My Jesus and Mo posts blocked in Pakistan for “hurting the sentiments of many Muslims”

June 14, 2018 • 10:00 am

I suppose it was only a matter of time before my weekly postings of Jesus and Mo, which I’ve been putting up for years, were flagged as offensive. Someone in Pakistan filed a complaint (in bold below) that they were BLASPHEMOUS, and so WordPress contacted me with the following message (I’ve put the complaint in bold below). This is ridiculous, of course, but I have no control over it and will continue to post Jesus and Mo cartoons, which I suppose are also blocked in Pakistan on the artist’s original site. It’s just that the folks in Pakistan won’t be able to see them.

As for “hurting the sentiments of many Muslims,” it’s sad that the government of Pakistan can’t take criticism about their country’s main faith. But we already knew that. Although I have no hope that Pakistan will enter the Enlightenment during my lifetime, accepting freedom of the press and freedom of religion (which includes freedom to reject and criticism religion), I’ll just adopt the attitude, “Well, too bad for you. You may be offended by criticism of Islam, but that’s your problem, not mine.”

Here’s what I got from WordPress:

A Pakistan authority has issued a demand to block a file on your site:

Unfortunately, we must comply to keep accessible for everyone in Pakistan. We will not be challenging this demand, but if you wish to discuss what the legal avenues of appeal may be, please get in touch as soon as possible. There is usually a very short period of time in which objections can be lodged.

As a result of this demand, the file (below) [JAC: also above: it’s this week’s Jesus and Mo post] on your site is now inaccessible for Internet visitors originating from Pakistan. They will instead see a message explaining why the content was blocked.

Visitors from outside of Pakistan are not affected.

You and your readers may be interested in the following document for suggestions on bypassing Internet restrictions:

For your reference, we have included a copy of the complaint. No reply is necessary, but please let us know if you have any questions.

Dear WordPress Team,

I am writing on behalf of Web Analysis Team of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) which has been designated for taking appropriate measures for regulating Internet Content in line with the prevailing laws of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In lieu of above it is highlighted that few of the webpages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous and are hurting the sentiments of many Muslims around Pakistan. The URL’s mentioned are clearly in violation of Section 37 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and Section 19 of Constitution of Pakistan.

The below mentioned websites can be found on following URL’s:-






You are requested to contribute towards maintaining peace and harmony in the world by discontinuation of hosting of these websites for viewership in Pakistan with immediate effect. We will be happy to entertain any query if deemed necessary and looking forward for your favorable response at your earliest.


Web Analysis Team

When Grania saw this, she made the following comment:

I am disappointed to see that WordPress is rushing to do their censorship for them.

It is a US company (part of Automattic) and they are carrying out censorship against an American citizen in the USA for writing an article in the USA that was posted on a blog hosted in the USA on demand of jumped up little tyrants in Pakistan.

82 thoughts on “My Jesus and Mo posts blocked in Pakistan for “hurting the sentiments of many Muslims”

  1. ”You are requested to contribute towards maintaining peace and harmony in the world by discontinuation of hosting of these websites for viewership in Pakistan with immediate effect.”

    You are requested to contribute towards maintaining peace and harmony in this dark alley by giving me your wallet and not provoking me to shoot you.

  2. What’s somewhat surprising to me is that since two of the principal topics on this site are evolution and atheism that Pakistan wouldn’t ban WEIT altogether. Are there any other countries, Islamic or otherwise, that ban WEIT?

    1. North Korea, of course, but they ban everything. I have had two views from North Korea over the years, and I assume those are high government officials who do have access to the Internet.

      1. WordPress offers stats by country? I’m curious if it tells you what percentage and/or the raw number of readers comes from Pakistan. I think it would make for an interesting post if you wanted to give us all of those stats. I’d love to see the raw numbers and percentages for readers from Islamic theocracies.

        1. They tell you raw numbers by country. It’s a while since I looked at mine and I can’t remember if it gives percentages, but they’d be easy enough to work out.

          1. Ah, so you could figure it out the percentages by some simple number crunching, but that’s still more work than it’s worth unless you have a real interest in it.

            By the way, check out the Thomas Crown Affair remake! It’s a lot of fun.

    2. Critical texts are better tolerated than cartoons.

      “Boss Tweed, who presided over New York in the 19th [century]… suffered boils and warts at the hand of the great newspaper cartoonist, Thomas Nast. “Stop them damn pictures,” the old Tammany tiger told his hit men. “I don’t care what the papers write about me. My constituents can’t read. But they can see the pictures.” ”

  3. I’d be surprised if any deeply religious Muslims in Pakistan even follow your page in the first place — unless they did so for the sole purpose of being offended; which, sadly, is all too common nowadays.

    1. I’d agree. Most deeply religious Muslims wouldn’t look at WEIT in the first place.

      I wonder if the original complaint came from a parent checking a child’s browsing history?

      Porn, especially beastiality, is the #1 search in Muslim-majority countries. You’d think a parent would be pleased the animal-loving site their child found has nothing to do with abusing said animals.

    2. Very common behaviour for people of all stripes. There are, for instance, a whole host of atheist/science/skeptic blogs which specialise in finding content to be offended by.

    1. I agree. The only appropriate response to these demands is “Fuck you. We will not participate in censorship.” (I don’t usually drop f-bombs, but this is a special case.) If more companies would stand up to these anti-enlightenment regimes, we’d all be better off.

      1. Too bad companies care more about money. Even Google’s much-touted resistance to Chinese censorship demands lasted all of a week or two before they gave in. Oddly enough, Google didn’t have a press release to announce the new censorship like they did when they said they’d refuse to cooperate…

  4. I guess the idea of simply not looking if it offends does not cross the mind. I cannot stand this posting but cannot stop reading it. About as snowflake as it gets.

    1. The real reason is because it may be seen by someone who will be persuaded by it, like a commenter said in the image of Jesus post yesterday — that observing others being moved by such stuff made them realize what a bunch of hooey it all is (my words).

  5. I take it there is a certain amount of pride in having risen to sufficient prominence to attract the attention of the Pakistani “Authorities”.
    Do the various censorship authorities of the world share their blacklists? I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, and you’d get a lot more bans in the near future. Keep an eye on the visitor statistics! (Which I’m sure you do already.)

  6. We have a blashpemy law here in Ireland (theres a referendum about it in November,I think). If you fancy doing something blasphemous then I’m sure we can alert the local authorities…

    1. The UK has many security forces devoted to the enforcement of blasphemy laws. The Metropolitan Police for example.

      1. Which “blasphemy laws” do you think the Metropolitan police are enforcing, Simon?

        There’s been no crime of blasphemy in the law of England and Wales since the passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.


  7. I don’t think their analytics are very sophisticated. I’m sure many of your non-J&M posts would “hurt the sentiments of many Muslims”.

    Maybe if you used Author’s censor-busting link in your posts it wouldn’t trigger this response … ?


    1. If you go to the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority contact page you will see that there is a special email address for reporting blasphemous content, so though the objection came from the Web Analysis Team, some private individual viewing the WEIT website may have been offended and sent in a report to the Web Analysis Team, which then took action.

      It is, though, curious, as others have remarked, that just that cartoon caused offense, not anything else on the site.

  8. My cursory interpretation is that the Web Analysis Team requested blocking the entire site and WP responded by blocking a single image file.

  9. Well, I can’t generalize about Muslims, but a problem in this country with conservative Christians is they often take offense at stuff which is simply not intended offensively.

    The obvious examples are Christians being offended by “Last Temptation of Christ”, “Life of Brian”, and even “The Godfather” for which there is really no particular reason to be offended.

    I recall in 1999 taking a look at the Catholic League’s website and they had a listing of recent examples of “anti-Catholic bigotry”. The list included BOTH a crude anti-Catholic joke by a sportscaster AND….Garry Will’s recent book “Papal Sin”. Really?????

    1. I can’t comment about the Last Temptation, but fanatical religionists of all stripes ought to be offended by Life of Brian. It’s a biting satire on religious values.

      1. Monty Python does not agree with you.

        They decided that Jesus was cool, but his disciples and other a bit thick, and that was what they were satirizing.

        There’s a long live debate between Python alumnus John Cleese and chief offendee of the movie, Malcolm Muggeridge (chief promoter of Mother Teresa) over this. Cleese is pretty articulate on why Christians should not find the film offensive.

    1. Thanks for that link. The first few paragraphs had me feeling a bit smug about what I “know already” – then it quickly lit up my intrigue sensors .

      1. As the article says, it is very hard for web censors to block the determined web surfer. China goes the farthest but my understanding is that it is really expensive for them to maintain and leaks anyway. Web surfers are as tenacious as life itself.

  10. Blasphemy laws remind me of a line from an otherwise lousy Star Trek movie – “What does god need with a starship?” – Why would a real god need the protection of earthly minions?

  11. How is it a violation of section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
    I don’t see how it is a violation of section 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan either. What about the “friendly relations with foreign States…”?

    Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016

    “37. Forensic laboratory. – The Federal Government shall establish or designate a forensic laboratory, independent of the investigation agency, to provide expert opinion before the Court or for the benefit of the investigation agency in relation to electronic evidence collected for purposes of investigation and prosecution of the offenses under this Act.”

    Article: 19 Freedom of Speech

    “19. Freedom of speech, etc.-Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, 1[commission of] or incitement to an offence.”

    1. Your pdf is out of date – it’s the original 2016 version. In May 2017 the Lahore High Court directed the federal government to introduce necessary amendments to the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA) in order to empower the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to block information systems or social media websites if service providers do not remove blasphemous content on them. SOURCE

      The significance of article 19 from the blasphemy POV is that anything that works against “the glory of Islam” [the phrase is in the article] – is not protected speech.

      1. Did anyone challenge that in May of 2017? I understand that from article 19 but was making the point anyway that I made. The original section 37 from 2016 has nothing.

  12. “it’s sad that the government of Pakistan can’t take criticism about their country’s main faith.”

    Sad indeed, but “criticism” is a bit of a stretch for Jesus and Mo. “Ridicule” would be more accurate. That said, keep it up.

  13. The “peace and harmony” is for Government officials afraid of violent Salafi Muslims produced by the many Saudi funded madrases. In January of 2011, the governor of Punjab province, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by one of his security guards because he spoke out against the blasphemy law. On May 7, 2018 Pakistani Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal was shot by a radical Islamist apparently protesting lax enforcement of the blasphemy law.

  14. I’m surprised it took this long, given that a portrait, drawings of Mo are a punishable offence and acts as he doesn’t know his arse froma hole in the ground.

  15. Unfortunately US based companies censor international content all the time. For example Youtube and instagram have a blindingly obvious anti-gay bias. Its sad but not unexpected in the land of the “easily offended”.

  16. The link in the PTA message is just the link to the image file, not the post itself.
    I don’t know what that means for Pakistanis trying to view the post.

  17. Maybe there should be an effort to drown the PTA ( Pakistan Telecommunications Authority) with messages of offense. Both offensive messages and from the perpetually offended.

  18. I am from Pakistan and I am a regular reader of this website. But I can still see the Jesus and Mo posts you put up. Even this week’s post (‘Qur’anic Exegesis’) is currently visible. Maybe the ban hasn’t been put into place yet?

    Moreover, I cannot view the Jesus and Mo website ( from my PC, but the funny thing is I can still access it from my cell phone! No idea why that is. PTA has some loopholes in its censorship machinery probably.

  19. I would like to send an email to WEIT because my contribution contains images (hand drawn). Is this possible? I don’t see an email address anywhere on the site, but perhaps one could be sent to me. I promise to treat it respectfully.

    1. Sad not to get any feedback from my email. I dimly gave it the subject line “survey”, so it probably went straight into the spam folder. 🙁 I think it’s worth a read though. I worked hard on those drawings!

      1. You could post them here. Your writing & drawings are already in some form of image format since you emailed them…

        So upload to your account on flickr, photobucket or etc – making sure the album they’re in is viewable to the public

        Then post the links in a comment here
        One link per line
        Nothing but the link on a line

        Like this for each image, but without the space I’ve added after the “:”
        https: //

        By posting the above link without the space it looks like this here:

        1. Thanks. I’m actually a little nervous of being too closely identified with the drawings in too public a way, if you can forgive me, since they could be taken to be portraits of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). One of them is of Him in a large box, for example. (With breathing holes.) I was hoping that Professor Coyne could perhaps get some slight amusement from them himself, not necessarily share them more widely — but if so, in the hope it could be done without drawing much attention to the author’s identity.

          1. Have you thought of simply re-sending them to Jerry, this time with a subject line that won’t lead to deletion?

  20. Benighted thought-police, a sad reality that is getting more common as people are no longer taught to think…

Leave a Reply