Pakistan and the Blasphemy Laws..
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Mainstream Pakistan religious organisations applaud killing of Salman Taseer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-religious-organisations-salman-taseer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-religious-organisations-salman-taseer
To be fair I dont think there is any room for doubt in Islam about what the proscribed penalty for blasphemy and apostasy actually is. Of course many of you on the left wish to play this down but as far as I can make out what happened in Pakistan is perfectly in line with Islam and seems to be one of the few things that actually unites the various strands of the religion.
And if any Christian country was sentencing people to death for insulting the Chrisitan faith then I am sure we would have all sorts of public protests and so on in the West but when Muslim countries do it, barely a peep.
And if any Christian country was sentencing people to death for insulting the Chrisitan faith then I am sure we would have all sorts of public protests and so on in the West but when Muslim countries do it, barely a peep.
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
^^^^^^not that argument again:
you lefties, why aren't you protesting???? Don't you caaaaaarrre!!!!??
I saw the news on this, what was his 'crime', promoting tolerence by standing by a xtian woman who had been falslely acussed of blsphemy . Or am I thinking of something else
.**** http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-south-asia-12116764 the story
not that argument again:
you lefties, why aren't you protesting???? Don't you caaaaaarrre!!!!??
I saw the news on this, what was his crime, promoting tolerence by standing by a xtian woman who had been falslely acussed of blsphemy . Or am I thinking of something else
.
There are numerous cases in Pakistan where by Muslims can accuse Christians of blasphemy and the Christians are thrown into jail and effectively given no fair trial.
And yes, it is patently obvious that many on the left have massive double standards when it comes to issues such as this. Now obviously I have given many of you the 'out' you all so desperately look for when ever a very definite and negative aspect of Islam is introduced to any debate because you can all go off about how wrong I am and so on without having to actually deal with the facts but what none of that will detract from the very simple fact that the death of this poor man is perfectly justified by the religious beliefs of Islam. No ifs or buts. And yes, you might be able to drag up the odd Islamic scholar who will claim its all a terrible translation error and so but that notion is in the minority.
Slag off Islam or decide its not for you and then death is the proscribed punishment.
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
I'm happy to be critcal of religious-nutjobism anytime certain interprations cross the line for me e.g in this case literal, it's not really my fight though iykwim
What do you mean " if Islam isn't for you".?? Is this the "convert or die" line? which I don't think is massively backed by a huge proportion of the global muslim population
and I'd call myself left awares rather than proper, I don't have politics much btw
What do you mean " if Islam isn't for you".?? Is this the "convert or die" line? which I don't think is massively backed by a huge proportion of the global muslim population
and I'd call myself left awares rather than proper, I don't have politics much btw'lefties' as described by 'Stoat' are not left-wing, they are liberal.
Liberals support religion.
Left-wingers are
Atheists.
Liberals support religion.
Left-wingers are
Atheists.
not-bono-ever
meh
Pakistan is pretty much a failed state.
How much longer 'til it throws in the towel and just descends into open civil war?
How much longer 'til it throws in the towel and just descends into open civil war?
likesfish
You can't park here sir
islam isn't neccescarily backward or bloodthirtsy.
unfortunatly saudis version is and has loads of money to push its version around.
the pakistan intelligence service encouraged jihadism in kashmir and afgahistan using the CIAs cash figuring it would'nt bite them
unfortunatly saudis version is and has loads of money to push its version around.
the pakistan intelligence service encouraged jihadism in kashmir and afgahistan using the CIAs cash figuring it would'nt bite them
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Well I didn't realise Pakistan's blasphemy laws had the death penalty.
It seems the main religions supported the killing of this guy.
Pakistan is renowned for its corruptness which means despite witnesses being needed, false accusations of blasphemy happen.
And the country is split down the middle.
How has it come to this when back when India was united Indian Civil Service judges from Britain used to dole out justice to all and sundry and (well I was going to say there was no hint of civil war, but of course back then there was, on a larger scale which lead to partition) But now there is a threat of partition partitioning. Lunacy, and they are a nuclear state.
It seems the main religions supported the killing of this guy.
Pakistan is renowned for its corruptness which means despite witnesses being needed, false accusations of blasphemy happen.
And the country is split down the middle.
How has it come to this when back when India was united Indian Civil Service judges from Britain used to dole out justice to all and sundry and (well I was going to say there was no hint of civil war, but of course back then there was, on a larger scale which lead to partition) But now there is a threat of partition partitioning. Lunacy, and they are a nuclear state.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
And just to add, the death penalty is one of those things on which I have changed my opinion over the years. When I was young I was for it, now after much thought I am against it.
And I am against it for henious crimes, multiple murder for example, obviously I am against it for blasphemy, who in their right minds could not be?
And I am against it for henious crimes, multiple murder for example, obviously I am against it for blasphemy, who in their right minds could not be?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The increased 'talibanisation' of parts of Pakistan in the last decade has been one of the more disastrous side-effects of the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. In time, I fear this particular act of unprovoked aggression will be shown to have been even more ill-judged than the invasion of Iraq.
It follows on from decades of explicit US policy of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.
The US and the UK continue to support and arm extremist religious theocracies such as Saudi Arabia.
And the biggest theocracy that they don't support, Iran, was the product of the violent overthrow of a vicious dictator who had been brought to power and supported by, who else?, the UK and the US.
The 'West' is arse-deep in shit over all these matters.
It follows on from decades of explicit US policy of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'.
The US and the UK continue to support and arm extremist religious theocracies such as Saudi Arabia.
And the biggest theocracy that they don't support, Iran, was the product of the violent overthrow of a vicious dictator who had been brought to power and supported by, who else?, the UK and the US.
The 'West' is arse-deep in shit over all these matters.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
But littlebabyjesus it is hard to see how else the west might have tackled AQ.
Anyhow, given that we are where we are, what does the future hold for Pakistan, increasingly riven by religion, intruded on by Taliban, unable to have a moderate movement that can speak out and a nuclear armed state. It does not look promising.
Anyhow, given that we are where we are, what does the future hold for Pakistan, increasingly riven by religion, intruded on by Taliban, unable to have a moderate movement that can speak out and a nuclear armed state. It does not look promising.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You think invading Afghanistan was 'tackling' al qaida?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yes, I do. It was striking at AQ and the Taliban regime that was hosting it.
What was the alternative?
Yes it was messy, a lot of people were killed who should not have been, and those that should have been were not. But I think it was a genuine effort to get at the leadership of AQ.
teqniq
DisMembered
I suppose I could be considered 'on the left' certainly in relation to you at least.
However I have little or no time for religion of any shape or form; it's fine by me if people want to have imaginary friends or whatever, it's when they start trying to impose their beliefs on others that I take exception. Here we are with with some (from my perspective) loon shooting someone for blasphemy and looking inordinately pleased with himself to boot. To attempt to defend his actions in whatever context you might want to choose is to defend the indefensible imo.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yet you might expect someone who carried out such a cold blooded killing in a country where they have the death penalty to be facing that penalty. But it is far from clear that he will face such a sanction .. the whole thing is a powder keg.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
What we are witnessing is the death of the original idea of Pakistan itself. Pakistan was born with a huge contradiction at it's heart. It was a nation created for Muslims. Or more accurately for the Muslims of India. A nation built on the idea of Islam alone as the basis of a nation. But Jinnah, Pakistan's father, percieved Pakistan not as an Islamic state with Sharia Law but as a secular and democratic state, mirrored on Nehru's India.
This created a huge contradiction. A nation for Muslims, but But Islam is not a nation. It is a religion and in itself religious identity alone was never enough to create and develop into a genuine national identity. A person can be a Muslim (religious identity) and hold a totally separate national identity independant of their religious identity. One can be Muslim and British or Muslim and Indian or Muslim and Egyptian for example but in Pakistan there was only religious identity to hold a vastly disparate nation together. And it was never enough. There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan for example and they are both Indian and Muslim with no contradiction. So the contradiction was this. If Pakistan is a nation born on the idea of a nation for Muslims. Why did Muslims need a nation when their are Muslims living as citizens in many countries?
To understand the forces destroying Pakistan we must understand this. In short Pakistan should never have been born. The religious nationalism which was at the heart of its creation proved to be a force for division not unity. So In place of national identity Pakistan from very early in its national history began to tear itself apart on tribal or regional terms. The Pushtun of the North West Frontier for example emphasised Pushtun identity. The Baluch of the South West emphasised their Baluchi identoty, likewise the Sindhis and the Punjabis. Most dramatically of course the Bengalis of East Pakistan emphasised their Bengali identity and by 71 had seperated and split the country in two (which further undermined the basis for Pakistan as a nation for Muslims) In short there was no single identity to hold the country together.
Pakistan's ruling elite have historically tried to tackle this in two ways. First and most obviously by creating national identity in negative terms. Against the other, the outsider, the enemy. That means of course India but it also manifested itself in the early days against East Pakistan. Increasingly today this negative identity manifests itself in terms of enemies of Islam. Religious minorities and those elements in the liberal elite who still cling to nominally secular ideas (such as opposing the blasphemy laws.
Second and most important for the present crisis. Pakistans elites used religion. It is important to note that the religious laws such as Blasphemy and other "Islamic" judicial laws were not a part of Pakistans initial legal system. They were imposed in the late 1970s by the dictator Zia Al Haq. (who had seized power in a coup de tat in 1977) Zia made no secret of the reason for imposing religious laws. They were deliberately and purposefully imposed in order to fill the void of national identity with one he felt could unite the country. That of course was Islam. Or more accurately his extremely strict conservative interpretation of Islam
But again Zia was faced with the same contradiction. Islam was no substitute for national identity and of that there was none. The opposite in fact. Far from being a unifying force. Islam was and is a divisive force. Because across the Muslim world in general but in Pakistan in particular there is no single definition of what Islam is yet alone what Islamic laws should be or how, if at all, they should be incorporated into the state. The interpretation of Islam favoured by Zia was one favoured by the very conservative and dogmatic tribal belt of NWFP and Balluchistan, an interpretation favoured by the Taliban (an interpretation hated by, and hostile to those in Sindh, Punjab and the Northern territories )
The Afgan wars, the craven pro Americanism of the political elites, the rise of Islamic nationalism in general, all have played a role in radicalising the Pakistani population around Islamist arguments for sure but none of this is understandable unless we understand the very real existential contradictions that have plagued Pakistan since its birth.
(sorry this is getting long so I will stop here but it is difficult to explain what is happening in a short manner)
This created a huge contradiction. A nation for Muslims, but But Islam is not a nation. It is a religion and in itself religious identity alone was never enough to create and develop into a genuine national identity. A person can be a Muslim (religious identity) and hold a totally separate national identity independant of their religious identity. One can be Muslim and British or Muslim and Indian or Muslim and Egyptian for example but in Pakistan there was only religious identity to hold a vastly disparate nation together. And it was never enough. There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan for example and they are both Indian and Muslim with no contradiction. So the contradiction was this. If Pakistan is a nation born on the idea of a nation for Muslims. Why did Muslims need a nation when their are Muslims living as citizens in many countries?
To understand the forces destroying Pakistan we must understand this. In short Pakistan should never have been born. The religious nationalism which was at the heart of its creation proved to be a force for division not unity. So In place of national identity Pakistan from very early in its national history began to tear itself apart on tribal or regional terms. The Pushtun of the North West Frontier for example emphasised Pushtun identity. The Baluch of the South West emphasised their Baluchi identoty, likewise the Sindhis and the Punjabis. Most dramatically of course the Bengalis of East Pakistan emphasised their Bengali identity and by 71 had seperated and split the country in two (which further undermined the basis for Pakistan as a nation for Muslims) In short there was no single identity to hold the country together.
Pakistan's ruling elite have historically tried to tackle this in two ways. First and most obviously by creating national identity in negative terms. Against the other, the outsider, the enemy. That means of course India but it also manifested itself in the early days against East Pakistan. Increasingly today this negative identity manifests itself in terms of enemies of Islam. Religious minorities and those elements in the liberal elite who still cling to nominally secular ideas (such as opposing the blasphemy laws.
Second and most important for the present crisis. Pakistans elites used religion. It is important to note that the religious laws such as Blasphemy and other "Islamic" judicial laws were not a part of Pakistans initial legal system. They were imposed in the late 1970s by the dictator Zia Al Haq. (who had seized power in a coup de tat in 1977) Zia made no secret of the reason for imposing religious laws. They were deliberately and purposefully imposed in order to fill the void of national identity with one he felt could unite the country. That of course was Islam. Or more accurately his extremely strict conservative interpretation of Islam
But again Zia was faced with the same contradiction. Islam was no substitute for national identity and of that there was none. The opposite in fact. Far from being a unifying force. Islam was and is a divisive force. Because across the Muslim world in general but in Pakistan in particular there is no single definition of what Islam is yet alone what Islamic laws should be or how, if at all, they should be incorporated into the state. The interpretation of Islam favoured by Zia was one favoured by the very conservative and dogmatic tribal belt of NWFP and Balluchistan, an interpretation favoured by the Taliban (an interpretation hated by, and hostile to those in Sindh, Punjab and the Northern territories )
The Afgan wars, the craven pro Americanism of the political elites, the rise of Islamic nationalism in general, all have played a role in radicalising the Pakistani population around Islamist arguments for sure but none of this is understandable unless we understand the very real existential contradictions that have plagued Pakistan since its birth.
(sorry this is getting long so I will stop here but it is difficult to explain what is happening in a short manner)
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
Great post dylans, have you ever taught history? I learned a lot
you don't think the Taliban-ization of Pakistan could be a ploy to create a "threat" to justify ongoing military engagement? In stead of a side-effect.
A young jihadi gets killed by an invisible drone in the sky. From an enemy he can't engage with.
We're not at war! ..... We are now
you don't think the Taliban-ization of Pakistan could be a ploy to create a "threat" to justify ongoing military engagement? In stead of a side-effect.
A young jihadi gets killed by an invisible drone in the sky. From an enemy he can't engage with.
We're not at war! ..... We are now
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Great post dylans, have you ever taught history? I learned a lot
you don't think the Taliban-ization of Pakistan could be a ploy to create a "threat" to justify ongoing military engagement? In stead of a side-effect.
A young jihadi gets killed by an invisible drone in the sky. From an enemy he can't engage with.
We're not at war! ..... We are now
It was the subject of my dissertation at uni. I've visited the country twice too and try to keep up though I admit I haven't been following so closely the past few years so I'm a little rusty.
As far as your question goes. I think we have to be careful with this term "Talibanisation" Because the Islam of the Taliban is not really any different from the tribal Islam that has been followed in the tribal areas of Pakistan for years. (and as I said it was the judicial Islam of Zia before the Taliban took power in Afganistan) In fact Afgani Taliban share the same ethnic and cultural identities as the Pushtun of the North West and Balluchistan. No I don't think it can be seen as a ploy, it represents a very real sociological and political polarisation of Pakistani society and the death throes of secular or liberal political elites. This is what the assassination of Salman Taseer represents (as did the assassination of Benizir Bhutto) A declaration of war on the secular political elite. Assassinations are common enough in Pakistan, however the huge popularity of the assassin represents a very worrying factor and one that I fear may tear the country apart. I see very dark days for Pakistan.
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
Thanks for pointing that out about "Taliban-zation" I think I meant to put it in quotes, but really I was just repeating a term without considering the implications.
Talking about "judicial Islam of Zia...." I remember from a few years back the news story about the judiciary being expelled: is this to do with move the law of Pakistan closer in line with the law of Islam... Or something else entirley?
Sorry dumb questions. (I'm learning )
I think i'm curious about Pakistan for the same reasons that I'm interessted in the ongoing situation in Mexico ..... People going on about looming "failed states". And what it means for the future.
ETA: just read the wiki(I know) article on Zia.... What you are saying about a nation being bound on different strands of a religion and religious identity/national identity...comepeting agaist itself..... Well the current day situation seems almost inevitable in a way..
Talking about "judicial Islam of Zia...." I remember from a few years back the news story about the judiciary being expelled: is this to do with move the law of Pakistan closer in line with the law of Islam... Or something else entirley?
Sorry dumb questions. (I'm learning
)I think i'm curious about Pakistan for the same reasons that I'm interessted in the ongoing situation in Mexico ..... People going on about looming "failed states". And what it means for the future.
ETA: just read the wiki(I know) article on Zia.... What you are saying about a nation being bound on different strands of a religion and religious identity/national identity...comepeting agaist itself..... Well the current day situation seems almost inevitable in a way..
iROBOT
CURRENTLY RE-BOOTING
I'm happy to be critcal of religious-nutjobism anytime certain interprations cross the line for me e.g in this case literal, it's not really my fight though iykwim
What do you mean " if Islam isn't for you".?? Is this the "convert or die" line? which I don't think is massively backed by a huge proportion of the global muslim population
Yes, also for apostasy.
Good posts dylan (btw).
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
Ahh like renuncing your faith..... The whole thing is harsh beyond comprehension for me, but I understand that I could have been brought up as someone whose beliefs were entirly different, cultural conditioning. I still find it difficult to get my head round..
(New word.) apostasy.
(New word.) apostasy.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Very incisive stuff dylans, nice work... very worrying too.
Also I'll agree with Stoat Boy, far too much is given to accommodate the demands of the ever spreading aggressive nature of the Islamic world.
If you attack Islam, there is no debate, it's death time, and apparently we as Aethists/Christians/Bhuddists/Jews aren't to even complain about it, or it's death time for us too.
I tried to breach this topic the other week - and suddenly the 4 page thread on the Sweden attacks went silent.
One really could be forgiven for thinking that nobody here really wants to talk about it for fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-in-Sweden?p=11334737&viewfull=1#post11334737
Also I'll agree with Stoat Boy, far too much is given to accommodate the demands of the ever spreading aggressive nature of the Islamic world.
If you attack Islam, there is no debate, it's death time, and apparently we as Aethists/Christians/Bhuddists/Jews aren't to even complain about it, or it's death time for us too.
I tried to breach this topic the other week - and suddenly the 4 page thread on the Sweden attacks went silent.
One really could be forgiven for thinking that nobody here really wants to talk about it for fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-in-Sweden?p=11334737&viewfull=1#post11334737
A liberal malaise.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Very incisive stuff dylans, nice work... very worrying too.
Also I'll agree with Stoat Boy, far too much is given to accommodate the demands of the ever spreading aggressive nature of the Islamic world.
If you attack Islam, there is no debate, it's death time, and apparently we as Aethists/Christians/Bhuddists/Jews aren't to even complain about it, or it's death time for us too.
I tried to breach this topic the other week - and suddenly the 4 page thread on the Sweden attacks went silent.
One really could be forgiven for thinking that nobody here really wants to talk about it for fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-in-Sweden?p=11334737&viewfull=1#post11334737
The lesson of Pakistan is that attempts to define Islam as a single homogenous belief system agreed to by all is doomed to fail. Because there is no Islam. There are many. There are a myriad of different interpretations of what Islam means and, like Christianity, it can only be seen as a historical and cultural force inseparable from the widely differing national, cultural and historical traditions where it is followed. It is not racist to criticise Islam or aspects of Islam. what is racist is the assumption that there is a single definable entity called Islam when in fact there are many.
When Pakistan was born there was a desperate need to find a national identity that could define the country and its people but there was none. It couldnt define itself by language because the country has many. Urdu the official language is still in a minority as a first language in much of the country. It couldn't be ethnicity because the country is ethnically divided. Pushtuns in the North West. Sindhis in the South. Balluch in the South West. Punjabis in the East. Ismaili's in the North. Kashmiri in the North East.
Further most people who voted for Pakistan did so out of fear of communal violence (because they were in areas of India where Muslims were minority populations) and those areas stayed in India. (there are still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan) Think about that a moment. Most people who voted for Pakistan never joined it. They remained Indian and Muslim Most of the people in the land mass that now constitutes Pakistan didn't even choose it.
It couldn't be history because there was no shared history in a country created out of ideology. What history was shared such as a common experience of colonialism was shared with India and that was anathema in a country trying to define itself in contrast to (as opposed to in commonality with) India. Pakistan was a separatist project which defined itself against and in opposition to its larger neighbour.
It couldnt be geography because the country was geographically diverse. Remember initially Pakistan even included East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) a land mass separated by 1000 kilometres of Indian territory and ethnically and linguistically very different to West Pakistan.
The divisions were so great in Pakistan that there wasn't even agreement on a location for the Capital. Islamabad the Capital was created as a new city precisely because all other choices were considered divisive. Karachi is in Sindh. Peshawar is in the NWFP, Quetta is in Baluchistan. Lahore is in Punjab. All that left was religion and as we are seeing now religion has proven a divisive not a unifying force precisely because there is no agreed interpretation of what Islam means. There are many and this division is literally tearing the country apart.
(I will leave it here for now and later I will post some more exploring what this means for the future and present some possible scenarios for the future)
Similar threads
