Pakistan Asks Facebook To Help Fight Blasphemy

[naomi24]

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif voiced his support for a wide-ranging crackdown on blasphemous content on social media describing blasphemy as an "unpardonable offence".
Critics say blasphemy laws, which allow the death penalty in some cases, are often misused to oppress minorities.

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar reasserted Pakistan's determination to tackle the issue, saying he would take "any steps necessary" to make sure Pakistan's message got across. He said he had asked officials to liaise with the FBI in the US and with social media platforms on a daily basis. "Facebook and other service providers should share all information about the people behind this blasphemous content with us," he is quoted as saying by the Dawn newspaper.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39300270

A reasonable request - or should Pakistan be reminded that its outdated laws don't apply worldwide?

[vetuste_ennemi]

I think the "British" blasphemy laws were laws introduced under the Raj in order to reduce the religious violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities, diversity at the time not being India's strength (unlike Canada's today under Trudeau). They were then carried forward into the first constitution when Pakistan was formed. This constitution named Islam as the state religion and stated that no law should be passed which was "repugnant to the Koran or the Sharia".

Since then the laws have been extended, most notably by General Zia. These are three:

" However, after taking power Zia made amendments to blasphemy laws
from 1980-1984 as part of his Islamization drive. These changes were:

37295-B: Defiling, etc. of copy of Holy Qur’an. Whoever willfully defiles damages or
desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract there from or uses it in any
derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment
for life.

38295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by
words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation,
innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy
Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and
shall also be liable to a fine.

39298-A: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by
words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation,
innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife
(Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be
upon him), or any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulaf-e-Raashideen) or companions
(Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both."

[vetuste_ennemi]

My quote comes from the book "Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan: A Historical Overview" published by theCenter for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), Islamabad.

[vetuste_ennemi]

But back to the OP. I suggest that these "primitive" and "outdated" laws have a far wider purview than Pakistan. What newspaper published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed? or the Charlie Hebdo ones? What TV channel did you see them on?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//They were hampered by extreme religions, just as we were in and after the 17th centuries. We got out of it, grew into a different country, and so, with our help, will they.//

But since independence Pakistan (and many other Muslim countries too, for that matter) has become more extreme in the legal protection of its religion against criticism and mockery, Allen. Meanwhile the West has shown a willingness (born of cowardice rather than principle I suggest) to accommodate these mediaeval attitudes on its own turf by surrendering some of its own freedoms, either through legislation ("hate" crime laws and the like) and (in the case of the media and the entertainment industry) self-censorship.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Here's the latest attack on free speech:

http://www.thephoenixnews.com/2017/03/islamaphobia-and-canadas-m-103/

[naomi24]

v-e at 13:50 and 13:53. Thank you for posting that…

…and at 14:03, I agree with you.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I looked that stuff up because of Steg's reference to "British" laws, Naomi. Previously I knew about the general changes to the constitution under Zia when I came across the Islamic scholar Maududi. (I think I'd been looking for a modern as opposed to mediaeval commentary to the Koran and I found his.) I looked up his Wiki entry and found he'd been an advisor to Zia.

I recommend (if you haven't read it) a slender work by Maududi that I bought on the subject of human rights from an Islamic perspective. It's interesting reading, but contains the same (and some might think self-contradictory) qualification as that other great moral treatise The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, whose article 24 states that "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah".

This is a pdf version:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/27900884/Maulana-Maududi-Human-Rights-in-Islam

[vetuste_ennemi]

You'll love the sections on Chastity and Slavery.

[naomi24]

Thanks v_e.