Pakistan police charge 68 Pakistani lawyers with blasphemy

[muriel_volestrangler]

The charges were brought in Punjab after lawyers protested when police detained one of their colleagues.

During the protest the lawyers are accused of insulting a companion of the Prophet Muhammad. Police say they acted after a local man complained.
...
A complainant told the police his feelings had been hurt when some lawyers ridiculed a police officer who shares his name with the second Caliph, Omar.

The most serious blasphemy charges can carry the death penalty in Pakistan. But in this case the defendants face at most three years in jail if the case comes to trial and they are convicted, the BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27391334

It can seem like silly score-settling by police who don't want criticism, but it can get far more serious than that:

"Last week a lawyer representing a man charged with blasphemy in Multan, in Punjab, was shot dead by gunmen."

[edhopper]

1. I await

more explanations why this has nothing to do with religion.

[cbayer]

2. Where has anyway said that this has nothing to do with religion?

[trotsky]

3. Sit tight.

They'll be right along.

[edhopper]

4. I have seen it said where terrorism is not about religion

The theocracies of the Saudis or Iran are not about religion, and the so forth.
I figure someone will tell me that blasphemy laws are not about religion.

Of course my point is this is all about religion and these laws are impossible without people feeling deeply offended by slights against their religious ideology. One of the darker sides of belief.

[cbayer]

6. There is an article written by an individual of the topic of terrorism

and Muslims, but I don't see how that pertains to this at all.

And I don't recall ever seeing an article or discussion about how the theocracies of the Saudis or Iran not being about religion.

Blasphemy laws are clearly about religion. If you could cite a place where someone has said something different, I'd be interested.

Or was that just a knee jerk cheap shot to start the divisiveness right out of the gate?

I think there is strong general agreement between believers and non-believers on this site that blasphemy laws are despicable and should be challenged.

[edhopper]

7. I have these discussions with rug

for one.
I don't have the time or inclination to track them down.

I was not directing this at you, I am not saying you ever said religion was not involved.

[cbayer]

8. Oh, it's part of a personal battle.

This is generally an area of commonality among members of this group. My reaction was based on it being painted as a point of contention,which I find unfortuante.

[edhopper]

12. It is a terrible agenda

and it raises the ire. Perhaps i should have waited for someone to actually say something before I brought the snark.

[cbayer]

14. And I shouldn't have jumped on you so quickly.

[edhopper]

15. It's okay

I agree that this is the type of thing we all should be against.
Blasphemy laws have no place in the modern world.

[rug]

24. Next time send me a pm that you're talking about me.

I'll set you right.

[edhopper]

27. We have had discussions on this topic

do you think I was calling you out?

[rug]

29. We sure do. Do you not have those discussions with others?

[edhopper]

32. Yes

but you came to mind as an example. I wasn't saying it was just you just clarifying for cb.
Sorry if you feel my mentioning you was negative.

[rug]

33. NP. I enjoy the discussions.

[edhopper]

34. Good to hear.

[JackintheGreen]

9. Well, a devout Marxist would argue it's about economics

which is little more than an expression of a dynamic of power. Religion *is* often just a cudgel used to enforce that dynamic.

And while you are right that these laws are impossible without religion, the way blasphemy laws are used in Pakistan is often not about religion at all, but rather about revenge or (why hello, Karl, how are you?) an exercise of power. These laws are a simple cudgel to reach for when somebody pisses you off, steals from you, knocks up your daughter, or opposes your will in some way. Just accuse them of blasphemy and off they go to prison.

So, yeah, I guess in this case, I'm going to run the risk of being accused of being that guy. In this case, the 5 dozen lawyers were not arrested because of religion. Religion was used to silence a vocal opposition. So while it has everything to do with religion, it isn't because of religion.

Gosh, that was more nuance than I anticipated when when I hit reply.

[cbayer]

10. That's a really interesting take on this.

Agree that religious laws such as these can and often are used for political purposes.

Were these particular laws not in place, there would most likely be others that people would use against their political enemies.

But Pakistan's religiously based laws are generally heinous, particularly their blasphemy laws.

[trotsky]

11. "not about religion at all"

There you go, cbayer. As promised. And you support that sentiment.

[edhopper]

13. Without the population feeling

that this is an offense to their faith, all the political and economic reasons would be moot. At it's base it is about religion.

[JackintheGreen]

16. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you

I don't honestly understand how you can sit in America today and pronounce about what the majority of Pakistanis must feel based on the bad behavior of a vocal minority. The republicans have no majority, except on SOTU, and yet they sure seem to have their way most of the time. Poll after poll shows that gay marriage, weed legalization, a higher minimum wage, and healthcare are supported by a plurality of Americans, if not an outright majority, yet progressive movement on these issues is achingly slow. The Kochs are not a majority, and yet it's their interests that congress serves. Polls seem to show that most Americans are weary of war, want Guantanamo to close, are opposed to torture...and yet these things still happen in our name. So, by your logic, the fact that they happen means that "popular feeling" in America supports them? The NSA collects all of our data, but it's "legal," so we must all support it, right?

The fact is, blasphemy codes were not added to the Pakistani penal code until the mid-1980s by Zia-ul-Haq, a military dictator. Most dictators do not concern themselves overmuch with "popular feeling," and the powers that be in Pakistan -- mostly the military at that time -- were undergoing a moral panic. The U.S. has those periodically. In fact, the Satanic Panic happened around the same time. Except we weren't under a dictatorship. Even McCarthy couldn't get us there, and he had COMMUNISTS!

Anyway, Zia *is* generally credited with beginning the Islamization of Pakistan, no doubt about that. He instituted Shari'a courts, but he tightly circumscribed their power. And any decision made by the sharia courts that he didn't like, he reversed (the ban on stoning as un-Islamic, for example. You'd think, if anybody understood Islamic law it would be the religious leaders/scholars, not some usurping general). Again, he could do this because he was a dictator. He didn't care a whit for public sentiment. Hell, when it opposed his will, he didn't care much about religious sentiment. What he did care about was strengthening his grip on power, which is so much easier when you can accuse your rivals of blasphemy and have them carted off to jail.

Fact of the matter is, the blasphemy codes were not even developed by Zia. Pakistan's penal code is still based on Act 45, an 1860 law passed by the British colonial government and still in force. It's the same root law that recently allowed the de facto banning of Wendy Doniger's book, The Hindus: An Alternate History, in India. It "offended religious sentiment." Whose? Everybody's? The majority of India? So I suppose that India is filled with religious zealots, too, because a very vocal minority makes a bunch of noise and can turn out their base.

Again, this incident is not "about" religion, even though there is religion written into its very fabric. The violation these lawyers were charged with was a religious violation (which is nonsense on the face of it and the charges will be thrown out), but not because religious sentiment was injured. They were charged because they posed a threat to some martinet somewhere. A tool was deployed, not because it was the right tool but because it was the easy tool. Accusations of blasphemy are exceedingly difficult to disprove. A Hindu child is accused of blasphemy for burning a Koran. Where's the evidence? Oh noes, it burned all up! Good luck proving your innocence.

This arrest was about power. The power the police have over individuals. The power the courts have over the polity. The power to silence opposing voices. And yes, the power that some Muslims have over other Muslims...or any other religious minority.

[trotsky]

17. And that power is made possible by religion (without which there would be no crime of "blasphemy").

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but without religion, there could be no blasphemy laws in the first place. Could there be other bogus laws created to prosecute political enemies? Certainly. But they are blasphemy laws here.

[JackintheGreen]

18. Not quite

That power, founded in a 150 year old law with secularist (but not secularizing) intentions, was made possible by a military dictator, not a religious leader, who used his dictatorial powers to circumvent religious pronouncements when it served his purpose. Whatever his honest feelings towards his faith may have been, Zia used religion as a blunt instrument to stabilize his power. In a similar, but slightly less scary way, the right has used "patriotism" to silence dissent.

You make my point for me when you grant that bogus laws can be created to prosecute political enemies. Just because the laws in question happen to be religious doesn't give them some special status that supersedes the dynamics of power.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to erase religious dynamics from Pakistan. Religion dictates a great deal about structuring of daily experience, but it isn't the default explanation for why things happen.

[trotsky]

19. Yet my point remains.

Without religion, there is no blasphemy.

[JackintheGreen]

20. I can't deny it

but it adds very little to our understanding of the dynamics of the situation.

[trotsky]

21. There are those who insist religion plays no role in events like this.

None whatsoever. I don't think that is an honest or productive viewpoint - I'm glad you don't hold it.

[skepticscott]

23. You seem to be going to great lengths

to avoid admitting it, though. Why is that, if it's such a simple and obvious fact?

[rug]

25. Without religion, there is no atheism.

Where on earth would you post then?

[Lordquinton]

30. thats a nice tautology

Without hair there would be no bald. What would you dye?

[rug]

31. Bald is not ahirsute.

Here's another. If a-theism is without gods, if there are no gods is it simply a?

[Lordquinton]

35. If a-theism is without gods

Then if there are no gods we are all, wait for it, atheist.

[rug]

36. That's true but the statement was there is no atheism without theism.

[Lordquinton]

37. No, there would be, it just wouldn't matter.

[rug]

38. I agree, meaningless.

[Lordquinton]

39. Please elaborate.

[rug]

40. Without religion, there is no atheism.

Whatever you would choose to call atheism in that event would be utterly meaningless.

As adrbmubcftrn is meaningless.

[Lordquinton]

41. Ok, so it's just a pointless tautology

I thought there was something meaningful you were getting at, but you're just wasting my time.

[rug]

42. I never let that stop me from engaging you.

[edhopper]

22. Except the majority in Pakistan support these laws

And support them on religious grounds

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/10/in-pakistan-most-say-ahmadis-are-not-muslim/

"The poll also found that a majority of Pakistani Muslims support the country’s blasphemy laws, which predate Pakistan’s independence in 1947 but have since been expanded. The laws, which carry a potential death sentence for insulting Islam, have been frequently invoked against Ahmadis and other religious minorities in Pakistan; although formal criminal prosecutions are rare, social discrimination and harassment of Ahmadis is widespread. Fully 75% of Pakistani Muslims say blasphemy laws are necessary to protect Islam in their country, while 6% say blasphemy laws unfairly target minority communities, and 19% express no opinion on the issue."


So, yes it is about religion and all the nuance in the world doesn't change that. Without the belief in God and the belief that those who offend their God should be punished, this doesn't happen.

[rug]

26. That's exactly right.

[SamKnause]

5. Nonsensical superstitious nonsense.

[rug]

28. In response, police officer Omar shouted to the lawyers "pro bono!"

Apoplexy ensued.