while deciding the criminal appeal against conviction of the culprits after a full-fledged trial, there was no occasion or justification for the division bench to embark upon "theoretical and academic discussion" with reference to Articles 4, 9,10, and 10-A of the Constitution.

“The important thing is that all laws are made and implemented for public good and advancement of justice, therefore, punishment of the criminals is of equal importance."

“In a case where the facts, circumstances and evidence on record prove guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, punishment of the culprits becomes quite inevitable for the simple reason that to let the criminal escort free, means to punish the whole society,” it added.

The case
Complainant Muhamad Hussain on July 18, 2013 was offering prayer in a mosque when he received a message on his phone. When he checked the phone he found that it was a sacrilegious text from an unknown mobile number.

The complainant showed these messages to one Khalid Maqsood and Muhammad Shabbir and others. The complainant obtained prints of these blasphemous SMS and went to the office of Sajjad Asghar Khokhar for initiating legal proceedings against the suspects.

He was still there when he received five more SMS from the aforesaid number with the same derogatory contents. He showed them to Sajjad Ashgar who called the sender from his phone to know who the person was but nobody picked up the phone. After that, the police registered a case and arrested the accused for alleged blasphemy.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2314570/sc-moved-against-christian-couples-acquittal

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Mob sets Charsadda police station on fire after officials refuse to hand over alleged blasphemy susp

A mob attacked and set on fire a police station in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Charsadda district on Sunday, demanding that authorities hand over a man arrested for allegedly desecrating the Holy Quran.

KP Law Minister Fazal Shakoor Khan, who hails from Charsadda, told Dawn.com that police had arrested a man for allegedly desecrating the Quran on Sunday and shifted him to the Mandani police station in Charsadda's Tangi tehsil.

A mob later gathered outside the police station and demanded that officials hand over the man to them. When police denied their demand, the mob, which had grown to a sizeable number by late evening, grew agitated and attacked the police station and set it on fire. They also vandalised the vehicles parked in the police station, according to the minister.

He told Dawn.com that police managed to shift the suspect to a safe location.

"The government will not allow anyone to take the law into their own hands," he said. "The suspect who has been arrested will be proceeded against in accordance with the law."

The minister added that the situation was still tense in the area.

Given the current law and order situation, police have yet to release more details about the man in custody and the complaint against him. Police also did not confirm any casualties in the violence.

Accused is 'mentally unstable', says DSP
Mandani circle DSP Ishaq told Dawn that the person who had allegedly torched the Holy Quran was apparently mentally deranged, adding that the accused was immediately taken into custody and shifted to an unknown location. “Apparently, the accused is mentally unstable and he cannot speak.”

Peshawar Division Commissioner Riaz Mehsud confirmed the attack, saying 4,000-5,000 people had ransacked the police station and a police post in their pursuit for "mob justice".

He added that the man is in police custody and is safe.

Following the attack, the mob staged a sit-in on Harichand Road. But late at night, Mehsud said the administration had controlled the situation with the help of local religious elders, and the mob had ended the sit-in and dispersed.

Earlier, Charsadda police spokesperson Shafiullah Jan confirmed that a mob had attacked the police station and that the situation was tense in the area. He added that police were trying to control the situation.

"The mob was angry and police failed to control it," a police official requesting anonymity told Dawn.com.

"The situation is still tense and police personnel from other areas have also reached the spot to control the mob," he said.

Eyewitnesses said the police had used tear-gas shelling and aerial firing to disperse the mob.

Another police official said that the police station had been completely destroyed, adding that a number of vehicles and police records had also been lost to the fire.

The mob also attacked and set ablaze a police check post on Harichand Road and also blocked the road for traffic, a police official told Dawn.com.

According to Dawn, the protesters also took away the seized weapons from Mandani police station.

Later, local leaders of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl staged a protest demonstration in Mandani bazaar and demanded punishment for the accused. Local people also held a rally in Dhaki bazaar in protest against the incident.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1660770

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

It's frightening how little is being done by the state to curb the increase in extremism of the population. This is the biggest issue we as a country all collectively face, regardless of whatever political affiliation you may hold.

 

[saeedhk]

I have been saying this and I will say it again: Pakistan is the most extremist and radicalised nation on this planet in my opinion. Extremism and violent thought has seeped into every segment of our society. Unfortunately, there is no end in sigh to this madness. With every passing day, we are sinking deeper and deeper.

Every week, some mob murders a person accused of blasphemy. It is a joke! This happens nowhere else! Seriously, I am really embarrassed to see Pakistan in such a state.

 

[saeedhk]

It's frightening how little is being done by the state to curb the increase in extremism of the population. This is the biggest issue we as a country all collectively face, regardless of whatever political affiliation you may hold.

I have been saying this for a decade. Now, the monster of extremism is now out of control. All state institutions are living in a state of fear of Ghazis! As Fawad Chaudary last week said ‘ Unfortunately, Pakistan is not willing to tackle extremism.’

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Political science categorizes the state as having the sole monopoly over violence as a defining characteristic of being a well-functioning modern state. If not, it can easily lead to anarchy and destruction. The last few years have shown this to not be the case in Pakistan.

With the TLP having brought two different administrations to their knees, this will only motivate other groups to try their hand and have a piece of the pie. Should that happen, things will truly go out of hand. It's imperative that Pakistan rectify this and reclaim the monopoly of violence.

 

[LaLoco]

Political science categorizes the state as having the sole monopoly over violence as a defining characteristic of being a well-functioning modern state. If not, it can easily lead to anarchy and destruction. The last few years have shown this to not be the case in Pakistan.

With the TLP having brought two different administrations to their knees, this will only motivate other groups to try their hand and have a piece of the pie. Should that happen, things will truly go out of hand. It's imperative that Pakistan rectify this and reclaim the monopoly of violence.

It is gullible to believe State of Pakistan is not capable of violently destroy TLP. State of Pakistan chose not to.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

It is gullible to believe State of Pakistan is not capable of violently destroy TLP. State of Pakistan chose not to.

You can wish to believe that, but it was evident who was in the driving seat. No government would allow any group to kill their police, damage their property, and then promptly pardon them unless that was the only option it had.

 

[LaLoco]

You can wish to believe that, but it was evident who was in the driving seat. No government would allow any group to kill their police, damage their property, and then promptly pardon them unless that was the only option it had.

Happens all over the world, as I said, it is gullible to believe that state of Pakistan is not capable of violently destroy TLP.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Happens all over the world, as I said, it is gullible to believe that state of Pakistan is not capable of violently destroy TLP.

As I said, you can choose to believe that.

 

[saeedhk]

It is gullible to believe State of Pakistan is not capable of violently destroy TLP. State of Pakistan chose not to.

Oh yes! The state chose not to do! This is the biggest lie. We all know that the govt has surrendered to the TLP and other religious goons at least six times in the last three years.

 

[LaLoco]

As I said, you can choose to believe that.

I am not choosing to believe anything, you are the one who has decided to believe anything and everything and your comment reflects that.

Is Pakistani State capable of use violent force against TLP? Yes! as they have previously used against other groups and had the backing of the majority of Pakistani, and if Pak state decide to use the force, the vast majority will back them up, again.

Will TLP be able to defeat Pakistani state if Pakistani state decided to use violent force against TLP? NO!, anyone who isn't emotional would be quick to answer that.

Will Pakistani State decide to use violent force at this juncture? No!

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

I am not choosing to believe anything, you are the one who has decided to believe anything and everything and your comment reflects that.

Is Pakistani State capable of use violent force against TLP? Yes! as they have previously used against other groups and had the backing of the majority of Pakistani, and if Pak state decide to use the force, the vast majority will back them up, again.

Will TLP be able to defeat Pakistani state if Pakistani state decided to use violent force against TLP? NO!, anyone who isn't emotional would be quick to answer that.

Will Pakistani State decide to use violent force at this juncture? No!

Thus, relinquishing its monopoly over violence, and in turn, weakening its own writ. So, even if it is their own strategy (it isn't), it's fundamentally flawed.

 

[LaLoco]

Thus, relinquishing its monopoly over violence, and in turn, weakening its own writ. So, even if it is their own strategy (it isn't), it's fundamentally flawed.

Absolutely not, State job is not to just use violent force but also preservation of life. State never looses Monopoly over violence, particularly, a State such as Pakistan, but violence also lead to loss of life, both the involved and uninvolved, if the state of Pakistan can systematically dismantle them they will obviously pick that route.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Absolutely not, State job is not to just use violent force but also preservation of life. State never looses Monopoly over violence, particularly, a State such as Pakistan, but violence also lead to loss of life, both the involved and uninvolved, if the state of Pakistan can systematically dismantle them they will obviously pick that route.

I have to disagree with you. The state has already lost its monopoly and conceded it when you look at the TLP's capacity for violence. This is why they are able to dictate their terms.

For a state to be legitimate, it needs to have the sole right to exert the legitimate use of violence with which it can then subdue illegitimate use. Thus the term, monopoly of violence. If you're interested, I'd suggest you read up on this theory, a good source is Max Weber.

The state has already lost countless lives, the dead policemen.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

I have to disagree with you. The state has already lost its monopoly and conceded it when you look at the TLP's capacity for violence. This is why they are able to dictate their terms.
For a state to be legitimate, it needs to have the sole right to exert the legitimate use of violence with which it can then subdue illegitimate use. Thus the term, monopoly of violence. If you're interested, I'd suggest you read up on this theory, a good source is Max Weber.

The state has already lost countless lives, the dead policemen.

I forgot to add the current incident, the burning of the police station at the hands of a violent mob.

 

[LaLoco]

I have to disagree with you. The state has already lost its monopoly and conceded it when you look at the TLP's capacity for violence. This is why they are able to dictate their terms.

For a state to be legitimate, it needs to have the sole right to exert the legitimate use of violence with which it can then subdue illegitimate use. Thus the term, monopoly of violence. If you're interested, I'd suggest you read up on this theory, a good source is Max Weber.

The state has already lost countless lives, the dead policemen.

Loss of life is inevitable in any such conflict. It is not logically possible for state to start killing large number of its citizen over dead policemen in a conflict or protest, as I said, State job is also to preserve the life, Pakistan is not Syria, where it is in danger of losing control over the State.

State has not lost its sole legitimate right use of violence, chose not to go that route at this point. Lets not conflate the right and decision to exercise that right.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Loss of life is inevitable in any such conflict. It is not logically possible for state to start killing large number of its citizen over dead policemen in a conflict or protest, as I said, State job is also to preserve the life, Pakistan is not Syria, where it is in danger of losing control over the State.

State has not lost its sole legitimate right use of violence, chose not to go that route at this point. Lets not conflate the right and decision to exercise that right.

It isn't Syria, but if things continue as they are, this extremism will only grow. When the state is getting its representatives killed and is unable to even retaliate, that's when one should raise their concerns, which is the case with TLP.

Saying Pakistan isn't Syria doesn't change the fact that a mob burned down a police station because someone was accused of blasphemy, and nothing could be done.

The growing capacity for violence in the hands of TLP and its ilk is proof of Pakistan's dwindling monopoly over violence.

Even if we entertain the idea, that they chose not to do anything, then they need to be condemned for putting the lives of state servants at risk for a futile endeavor. However, that wasn't the case, which is why two days before the deal, the tune of the state was completely different. Yet if you believe the opposite, as I said before it is your choice, but don't be surprised at the skepticism.

 

[LaLoco]

It isn't Syria, but if things continue as they are, this extremism will only grow. When the state is getting its representatives killed and is unable to even retaliate, that's when one should raise their concerns, which is the case with TLP.

Saying Pakistan isn't Syria doesn't change the fact that a mob burned down a police station because someone was accused of blasphemy, and nothing could be done.

The growing capacity for violence in the hands of TLP and its ilk is proof of Pakistan's dwindling monopoly over violence.

Even if we entertain the idea, that they chose not to do anything, then they need to be condemned for putting the lives of state servants at risk for a futile endeavor. However, that wasn't the case, which is why two days before the deal, the tune of the state was completely different. Yet if you believe the opposite, as I said before it is your choice, but don't be surprised at the skepticism.

You are dancing around the main point and hoping for the violence by the state but it won't happen - The main point remain, State of Pakistan can, almost every state can, even the State of Syria with no economy can use violence but Pakistan chose not to. Does one really believe Pakistan has no monopoly of using violence against its own citizen? lol, if it wish, it can eliminate TLP violently but at what cost of human life? Now please do not tell me other state have figured out a way of using violent force without the loss of innocent life, lol. They can be eliminated systematically and only a fool would promote acute violence against its own citizens as a reaction.

I have nothing more to add to this unless you can explain an adequate method for state to use violent force against its own citizens while preserving the life of innocent - after all it is politics and it can be played without using violence.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

You are dancing around the main point and hoping for the violence by the state but it won't happen - The main point remain, State of Pakistan can, almost every state can, even the State of Syria with no economy can use violence but Pakistan chose not to. Does one really believe Pakistan has no monopoly of using violence against its own citizen? lol, if it wish, it can eliminate TLP violently but at what cost of human life? Now please do not tell me other state have figured out a way of using violent force without the loss of innocent life, lol. They can be eliminated systematically and only a fool would promote acute violence against its own citizens as a reaction.

I have nothing more to add to this unless you can explain an adequate method for state to use violent force against its own citizens while preserving the life of innocent - after all it is politics and it can be played without using violence.

I suggest you read up on the theory a bit more because we seem to be going around in circles. If the TLP wants they can shut down the country and cause anarchy at will, so no, Pakistan doesn't have the sole monopoly.

They were scared and under pressure by them, and which is why they agreed to their terms, kicked out ministers they didn't like. Let's not pretend these were innocent bystanders, these were thugs and murderers with the blood of the innocent on their hands so spare me the humanitarianism. You eliminate them by force, if not, well, we can see what's happening.

As I said before, this is beyond politics, which is why I mentioned the incident in Charsadda, another example of a state institution being helpless.

 

[street cricketer]

It cannot be done. Any political leader who dares to do that would not just be committing political suicide, but will most certainly get assassinated by some bloke on the street or within his own circle sooner rather than later. No sane political leader would be stupid enough to do that.

 

[saeedhk]

It cannot be done. Any political leader who dares to do that would not just be committing political suicide, but will most certainly get assassinated by some bloke on the street or within his own circle sooner rather than later. No sane political leader would be stupid enough to do that.

True. The fact that a two-bit mullah - Pir Qadri - called our COAS an Ahmedi/a blasphemer and incited and the state could not do anything shows that the blasphemy law in Pakistan is here to stay till the end of times. Our COAS had to hold Milads (religious gatherings) to show that he was a true Muslim. This shows the sway the rightwing holds over Pakistan. It is only downhill from here.

 

[saeedhk]

If the state was so strong, it would have arrested the mullah who beat up a 9-year old Hindu kid and vandalised the nearby Hindu temple because the child drank water from the mullah's mosque. This is a recent example. I can give you 500 such examples. Here is on more example: Imran Ghafur Masih. Read it up.

 

[LaLoco]

I suggest you read up on the theory a bit more because we seem to be going around in circles. If the TLP wants they can shut down the country and cause anarchy at will, so no, Pakistan doesn't have the sole monopoly.

They were scared and under pressure by them, and which is why they agreed to their terms, kicked out ministers they didn't like. Let's not pretend these were innocent bystanders, these were thugs and murderers with the blood of the innocent on their hands so spare me the humanitarianism. You eliminate them by force, if not, well, we can see what's happening.

As I said before, this is beyond politics, which is why I mentioned the incident in Charsadda, another example of a state institution being helpless.

State will not go on killing spree. State will not act in a way which will create chaos, rather state will act in a way which will minimize the damage and according to the situation at hand.

In Pakistan, almost every opposition political party can shut down the cities, it isn't that difficult for any political part to do that. MQM has done it, PTI has done it, almost every political party is capable of doing that. The response from the government can't be and must not be violent, it has to be always to minimize the damage, that is the responsibility of the government and when needed, the government will exercise the violent approach.

Just because you do not like TLP, most of us do not, but at the same time, most sane ones will, if it is an option, rather find a non-violent approach to eliminate them, and that is what the State will eventually do.

To say, Pakistan had lost the monopoly, is just ridiculous, it is Pakistan, very capable of doing but can it be done without collateral damage, NO!

 

[street cricketer]

It cannot be done. Any political leader who dares to do that would not just be committing political suicide, but will most certainly get assassinated by some bloke on the street or within his own circle sooner rather than later. No sane political leader would be stupid enough to do that.

Posted this exactly three days before the incident. And it's for this reason, there will be no real change in the coming future unless there is a massive societal transformation.

 

[Giannis]

Yes but Pakistan isn't ready for it yet, in the mean time they can water down the law as much as possible.

 

[James]

It cannot be done. Any political leader who dares to do that would not just be committing political suicide, but will most certainly get assassinated by some bloke on the street or within his own circle sooner rather than later. No sane political leader would be stupid enough to do that.

So is there any way out longer term?

Or just don’t go near it?

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

You cannot support Blasphemy laws and the condemn Sialkot incident because it means that you are saying that people were right as the person would have been sentenced to death anyways by the state