Blasphemy Laws: Minorities to launch campaign

[*Awan*]

VCheng made an excellent point regarding tolerance, which is the antithesis of blasphemy laws. Early Islam had it. Judaism, and then more so, Christianity, went through terrible dark periods where people were killed in horrible ways for blasphemy. When we look in retrospect, we find the laws were abused for purposes of POWER, not religious purity. Dark Ages clergy had the power, and kept it, by abusing their authority to declare someone blasphemer or apostate. It's a power and control issue.

we muslims are not responsible for the blunders of church.in islam there is no concept of separation of religion from state.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/national-political-issues/120720-view-success-lies-secularism-dr-irfan-zafar-3.html#post1952381

I understand, but can you not see where this places people of other faiths? They must walk their life as if on egg shells, worrying constantly that they not offend a Muslim by accident. They must also worry that the laws might be abused for vengeance, to gain property, favor, or just out of misguided religious fervor.

dear sir,don't you think we also walk on egg shell,when you last time seen a muslim abusing jesus/christanity or gods of hindus?is this not our right to expect same thing in return?
no doubt this is being used in settling the personal scores,for power or to gain property,but please try to differentiate that law and its implementation are two different things.problem is in implementation not in law.

I have heard it stated many times that Islam is a lifestyle as well as a religion. By definition, then, non-Muslims must adopt a Muslim lifestyle to survive. Maybe the woman doesn't want to cover her hair... Maybe the man enjoys alcohol in moderation. They live in fear.

you are again wrong.in Pakistan alcohol is available to non muslims,similarly in arab countries in super stores pork is also available.
with the exception of Saudia there is no dress code for non muslims in muslim countries.here you are confusing law with culture.

Muslim scholars try to put aside these fears, discuss things like "dhimma" and "Jizya", and try to make it sound not so bad. But being a lower-class life form in any society is bad. There is no way to sugar coat it.

dhimma/zimme
a person who is living under muslims protection.actually this is a type of contract b/w state and non muslims,where non muslims got same rights of muslims with certain exceptions like they can't become head of state ,they can't abuse our religion,God,prophet openly.
jizya.
you remember the jizya but forget to mention of zakat.
the basic purpose of them is circulation of money.i don't think any muslim country in the world collect jazya from non muslims.

and for your info,our caliph Umar bin Abdul aziz abolished the practice of Jazya.

 

[Chogy]

Nomi, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful replies.

I understand that (for example) alcohol and pork are available to non-Muslims. I also understand and appreciate that some Muslim nations have minority religions that are able to function. But this varies wildly between nations that are predominantly Muslim. For example, Christian Churches tend to be a bit scarce (to say the least) in Saudi Arabia, and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a once thriving community, have been sadly diminished.

Blasphemy - if a nation makes blasphemy laws, then why are they not applied equally? If a Hindu in Pakistan insults Mohammed publicly, he will (by law) be arrested and possibly executed. Will the Pakistani police arrest a Muslim who publicly insults Adi parashakti, a Hindu god?

Apostasy - The freedom to explore and choose one's spiritual path is a fundamental right. To create State laws that make apostasy punishable by death is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. Again, it is apparently OK to convert from Judaism to Islam, while the reverse is a death sentence in some places.

Our current disconnect here comes about from the very simple fact that a nation that declares itself to have a State religion automatically discriminates against those who do not believe. There is no way to have it otherwise. To get a feeling for this, imagine that the U.S. becomes "The Christian States of America" and has the following laws:

1) Christians who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc will be executed
2) Publicly insulting the beloved Messiah will result in death
3) Denying the divinity and resurrection of the Messiah is punishable by death
4) Women must display their hair and have at least some skin showing
5) Men must be clean shaven. Beards are not allowed.
5) Etc.

(note: I am not claiming that Pakistan has identical laws reversed to favor Islam, but they are historically illustrative of some repressive laws in some nations. I am using them only as an illustration.)

Now, as a devout Muslim, you must attempt to live in this environment. It's intimidating, difficult, and goes against fundamental human rights. Is my business competition going to claim I insulted Jesus?

That is why the U.S. founders created our laws as they did. Many of them were escaping religious persecution in Europe, and they crafted laws that were sensitive to this. I've seen 1,000 times on this forum a lack of understanding of secularism. People believe it means the government promotes atheism, hedonism, etc. It doesn't. Secularism means the government cannot prevent you from worshipping however you please.

 

[ashokdeiva]

Nomi, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful replies.

I understand that (for example) alcohol and pork are available to non-Muslims. I also understand and appreciate that some Muslim nations have minority religions that are able to function. But this varies wildly between nations that are predominantly Muslim. For example, Christian Churches tend to be a bit scarce (to say the least) in Saudi Arabia, and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a once thriving community, have been sadly diminished.

Blasphemy - if a nation makes blasphemy laws, then why are they not applied equally? If a Hindu in Pakistan insults Mohammed publicly, he will (by law) be arrested and possibly executed. Will the Pakistani police arrest a Muslim who publicly insults Adi parashakti, a Hindu god?

Apostasy - The freedom to explore and choose one's spiritual path is a fundamental right. To create State laws that make apostasy punishable by death is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. Again, it is apparently OK to convert from Judaism to Islam, while the reverse is a death sentence in some places.

Our current disconnect here comes about from the very simple fact that a nation that declares itself to have a State religion automatically discriminates against those who do not believe. There is no way to have it otherwise. To get a feeling for this, imagine that the U.S. becomes "The Christian States of America" and has the following laws:

1) Christians who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc will be executed
2) Publicly insulting the beloved Messiah will result in death
3) Denying the divinity and resurrection of the Messiah is punishable by death
4) Women must display their hair and have at least some skin showing
5) Men must be clean shaven. Beards are not allowed.
5) Etc.

(note: I am not claiming that Pakistan has identical laws reversed to favor Islam, but they are historically illustrative of some repressive laws in some nations. I am using them only as an illustration.)

Now, as a devout Muslim, you must attempt to live in this environment. It's intimidating, difficult, and goes against fundamental human rights. Is my business competition going to claim I insulted Jesus?

That is why the U.S. founders created our laws as they did. Many of them were escaping religious persecution in Europe, and they crafted laws that were sensitive to this. I've seen 1,000 times on this forum a lack of understanding of secularism. People believe it means the government promotes atheism, hedonism, etc. It doesn't. Secularism means the government cannot prevent you from worshipping however you please.

Bravo, its been a good, weighed and measured reply, Bravo, Bravo

 

[Tshering22]

Nomi, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful replies.

I understand that (for example) alcohol and pork are available to non-Muslims. I also understand and appreciate that some Muslim nations have minority religions that are able to function. But this varies wildly between nations that are predominantly Muslim. For example, Christian Churches tend to be a bit scarce (to say the least) in Saudi Arabia, and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a once thriving community, have been sadly diminished.

Blasphemy - if a nation makes blasphemy laws, then why are they not applied equally? If a Hindu in Pakistan insults Mohammed publicly, he will (by law) be arrested and possibly executed. Will the Pakistani police arrest a Muslim who publicly insults Adi parashakti, a Hindu god?

Apostasy - The freedom to explore and choose one's spiritual path is a fundamental right. To create State laws that make apostasy punishable by death is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. Again, it is apparently OK to convert from Judaism to Islam, while the reverse is a death sentence in some places.

Our current disconnect here comes about from the very simple fact that a nation that declares itself to have a State religion automatically discriminates against those who do not believe. There is no way to have it otherwise. To get a feeling for this, imagine that the U.S. becomes "The Christian States of America" and has the following laws:

1) Christians who convert to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc will be executed
2) Publicly insulting the beloved Messiah will result in death
3) Denying the divinity and resurrection of the Messiah is punishable by death
4) Women must display their hair and have at least some skin showing
5) Men must be clean shaven. Beards are not allowed.
5) Etc.

(note: I am not claiming that Pakistan has identical laws reversed to favor Islam, but they are historically illustrative of some repressive laws in some nations. I am using them only as an illustration.)

Now, as a devout Muslim, you must attempt to live in this environment. It's intimidating, difficult, and goes against fundamental human rights. Is my business competition going to claim I insulted Jesus?

That is why the U.S. founders created our laws as they did. Many of them were escaping religious persecution in Europe, and they crafted laws that were sensitive to this. I've seen 1,000 times on this forum a lack of understanding of secularism. People believe it means the government promotes atheism, hedonism, etc. It doesn't. Secularism means the government cannot prevent you from worshipping however you please.

Simply brilliant reply mate. Amazing.

 

[Tshering22]

we muslims are not responsible for the blunders of church.in islam there is no concept of separation of religion from state.

This is only inside your head, friend. Think about it; Mustafa Kemal was able to separate state from religion and yet retain absolute majority in Islam among his people till today who are more than 95% Muslims in Turkey. Was that difficult? Yes it was, considering that Ottoman Empire was the seat of Islamic belief. The man transformed the seat of Islamic imperial (royal) rule into a progressive modern state where laws were based on contemporary happenings rather than laws that were written a millennia and a half ago.

How do you think he pulled it off? Because he knew that laws are defined based on situations that are possible and practical in contemporary time and not something of past. True that laws of past are also valid but that was according to the time of those days when incidents of different kind used to happen. How can they be applicable today? Many Pakistanis praise Turkey as a progressive smart nation and yet fail to see HOW and WHY it marched ahead while rest of Islamic countries retaining religious laws remained backward. Did it turn Turks into Christians or Buddhists? No. They're still very much Muslims as well as have the power to progressively and rationally think rather than ordain anything that doesn't meet their opinion as blasphemy.

dear sir,don't you think we also walk on egg shell,when you last time seen a muslim abusing jesus/christanity or gods of hindus?is this not our right to expect same thing in return?

It is your right to be respected. However when a state announces a religion, especially when it is an organized religion, it automatically grants state immunity to people who otherwise would remain disciplined but would later turn and abuse this state immunity. This is the reason why countries with state religions don't really see that further in terms of accepting other countries' and other culture's respect. The point I am trying to make here is that it is not essential that one has to have an official state religion. You will find many Pakistani members having your father of nation's quote stating that the country will not have a state religion and everybody is free to live as they please.

no doubt this is being used in settling the personal scores,for power or to gain property,but please try to differentiate that law and its implementation are two different things.problem is in implementation not in law.

When laws pertaining to a religion become involved in abusing of the very law system and cannot be controlled, then it is imperative that the state looks for civil law alternatives whereby these shortcomings can be easily met and amended even later on which is considered again a blasphemy if a religious law has to be amended. Don't you think so?

you are again wrong.in Pakistan alcohol is available to non muslims,similarly in arab countries in super stores pork is also available.
with the exception of Saudia there is no dress code for non muslims in muslim countries.here you are confusing law with culture.

Dress code doesn't essentially mean the sheikh's type of clothes. It means that there are certain restrictions imposed. In the West for example, an Arab can wrap himself in as many clothes as possible while a westerner in Arabia cannot walk around in trunks or bikini. That my friend is also a form of dress code restriction.

dhimma/zimme
a person who is living under muslims protection.actually this is a type of contract b/w state and non muslims,where non muslims got same rights of muslims with certain exceptions like they can't become head of state ,they can't abuse our religion,God,prophet openly.

Doesn't that automatically crush the whole point of equality? Don't you think that becomes selective even if I agree with the rest of your points on abusing?

jizya.
you remember the jizya but forget to mention of zakat.
the basic purpose of them is circulation of money.i don't think any muslim country in the world collect jazya from non muslims.

But this was prevalent in tribal areas of Pakistan especially before Pakistani military's operations and sadly there was a suggestion by our J&K CM as well about this on Amarnath yatra for mainstream Hindus. It created a furore and soon it died down. So the concept of jizya is not dead and is still technically applicable until an authentic Islamic authority decides to reform these laws.

 

[truth is here]

Recently in Bangladesh, a Hindu teacher called our prophet a goat(nauzubillah) with respect to beard. Although his students right away protested, beat the hell out of him from the class room and then burn his house. Now the angry Muslim community want his head and perhaps he will get his due soon unless he fled to neighboring country. We do not have blasphemy law. However if we did then non-Muslim like him would have thought thousand time before such heinous remark.

blashphemy law in Pakistan actually provide a safeguard to minorities against mailcious prosecution but very few minorities along with secular fanatics dont understand this point...it provides complete legal aid to the accused and he prove his innocense before a court of law...if it was not for this law people would start taking law in their own hand...there were more bloodshed and anti Pakistani lobby will misuse this to create more fuss in our land.
Thank God this law is here here and it provides and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocense...if this law is abolished.,seclar fanatics will say hurtful things to 98 percent muslims on their face and without any law to check it 98 percent will take the law in their hand as sheikh waqas of PML-Q said on hamid mir's show that no one in Pakistan commits blasphemy and walks away without consequences...its in our blood to defend the honour of our dear Prophet Muhammad S.A.W and rest of the Prophets peace be upon them all
so the law it actually places a check on malicious prosecution but secular fanatics have very very small brain and it fails to pick the wisdom behind this law.

 

[Juice]

blashphemy law in Pakistan actually provide a safeguard to minorities against mailcious prosecution but very few minorities along with secular fanatics dont understand this point...it provides complete legal aid to the accused and he prove his innocense before a court of law...if it was not for this law people would start taking law in their own hand...there were more bloodshed and anti Pakistani lobby will misuse this to create more fuss in our land.
Thank God this law is here here and it provides and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocense...if this law is abolished.,seclar fanatics will say hurtful things to 98 percent muslims on their face and without any law to check it 98 percent will take the law in their hand as sheikh waqas of PML-Q said on hamid mir's show that no one in Pakistan commits blasphemy and walks away without consequences...its in our blood to defend the honour of our dear Prophet Muhammad S.A.W and rest of the Prophets peace be upon them all
so the law it actually places a check on malicious prosecution but secular fanatics have very very small brain and it fails to pick the wisdom behind this law.

You can put a pig in a dress...but it's still a pig.

 

[EjazR]

blashphemy law in Pakistan actually provide a safeguard to minorities against mailcious prosecution

No it does not and the law itself was a Zia creation. It is nothing but a tool to oppress people and most of them Muslims going by the stats from the Pakistan govt.

The way it is implemented in Pakistan, there is nothing "Islamic" about it because it does not provide justice which is at the core of any law/punishment dynamic.

 

[truth is here]

blashphemy law in Pakistan actually provide a safeguard to minorities against mailcious prosecution

No it does not and the law itself was a Zia creation. It is nothing but a tool to oppress people and most of them Muslims going by the stats from the Pakistan govt.

The way it is implemented in Pakistan, there is nothing "Islamic" about it because it does not provide justice which is at the core of any law/punishment dynamic.

sorry sir i studied at a monority run institution in murree and all my professors were of the view that minority laws are a blessing in disguise...they said if we look at track record of Pakistani its too good...a safe haven for minorities and not like india were 4000 minority sikh were killed all in one night...so all my minority friends are of the view that this law protect the position of Prophet Issa peace be upon him.
abolishment of this law will bring more blood shed and anti-Pakistani forces in israel will misuse it to create a fuss..this law provides a fair trail to the accused...all that can be done is to add an equal punishment for a person who falsly acuses minority of it...but if u think this law will be abolished thats impossbile...98 percent majority that represents all the sects are uanimous on it and

i havent seen any man with guts to come out in the public to call for its abolishement...usualy a person who planning to commit blasphemy will call for its abolishemnt and that simple logic

 

[untitled]

well sir that your view point
.............

You dont have to show everyone what kind of company you keep

 

[truth is here]

You dont have to show everyone what kind of company you keep

what are you saying he is talking about juices, pigs and stuff so i just replied back.

 

[untitled]

No it does not and the law itself was a Zia creation. It is nothing but a tool to oppress people and most of them Muslims going by the stats from the Pakistan govt.

We inherited the law from the British...... Zia just modified it

 

[truth is here]

We inherited the law from the British...... Zia just modified it

yes he modified it for good and to prevent mob justice so that law can facilitate the accused and if he is innocent he is free to go..whats the big deal about this law being so bad?this is the best law...it saves the accused if he is innocent from 98 percent of majority preparing a mob justice...you want this law to go and anti Pakistani forces to use the gap to create more bloodshed...use your little brain and might understand the wisdom behind this law....

 

[untitled]

yes he modified it for good and to prevent mob justice so that law can facilitate the accused ...........

So there have been no cases of vigilante/mob justice ?

 

[truth is here]

So there have no cases of vigilante/mob justice ?

even if it were they could be 3,4 not more maximum..and that too in 64 years ...thats why i am saying this law prevents mob justice...if this law is not there people would be judge and jury and axicutioner and more blood shed by israeli lobby will be created once this law goes away...just think about it...zia ul haq had a wisdom behind this law and its still functioning....any person who falsly accuses other of blashphemy should be given equal punishment and it its unacceptable to accuse some one falsly but abolishemt of this law will create more fuss which is also unlikely cause all the 98 percent muslim sects in Pakistan are unanimous on this law...i hope your penut brain now understand the wisdom behind this law and that it actually provides a safeguard to minority against malicious litigation and mob justice.