From Reuters, we learn of another person, a Christian, who was sentenced to death in Pakistan for blaspheming the Prophet. The death sentence was accompanied by a fine as well (talk about adding insult to injury!), making this the 16th person on Pakistan’s death row for blasphemy, with another 20 people serving life sentences for the same crime. (None of the condemned have yet been executed, but that doesn’t make it much better.)
Judge Lahore Ghulam Murtaza Chaudhry sentenced Sawan Masih to hang after a Muslim said he had insulted the prophet Mohammed in the eastern city of Lahore a year ago.
The accusation against Masih sparked a riot in which Muslims burned more than 100 Christian homes.
And this part absolutely floored me (my emphasis):
The law does not require evidence to be presented in court and there are no penalties for false allegations.
Courts often hesitate to hear evidence, fearful that reproducing it will also be considered blasphemous. Activists who want to reform the law say it is often abused by those seeking to grab money or property from the accused.
Often the accused do not even make it to court. At least 52 people accused of blasphemy have been lynched since 1990, according to a 2012 report from the Islamabad-based think tank the Center for Research and Security Studies.
“The severe penalties for Pakistan’s blasphemy law make it one of the most repressive laws in the world,” said a report released this month by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory panel.
“Blasphemy charges commonly are used to intimidate members of religious minorities or others with whom the accusers disagree or have business or other conflicts.”
Judges have been attacked for acquitting blasphemy defendants, the report said.
This is a prime example of religious delusion—a delusion so powerful that you must snuff out the people who merely criticize your faith. There are no words left to decry the unfairness and barbarism of this practice. Not only are you killed or put on ice for life for simply insulting a religious figurehead, but no evidence is needed to do that.
As Wikipedia reports, “As of 2011, all Islamic majority nations, worldwide, had criminal laws on blasphemy.”
Pakistan takes its place with the barbarous nations of the world, including every one with criminal laws against blasphemy. Every Pakistani should ashamed, though I suspect that few even ponder this issue (or, if they are opposed to blasphemy laws, they won’t say anything). And of course they are America’s “allies.”
I’d love to see what some of those “liberal” British apologists for Islam have to say about this.
h/t: Tom
This is obviously not due to religion. It is the result of colonialism.
Oh and culture. 🙂 How dare we say it’s wrong because that’s just cultural imperialism!
I’ve always thought this was one of the stupidest ones. As if religion and culture were not inextricably intertwined.
Yeah, saying “it’s culture” doesn’t get religion off the hook. Religion is culture.
But the charge of “cultural imperialism” is just relativism. How dare we impose our culture’s moral standards on other cultures? How dare we suggest people shouldn’t be put to death for insulting Islam (or quite possibly, it seems, for nothing)?! That’s just how they do things over there, and we need to let them do it!
It must be an Israeli Jewish Zionist plot by the Elders of Zion. They designed it in 1922.
So , you explain the significantly different behaviours of (Former British Raj) Pakistan and (Former British Raj) India … how?
The Raj certainly was exploitative, but in this case you have a significant differential hill to climb to make your case.
Uh, gb was just being gb there. This is sort of like a WEIT Poe.
Um … Sarcasm detection fail?
/@
Inspector…. Perhaps I need to use more obvious sarcasm tags?
As a certain green Orion slave girl Siren Jezebel Delilah once told me (in an email), “Email is SO one-dimensional.”
There was sarcasm?
There was indeed.
Your first hint–no one who really felt that way could say so in less than three long paragraphs.
Surely Allah would never allow a person falsely accused to be convicted and executed! The very idea is blasphemous.
What’s strange is that, the law being such, they haven’t denounced ALL Christians there as being “blasphemers” and done away with them already!
Don’t encourage them!
I’ve had sanctions applied against me for declaring my religion as “atheist” on the landing fiches for (allegedly progressive) UAE states before. There are people there who will follow this path.
Put something that sounds like an obscure religion instead: *nullifidian*.
/@
Lieing on immigration documents … that sounds like a really good idea.
Um… but would not be a lie.
/@
How is it not lying? I am an atheist. Therefore, when asked what my religion is – my opinion on the existence and correct modes of worship of a supreme supernatural being – then they get the answer “atheist” ; if they don’t like it (for example, not being allowed to send their geologist out to the rigsite due to being refused an access pass for the desert), that’s their problem for letting such a system be set up.
I was actually advised by my local Boss that putting “Jew” into the same box would lead to fewer problems than putting “Atheist” ; they have fewer problems with someone who believes different things about a god, than with people who do not believe in the existence of such a god.
Plus there’s the running problem that if someone really took offence, they could have me hauled up on the crane. To dance the air fandango, not to admire the view. That would cause so much political bowdlerisation it would not be true.
I remember having long and completely pointless conversations on my first Middle East job with the company representative (Egyptian, two wives, seven children, plus having to look after his brother’s family) on how my father could have been so negligent as to allow me to think for myself. When he got bored with that, we’d move on to other areas of total incomprehension like breeding (Him: “How many sons have you got?” Me: “None, but I do have a vasectomy.” Him: “Huh? How could your father possibly have allowed that?” Me: “What has it got to do with him?” Him: “Huh? What does your having children have to do with you? It’s your duty to your father!” Me: “Huh?”) or TV (Him: “I need to get a satellite TV system at home; which do you think is best?” Me: “I don’t have a TV, and know almost nothing about them.” Him: “But which TV system do you have a home, and which is best?” Me: [repeat previous statement] Him: [repeat previous statement].
Working abroad can be a really weird experience.
“How is it not lying?”
Hmm… perhaps you din’t have a dictionary handy…
/@
pretty crazy stuff
So you don’t actually have to be a blasphemer it’s enough that somebody dislikes you enough to tell the courts and you get death.
Nice.
I think it just depends on where you are in the pecking order and who you know. Just like in the good ole days, the rule of law is the weak enduring (or not) whatever the strong decide on.
It must be hard to make a living as a hit man there.
Just use a machine-gun. You’ll hit enough sinners to discount the innocents, so you’ll be OK.
I bet there’s a fair share of Pakistanis that would like to oppose it, but ( understandably ) are hesistant to be vocal about it.
We need an international antidote to Islamic law.
Any bids?
*hesitant
Time for another Crusade.
In the greater timeline of life, someday all of religion will be marginalized and people will look back on this time as an archaic and regrettable period, similar to how we currently look back at slavery, Jim Crow, naziism, or the Cold War. It is inevitable and can’t get here soon enough.
I fear it will linger on regardless of secular advancements.
Eternal life is just too tempting to some.
Nah thanks, I think I’ll pass. 😉
Not sure the cold war is over…
When did you hear a rumour that the Cold War was over?
In the UK I know people who have had American diplomats trying to pressurise them into stopping civil rights activity during the 1990s. Way to go, oh bastion of personal freedoms!
That sorta stuff could lead to communism!
Well some of them were communists, but most of them were not that right-wing.
We need an international antidote to Islamic law””
Indeed but instead Islamic Law as a subject seems to be increasingly creeping into law schools as if it was real law – something that seriously pisses me off as a law academic. Not sure what is taught on such courses but it can be found both at U of Chicago and U of Toronto according to 30 sec on google.
I also get a lot of student applications from Middle East countries which include “Law of Execution” – I had assumed it was something to do with enforcing civil judgments or the like but you do wonder.
On reflection my above comment was unfortunately expressed and easily misunderstood. Religious law does play an important role in many countries. And of course it should be studied in law schools because of its real world influences. What is objectionable are attempts to integrate Muslim or any other religious law into modern secular legal systems. This is of course is an attempt to either supplant secular law with the religious or more usually to introduce a separate system of religious law applicable to a particular group in society who feel that their law should supplant the secular but presumably still have the force of the state behind it. Generally this applies in areas where there are signifcant biases in the religious law concered and where vulnerable persons will feel compelled to opt out of general societal protections.
My comment reflects an irritation that such courses in law schools give a degree of credibility to religious law and as such support attempts to “mainstream” that law. Such courses would be better placed in departments of religious studies or anthropology.
Hear, hear. Poli Sci and History courses are acceptable places for this study, also.
..and in case anyone is still reading
“The Sultan of Brunei, one of the world’s wealthiest rulers and a close ally of Britain, will this week oversee his country’s transition to a system of Islamic law with punishments that include flogging, the dismemberment of limbs and stoning to death.
There is more information at the BBC News website. The trail lasted a year, 3000 Muslims rioted, burning churches and bibles as well as their homes. The photo on the BBC website shows a crucifix about to be thrown on a fire. All because Sawan Masih insulted one apparently quite sensitive crazy bastard that died over 1300 years ago. This happens far too often.
Individual American states have had blasphemy laws.
Pennsylvania actually !*established*! one in 1977(!!), and it was ruled unconstitutional in 2010 when it was used to prosecute a film production company with the name “I Choose Hell Productions”.
In 1928, the owner of an atheist publishing house in Arkansas was convicted and jailed under the blasphemy laws of the city of Little Rock. He was not allowed to testify because he would not swear on the Bible. Wikipedia reports “The judge then dismissed the original charge, replacing it with one of distributing obscene, slanderous, or scurrilous literature.” However, on round 2, the blasphemy charge stuck, and the appeal dragged on for years.
England only abolished blasphemy as a crime as late as 2008, although they abolished the death penalty for same as early as 1676. In the intervening time, it’s been punishable by jail and fines. Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” was not prosecuted because the law only applies to Christian blasphemy, but a “Gay News” publication was successfully prosecuted in 1977.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom
Same here. Can’t wait to get rid of it.
Something I don’t understand — why wouldn’t an atheist swear on a bible? It’s exactly the same as swearing on a copy of Gone With The Wind. Meaningless. If someone wants me to swear on a bible, I’ll do it. And then proceed exactly as if I had sworn on Gone With The Wind. Or no book at all.
It’s nonsensical for an atheist to declare “I won’t put my hand on that book because you might misinterpret that as meaning I believe in any of the nonsense contained within it.” In the courtroom or anywhere else, it’s pure theater.
The book isn’t magic. It only claims to be. And guess what — nobody can TELL whether you’re lying or not based on whether you swore on a bible or not.
I disagree. I can think of contexts in which it makes sense just fine. And though I don’t have any problem in general with your stated position I can think of contexts in which it could be detrimental to “you” to do as you suggest.
Also, doing as you suggest qualifies as lying. It might by a little lie or a big lie, depending on your point of view and the context, but it is knowingly misleading other people. And that may be fine, depending on the context, but some people, even some atheists, prefer not to lie. I think that can be taken overboard sometimes, but that isn’t really a bad trait for people to have.
No, it’s not lying in the least.
It’s meaningless. Putting your hand on the bible has quite literally zero meaning within the context of promising to tell the truth or not. Swearing to whatever deity, same thing.
Meaningless. Without meaning. Therefore, since it has no meaning, I’m perfectly fine with promising to tell the truth…period.
It has no meaning in terms of the supernatural, but it has meaning in terms of a political statement. You’re not objecting to putting your hand on the Bible, you’re objecting to the court requiring you to put you hand on the Bible to give testimony. Because it’s unconstitutional, as the courts have since decided.
Here in Scotland I have “affirmed*” before giving testimony in court. Is this option available generally in the US, or is it a State-by-State thing?
*”I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Ditto in England.
IIRC, it was the Quakers who were the first to affirm as they held that swearing an oath was taking God’s name in vain.
/@
Yes, this option is available for Americans and is supposed to be universal. I would be a fool to presume laws requiring hand on g**d b**k do not exist in some states, counties, or municipalities, though. One President chose to affirm instead of swear, but I can’t think who at the moment.
Herbert Hoover, who was a Quaker. (I don’t think Nixon, who was also at least nominally a Quaker when he became president, followed Hoover on that. I say “at least nominally” because he was “read out of Meeting” for continuing the Vietnam War.)
Ditto in Australia; I was recently the only member of a jury to take the option. This included a couple of jurors who (later, incidentally) expressed skepticism about religion, and one that I’m pretty sure was a muslim but took the oath on the same book as the others. The only witnesses who affirmed were European, or educated (medical doctors).
One other juror in my case; but I resisted the temptation to raise the matter of religion.
And one of the accused (both of whom we found guilty).
/@
Like I said, depends on context. If you make it clear in some way that you think it is meaningless then sure, you’re not lying. But if you are knowingly giving people reason to believe that swearing on the bible is a meaningful promise to you in the way that it is to the typical believer when in fact it is not, then, yes, you are lying. Which usually would be no big deal in my opinion, maybe even appropriate. Still lying though.
I agree Darrelle. Seems to me you’d have to say, “I don’t mind putting my hand on this Bible, but I am an atheist so it doesn’t mean much.” Or something to that effect. 😀
“Mr Kevin, you just swore by AMG to tell the truth
“Yes”
“But Mr Kevin you are an evil atheist are you not
“Yes”
“Yet you swore on a bible you don’t believe in to deceive this jury ……
etc
It can be problematic when you are called as a witness (as I have been on about a dozen occasions) for someone else. You wonder if not swearing on the bible will be interpreted (correctly in my case) as you being an atheist and therefore necessarily untrustworthy.
It’s a difficult one, but I’ve decided to go along with it.
But I swear by almighty god that, if I ever have to give evidence on my own behalf, I’m going to make an affirmation.
One way you could spin it is that you would prefer a civic oath because America. 😀 Actually I’m only have joking. You could say something to the effect that you’re in a civic setting and you hold the justice system as the greatest democratic invention by humans so it’s only fair that we honour that justice system with a civic oath. I’m sure you could muster up even more stuff to say that would make it more weighty.
Ha ha “half” joking not “have” joking. No coffee yet!
You could request a civil oath with the explanation “I’m not a Christian”. That should lead them to puzzle the thing out without necessarily tagging you as a scary atheist.
The irony is that people of faith who do it seem to not be at all concerned that Jesus is quoted within as telling people not to.
“Individual American states have had blasphemy laws.
Pennsylvania actually !*established*! one in 1977(!!) . . . .”
One less thang we Amuricuns are “Exceptional” at.
Wasn’t that the case (in 1676) where the judge jailed the jury for several weeks, because he (the judge) disagreed with the verdict that they (the jury) returned? And in the process he established an important point of case law, which has since been subsumed into the constitutional law of some countries.
What might those British liberals say about it? I imagine the same as all the other apologists for islam, that you can’t blame the religion for a few bad apples who willfully misinterpret it.
Like islam doesn’t insist that non believers must convert or die, with a few less than equitable exceptions for jews & christians which somehow get forgotten when they’re killing each other, and that apostates must be killed. You could add the fact that islam doesn’t put women firmly under the domination of men apart from a few misguided adherents who misunderstand the meaning of their book. And all the other things which it clearly does but somehow can be excused of or which have simply been misinterpreted by a few.
My question would be how come none of these faiths seem able to move away from the misunderstandings which all reasonable people can see for what they are? In fact, how come the infallible word of god is so open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation?
Here’s something from Baroness Warsi’s website.
DEFEATING BIGOTRY AT HOME
I believe this sort of interfaith action is more important than ever.
It is particularly crucial if we are to defeat the bigotry levelled at faith communities in this country.
And even more vital if we are to stamp out the persecution suffered by religious minorities around our world.
Let’s look first at Britain.
I had an interesting interfaith week experience this week in the House of Lords.
Lord Pearson of UKIP asked the basis for the Prime Minister’s statement that ‘there is nothing in Islam which justifies acts of terror’.
What this question was implying, not very subtly, was that Islam does justify terrorism.
But it wasn’t just Muslim colleagues who came to tell Lord Pearson how wrong he was.
It was peers of all faiths.
In fact, the most stinging attacks came from a man of Church, the Bishop of Birmingham, and a peer of Jewish background, Lord Triesman.
In that debate, we were all – well, all except Lord Pearson – singing from the same hymn sheet.
Saying there is nothing within our faiths that justifies terrorism.
And that to hold coreligionists responsible for the actions of a minority…
…a minority who hijack and betray a faith…
…and to suggest that coreligionists should become apologists for this evil minority…
…is simply not unacceptable
So, where are the coreligionists prepared to stand up and condemn these blatant acts of terror and injustice? It does seem to be quite a sizable minority prepared to accept and excuse them. Sizable enough to be a majority in my humble and possibly misinformed opinion.
“simply not unacceptable”?
/@
Three seconds of googling got me to the Wikipedia article on Islam and Blasphemy:
The Quran and the hadith do not speak about any worldly punishment for blasphemy. Jurists created the offence, and they made it part of Sharia. Where Sharia pertains, the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.
Somehow, I don’t think that only a “minority” of muslims hold to sharia law, so that excuse is not going to fly.
I am not aware that Islam itself insists on that (may peace be upon the prophet and his bowels never be troubled with excessive flatulence).
It may be the case that some Imams of Islam assert that “Death to the infidel” is a good way to precede breakfast, but that’s the opinion of Imams, not an infallible pronouncement of a Pope.
Imams are like buses – if the one here and now doesn’t take you where you want to go, there will be another imam along in a minute.
Are “iman” and “mullah” perfectly synonymous?
I’m honestly not sure – I suspect that there’s no meaningful difference, but that doesn’t make them synonymous. for example, there’s no meaningful difference between being killed by a kiloton nuke, versus a megaton nuke ; but that hardly makes them synonymous.
The money quote is the final sentence:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?5343-ANSWERED-Whats-the-difference-between-Imam-Mullah-Shaykh-Alim-Mawlana
Originally Posted by OmarH
Question: I thought Mawlana was the highest?
Imam in general does mean leader, but also can be used as “prayer leader”
Shaykh is someone who is an old man, but it also could mean master of Tassawuf mostly.
‘Alim is a scholar in general.
Mullah I always thought was higher than ‘Alim? Or is this all wrong?
Answer: As mentioned before, Mawlana, Mulla, Mawlvi, Imam and Shaykh refer to any scholar.
However, within their contexts, they would mean
Imam – prayer leader, founder of a school of thought, Amir ul Mu’mineen, scholars etc
Mawlana/Mawlvi – our master/my master refers to absolutely anyone with sacred knowledge, arguably the “lowest” rung of the ladder, also used in a general sense
Shaykh – generally held to be a master of Tasawwuf, however, generally used to denote anyone with sacvred knowledge of any kind
Mullah – the bottom rung of the ladder, same as Mawlana, also used in a general sense
Alim – just like Shaykh, used to denote anyone with sacred knowledge
As stated earlier, all terms a fairly generic and can be switched/used in place of the other.
And then “ayatollah” comes to mind. Perhaps a (“mullah”)^2 and an (“iman”)^3? 😉
I like to point out to American Christian conservatives who argue for the right to have the 10 Commandments posted in US Court buildings that the first 5 commandments are essentially blasphemy laws and we really don’t want US laws to be based on these, lest we become more like Pakistan.
“3000 Muslims rioted, burning churches and bibles as well as their homes.”
Are these all fringe lunatics? Sounds mainstream to me.
Yes, I know there are moderate muslims out there who are horrified by this. But I’m beginning to think they are a tiny minority in the islamic faiths.
All sounds horribly familiar.
Here we go – Carl Sagan on the Malleus Maleficarum (from The Demon-Haunted World);
“There are no rights of the defendant. There is no opportunity to confront the accusers. Little attention is given to the possibility that accusations might be made for impious purposes – jealousy, say, or revenge…”
So we are stuck on rock orbiting our charming little sun and we have to share space with these evil religionists and their vicious, sick faith ? We want none of it.
It’s either a paranoid psychosis or a handy medieval property acquisition method.
Can you hear in the distance? Witch
Witch! Burn the witch
An example of a black hole in morality that manifests from obtaining your beliefs/values from a book written centuries ago by semi-ignorant humans. Anyone who defends blasphemy laws has fallen into one of these black holes and is squirming around at the bottom of the immorality barrel feeding on detritus.
What kind of barbaric country imprisons and/or executes based solely upon unchallenged accusations? That is far too primitive to be considered first world behavior here at the onset of the 21st century.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/innocent-and-imprisoned-a-former-gitmo-detainee-speaks-out/251139/
The green mile, indeed.
“Courts often hesitate to hear evidence, fearful that reproducing it will also be considered blasphemous.”- This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so horrific. Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” has a good take on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8
Over a hundred years ago William James, in his “Varieties of Spiritual Experience”, explained completely the savage excesses of Islam (and other religions): it is when devotion to DEVOTION to the Deity becomes paramount, rather than devotion to the Deity itself, that these barbaric practices automatically emerge. The adherent sees no “slight” to his Deity to be too minor to avenge; the greater the vengeance, the greater “proof” of the follower’s depth of devotion.
And why would anyone wish to admit that their god is so puny he/she/it needs them to do his/her/its boxing for him/her/it?
Pakistan today is not different from Spain in 1495 when Jews and Moors(Muslims) were expelled so the holy Catholic church had no challengers and could carry out the excesses of the Inquisition. Humanity has not moved much in 500 years.
“Pakistan today is not different from Spain in 1495…”
Yes, but that was then, and this is now.
“Humanity has not moved much in 500 years.”
The non-muslim fraction of humanity has moved quite a long way in that time. Most of the Islamic world remains mired in the Dark Ages.
Well, Spain, and the rest of Christendom have progressed a long way since the days of the Inquisition. The horrible religious wars of the seventeenth century turned into the enlightenment of the eighteenth. Progress has been in fits and starts but there has been progress. There’s hope for the Muslim world also, if there’s hope for any of us.