Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
Sentenced to death: On Pakistan’s minorities
Email 
Print
Earlier this year I asked someone who had been a senior minister in the government of Pakistan why the country could not change laws which discriminated against minorities. I asked the question because more than 80 people from the minority Ahmadi sect had just been killed in two mosques in Lahore, which at the time served as a wake-up call of the dangers of growing religious intolerance in Pakistan.
His answer was unhesitating. You could not possibly do something like that in Pakistan.
Such is the power of the religious lobbies that no government dares challenge them. Each ”wake-up” call is soon forgotten until another injustice against religious minorities punches its way to the surface.
The latest was the sentencing to death for blasphemy of a Pakistani Christian woman. According to press reports Aasia Bibi had been working in the fields in Punjab province when she was sent to fetch water. When she returned, some Muslim women refused to drink it, saying it was unclean because it had been carried by a Christian. As the argument escalated, police became involved and Aasia Bibi was charged with blasphemy for allegedly insulting Islam. After a year in jail, she was convicted and sentenced to become the first woman to be hanged for blasphemy in Pakistan.
Aasia Bibi’s sentence has garnered unusual international attention, with human rights groups like Amnesty International calling for her release and the Pope using his weekly public audience to plead for her life. President Asif Ali Zardari has now stepped in, asking his government to look urgently into the case. Her plight has also prompted a fresh round of calls for a change in the law.
Yet whatever happens in her particular case, it is hard to escape the idea that once the noise dies down, everything will go back to the way it was before.
The blog Changing Up Pakistan complained that Aasia Bibi’s case was not noticed until she was sentenced to death rather than when she was first accused.
“I am not sure what’s worse – that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws [sections 295 and 298 of the Penal Code] are still in effect and arbitrarily used to persecute the country’s minorities, or that Aasia Bibi’s case is only really garnering headlines now, not a year ago, when this case first transpired.”
Human Rights Watch analyst Ali Dayan Hasan argued that the problem with Aasia Bibi’s story was not that it was unusual, but that it was commonplace.
“Aasia Bibi’s case is so unremarkable, so commonplace, so routine in its casually callous violation of basic rights that it did not even register in the public consciousness. And, of course, it is no secret that the belief that Christians, and non-Muslims in general, are ‘unclean’, though not propagated by any known school of Islamic thought, has widespread currency, particularly in Punjab. In all likelihood, the police felt the mob was justified. There is a thin line between faith-based lack of hygiene and blasphemy goes this logic. And it is crossed if you refuse to view your faith as filth,” he wrote in Dawn newspaper.
“But Pakistan’s lower-level judiciary managed through a shockingly bigoted judgment passed on Nov 7 to bring Aasia Bibi’s case to centre stage. In sentencing Aasia Bibi to death under Section 295 C, Judge Naveed Iqbal of the Sheikhupura district and sessions court “totally ruled out” any chance that Aasia was falsely implicated and said there were “no mitigating circumstances”. Apparently, the court thought that it is absolutely fine to argue that Christians are simply unclean and if they respond by accusing the allegers of bigotry, they are guilty of blasphemy.”
There is a long history to this. Among the litany of recent examples, eight Christians were killed in the town of Gojra in Punjab last year following unsubstantiated allegations that a Christian had desecrated the Koran. In a barely noticed incident this month, Pakistani police forced an Ahmadi family to exhume the body of a relative because it was buried in a Muslim graveyard.
Sectarian bombings have extended to Shiites and even to the majority community who attend Sufi shrines in Pakistan.
When the Ahmadis were gunned down in their mosques in Lahore, some commenters on this blog compared it to the Kristallnacht, when Jews were targeted in Nazi Germany in 1938. Others quoted the lines of German Pastor Martin Niemoeller, usually remembered as “First they came”, about a mindset in 1930s Germany where the majority looked the other way while the Nazis targetted communists, Jews, trade unionists and other pereceived enemies. “Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
It might have been a watershed. It was not.
With the sentencing of Aasia Bibi, the anguish about the treatment of minorities, so alien to the spirit of Pakistan founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, has begun again.
Yet that former minister I spoke to earlier this year was probably right. The government will not, and dares not, repeal the laws which leave Pakistan’s minorities vulnerable. That can’t happen until the overall environment changes in a way which makes religious tolerance possible. And nobody quite knows how to change that environment in a country which already faces so many problems.
(Reuters photo: Aasia Bibi’s daugthers hold up a photo of their mother/Adrees Latif)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
The clean-unclean argument reminds me of caste system in Hinduism. Did not realize that Islam also sanctioned this. Or is this a practice adopted from Hinduism?
Recently saw a program on Sikhs from Afghanistan who had migrated to India. Wonder if India should start accepting Hindu/Sikh refugees from Pakistan in a less daunting manner. Our current rules include living in 1 place for 10 years reporting to police station every fortnight which seems little too much.
Long ago Jinnah said that in the wonderful land of Pakistan, “A Hindu will cease to be a Hindu, a Muslim will cease to be a Muslim. Everyone was free to follow his or her religion and there will be no religious influence in the affairs of the state.”
In today’s Pakistan, Hindus have ceased to be Hindus. They have been driven out or converted to Islam. Those non-Muslims who stayed behind in Pakistan are fools. They should have known what the outcome was going to be over the years. A nation created for Muslims by means of violence was never going to be tolerant of others.
It is shocking to see such blatant official discrimination in Pakistan that goes to the degree of sentencing minorities to death. Even more shocking is to see Pakistanis talking about human rights in India and other countries.
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/18/minister- backs-new-probe-in-case-of-arrested-chri stian.html
Minister backs new probe in case of arrested Christian
A proper thorough reinvestigation of the case is ordered by minister of minority affairs. So far no one has ever been actually executed in Pakistan for blashphemy, govt. should commute the verdict if accused is innocent and also provide protection if acquitted.
nvrforgetmbai:
“The clean-unclean argument reminds me of caste system in Hinduism. Did not realize that Islam also sanctioned this.”
-Islam never sanctioned it, there is no question of clean-unclean. Our housemaid is a christian doing the dishes in kitchen and we share the meal with her. At my workplace few office boys doing cleaning/serving tea are christians. Unfortunately uneducated people do not have the awareness. One of my teachers was christian in school, a 1965 war hero flying legendary combat sorties Air Cdre (r) Cecil choudhry is a christian.
Being intl. member (online) of Amnesty Intl and signatory to universal declaration of human rights’
This is an urgent appeal on behalf of Amnesty Intl, please click on link below, find the contact details of relevant authorities (President, Ministry of Justice & Supreme Court) in Islamabad, Pakistan and write them (as described) a letter or drop an email before 29 Dec 2010:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ ASA33/011/2010/en/7f12b4fa-7db1-4710-a23 b-d8fe1a31919c/asa330112010en.pdf
Let us help a fellow human being seek justice.
I would request our regular commenters here each one of them to write a letter/email. For your convenience please find below details, in case you have difficulty to access the pdf link:
URGENT ACTION
PAKISTANI CHRISTIAN WOMAN SENTENCED TO DEATH
PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English, Urdu or your own language:
-calling on President Zardari to commute the death sentence use his powers under Article 45 of the Constitution;
-calling for the immediate release of Aasia Bibi, unless she is charged with internationally regognizable offences
and tried in proceedings and under laws that meet international human rights standards;
-calling on the authorities to take immediate measures to guarantee the safety of Aasia Bibi and her family;
-expressing concern that the blasphemy laws are used indiscriminately against religious minorities and Muslims
alike, and urging the government to amend or abolish laws, particularly section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code which carries the death penalty for anyone found guilty of blasphemy; and
-calling on the Supreme Court of Pakistan to take Suo Moto notice of the case;
-urging the government to fulfil its pledge to review and improve “laws detrimental to religious harmony”,
announced by Prime Minister Giliani in August 2009;
-calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions in the country, in line with the worldwide trends to abolish the death penalty with a view to an eventual abolition of the death penalty.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 29 DECEMBER 2010 TO:
President Zardari
Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad,
Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9207458
E-mail: publicmail@president.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear President Zardari
Dr. Zaheeruddin Babar Awan
Federal Minister
Ministry of Law, Justice &
Parliamentary Affairs
Room 305, S-Block,
Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad,
Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202628
E-Mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear Minister
And copies to:
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry
Chief Justice of Pakistan
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9213452
Salutation: Dear Chief Justice
Chaudhry
There was a TIME magazine cover story of many decades ago on results of a hypotheical Nuclear war between the then-major powers. The TIME cover caption read: “Those who survive shall envy the dead…”
In the case of these unlucky women caught up in such societies as now shown up in Pakistan, the question needs to be asked: are they better off facing lesser prison sentences, or is death by hanging a more desireable alternative? Death removes their sufferings in one shot whereas surviving opens them to daily doses of brutal experiences that go to make them die every day in a slow manner.
Umair,
If the request for amnesty comes from Indians, it might make it worse for that poor woman. You know how the emotions are. The first reaction will be with an outburst on India’s human rights violations/genocide in Kashmir and a spat to go take care of our own affairs first. I’d request Indians to write in a Western or Chinese sounding name to prevent emotional backlash.
Your appeal is highly commendable.
Kanwaljit P Singh
There’s a lot of pressure being put on the Pakistani Govt by various human rights groups & I think the US & UK foreign offices will also get involved (if not already). I think, ultimately the woman in question, will be pardoned.
@Umair: good for you, to support the cause.
Th writing on the wall is loud & clear: There’s no room for minorities in current Pakistan. I’ve been advocating for a while now that countries like India, US, UK, Canada etc. should grant instant amnesty to Pakistani minorities & facilitate their migration because they are in grave danger in the current enviornment in Pakistan.
With referrence to my comment, here’s an excerpt from a dawn peice by Irfan Hussain:
“In today`s Pakistan, non-Muslims have been assigned a place in society where they can be persecuted with impunity by those above them on the social ladder. People who accuse non-Muslims falsely of blasphemy just to settle a score or grab some property are never prosecuted. Those who murder Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Ahmadis are never sentenced.
Time and again, the state has failed in its duty to protect all of its citizens. Several non-Muslim prisoners, accused of blasphemy, have been murdered while in police custody by fanatics who have then escaped punishment. And if the accused have been pronounced not guilty by the courts, their lives are always at risk when they are released from custody.”
Umair
Good to see you proactive on the issue!
I would have thought that the Chief justice would suspend the judge who applied the law, and order judicial enquiry about the law! The legislators could then review the blesphamy law and other laws, which the zealous military dictators introduced to satisfy the blood thirsty crowd, and rescind the God damn thing. These acts are no different than the Roman times when the crowd were entertained by the gladiators fight to death. For heaven sake we are not living in prehistoric days and sending people to gallows. We are also not living in the USA where a judge gives the sentence of eighty five years to a person after the jury confirms that the guy failed to ignite a bomb.
Education, education and education is the solution, when one accepts God’s commandment, “Though shall not kill!! A death sentence has no place in Islam, and non muslims have a privileage status in Islam.
Is this again the doing of military man who was the great believer of the barbaric medieval punishments to poor souls for petty crimes. This is a total anarchy.
Umair is very kind and his thóughts are noble. I personaly would not hesitate to send the Pakistan Govt. a Curse as well.
And they have the bloody cheek to enter the mosque and pretend that they are praying for God’s mercy, after being devastated by the floods. Has Pakistan not been adequately punished for their crimes against the minority muslim communities.´And who were those elements who entered the so called REd Mosquie by military force, and committed sheer violence in the house of God.
Rex Minor
Ps I shared with GW the vision of peace and now I share the disgust which he stated about this cheap judgement. No sir, I am the witness, this is no Islam if any one dare thinks. Islam is to show solidarity with the weak, pakistan is not the country known for violence against the christians and their worship places.
@Rex
“No sir, I am the witness, this is no Islam if any one dare thinks. Islam is to show solidarity with the weak, pakistan is not the country known for violence against the christians and their worship places.”
***Defending Islam is fine. I agree with you on that. But you are defending Pakistan, in addition. No sir, you cannot do that. Have you been oblivious to the violence against Christians in the recent past? How about other religious minorities? I hope you do not drag any other country–USA, India or Isreal to justify Pakistan’s case.
Any religion based country ends up bringing bad name to the religion. Country’s policies are based on geopolitical terms and other considerations which many times are at odds with the religious ideology. Religion and state should be separate.
@Rehmat
I have tried with you but failed. You are one of those millions in your part of the world who believe that the western constitutions are not based on religion?
Unfortunately, You have a set of mind which denies the relation of the religion with the mind. The 18th century philosopher Immanuel kant estabished that the human mind is not blank.
.
Let me try again to understand your satatements and also try to explain my views.
Religion and State should be separate; Fine, but while the religion does not need a State, the State without morals can not build a cohesive community/society of its citizens.
The laws of the country must reflect and take into its structures the values of the religion of the people who form its society. For morality requires the belief in the existence of God, freedom and immortality, because without their existance there can be no morality.
I am defending Pakistan and other countries as well(here I am going to drag in USA, India and Israel), but not their Govts. or practices of discrimination. I condemn the military attack on the red mosque in Pakistan and equally condemn the Indain military operations against the sikhs temples, or for that matter Israeli settlers displaying of the Quraan page on an olive tree of a palestinian farmer depicting God’s commandment, with regard to the land for Israelites. The settler ignored the space and the militaries of India and Pakistan ignored the spirtual feelings of the millions and simply embarked on violence.
Both violence and terrorism was initiated by the two Govts. namely Pakistan and India. Never mind if in both cases the Govts. are putting forward the justifications and demonstrting that they had no alternative.
The consequences of the soup that they prepared are now there, violence all around and the methodology of using the military is being perpatuated.
The consequences have nothing to do with the religion or God’s commandments which stand above the humans. Neither India nor Pakistan were created to what they have become.
sorry mate, this larifari about the geopolitical terms and other considerations are a simple myth and simply a diversion. Humanity and human rights are the supreme words and the goals for the modern states. They are reflected in the european constitutions and its govts. are all trying to following it.
No death penalty in Europe; life imprisonment equals more or less twenty years. Umair is requesting a moratorium on all executions, a step in the right direction. Let us hope that the misuse of military against the citizens would also take hold one day in your democracies.
Have a nice day.
Rex Minor
> For morality requires the belief in the existence of God, freedom and immortality, because without their existance there can be no morality.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Atheists can be as moral as anyone else.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
both statements are correct. Innanuel kant was right in 18th century and in my view Ganesh Prasad is correct in the 21st century. More so an Atheist can have better morals than the one who professes to believe in God!
Rex Minor
Good work Umair!
Please continue to keep your leaders accountable.
hey rex
Your Germany is the third largest contributor to the ISAF in Afghanistan after US and UK. Chew on that for some time and explain which to which “humanness” in German constitution will you link it up to.
The blasphemy laws are based on sharia in Islam. They were not invented by Pakistan governement. IF they were not there in Islam it may not have occured to Pak govt to come up with them.
@Rex
Do not get upset about an alternate opinion, deal with it.
Here is the rebuttal.
“You are one of those millions in your part of the world who believe that the western constitutions are not based on religion?”
***Did I say that the western constitutions are not based on religion? NO. Let us discuss the point I REALLY SAID. Extrapolation and assumption from what I said is a waste of time. I am fully aware that the USA does not have the word “secular” in their constitution. Reality on the ground in the USA is that to succeed in politics, one has to have “Christian” label. HOWEVER, USA is not Christian Republic of America. There is a huge difference between an Islamic Republic and the USA. Same is true for European countries. Last I checked German constitution was not for believers only as you once claimed–there are 25% atheists in Germany if you know that.
“Religion and State should be separate; Fine, but while the religion does not need a State, the State without morals can not build a cohesive community/society of its citizens.”
***If you agree with Ganesh that atheists can be moral as well, then State can have a society based on freedom of religion–which means the freedom to practice a religion or NOT practice any. This society will still have the morals you are looking for in a society. Isn’t it? Tell me is Turkey less moral than Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
“The laws of the country must reflect and take into its structures the values of the religion of the people who form its society. For morality requires the belief in the existence of God, freedom and immortality, because without their existance there can be no morality.”
***Keeping religion an state separate does not make the person not practice a religion. It just means NOW everyone can have morality by their own ways, including the atheists. Constitution based on human values will address all–theists and atheists, but that based on religion would address only some. Latter is the big problem since that is real and the rest theory is “larifari”
I am not addressing other points and I do not disagree with you on many of those.
@Rehmat
I had a quick read of your comments and I have no disagreement. you are just splitting hairs but the result is in line with my understanding of the western constitutions.
Did I say anything about christian republics of america or europe? I did not. you see I am even following your style of nitpicking. Just a joke!
I do not usualy discuss religion and consider it a private enterprise of every man and woman.
As you know the western constitutions are secular in as much as that the state and the church are now separate entities, with the exception of the anglican church in England, whose head is the Queen who is also the constitutional head of the Govt.
What is in the constitution varies and reflect more or less what weas acceptable by the people and have evolved over time.
The liberals of the western world took the advantage of the secular system of the Govt. and have now and again been introducing legislations introducing secularism in the society. Homosexuality among men and women as well as marriages of the same sex are some of the by-products. Strictly speaking they are not compatible with any of the religions.
I am not a great moralist so do not ask me to compare the standard of morals of Turkey, Saudi arabia and Pakistan? What is the point you are making? What is bothering you? Islam is a way of life and it does not mean that every muslim is a good muslim. We are all sinners!
Have I claimed that the german constitution was for believers only? Not true, what I have said is that the german constitution according to its chancellor reflects the values of christianity and judaism. I bet it also reflects Islamic values as well,
Article 1 of the constitution upholds the dignity of the human and has the protection of the law. None of the western constitutions are for the believers only. Take it easy, I do not always check the spellings but do not make mis-statements. Besides, not all the so called moralists are the believers of the religion, quite the contrary, several cardinals and priests in the catholic church have been abusing young children over the past several decades, while claiming celibacy.
Are you talking about the pluristic safegurds in the constitutions and the exclusion of radical laws to enforce the religion in one form or other? I do not believe that this is the business of the state.
rex Minor
@Rex
I am keeping it very simple and addressing one point.
“I am not a great moralist so do not ask me to compare the standard of morals of Turkey, Saudi arabia and Pakistan? What is the point you are making? What is bothering you?”
***Well you started that morality lesson.
I originally made a point that Religion should not play a role in State affairs– the kind it plays in Islamic Republics. My view is that religion should be personal matter, not of the state. You brought the point of the need of religion in state for morality sake. You, Ganesh and I agree that religion is not essential to be a moral person.
YOu also made a point that “The laws of the country must reflect and take into its structures the values of the religion of the people who form its society”. I then gave you example of 3 Muslim majority countries: Turkey, Saudi arabia and Pakistan. Latter two are Islamic Republic, Turkey being a democratic, secular constitutional republic. Does this system not work for Turkey? BTW, Pakistan and Turkey both have 97% Muslim population. So the need of religion for morality in state affairs is also not true as is evident from Turkey’s example.
Perhaps you got to be a religious minority to understand or among 3% minority in Pakistan to know that State and religion should be separate.
@rehmat
“Perhaps you got to be a religious minority to understand or among 3% minority in Pakistan to know that State and religion should be separate”
I understand that your comment is directed to Rex but I would like to say that it is not necessary to be a minority to realise that State and Religion should be seperate. For example in UP state of India it were Hindus (majority) who were suffering because of excessive distinctions by congress governments in favour of muslim community (in name of caring for minority). This eventually led to discontentment in hindus which ultimately was exploited by fundamentalist politicians and Babri masjid incident followed. Therefore majority or minority, one must understand that religions are not absolute final words on morality and State should therefore go beyond religions (or may be even oppposite to religions as well) if need be. And hence SECULARISM. Most people MISINTERPRET secularism as freedom to practice any faith BUT along with this secularism ALSO grants right to NOT practice any faith, if one chooses so, AND at same time asks and makes it a duty of citizens to remain morally healthy towards society, mankind and nature in general. Also secularism means that State will NOT interfere in religious matter and nor will it entertain any policies, requests, pleas, grants, etc that are based on or directed at religions of people.
PS: Turkey was a good example. Don’t know about Pakistan but India can and should learn from Turkey.
@Rehmat
Why do you always play with words. You mix up things unnecessarily. What is your problem?
The state and religion are separate entities.Full stop. Call this separation secular if you will.
It does not matter if Saudi Arabia,Pakistan and even Iran call their republics Islamic republics, or the God’s republics as known in German translation. Turkey has its own problems, too much influence of military which is now in wane, too much discrimination against the minorities, now improving. Why follow other countries and not develope one’s own.
What matters is the kind of Govt. and the laws of the country which the citizens are supposed to follow. 777 has a point not to ignore. Perhaps Pakistan Govt. also needs discrimination in favour of the minorities.
I personaly would not associate the names of a religion with the republics. Have you not heard the latest in the series, the Jewish state!
We are living in a free world, the govts are free to call their republics as they wish and to have laws which people follow.
The underlying factor in my staement on morality was its legitamation came from the religion and not from ancient philosophers such as aristotle or atheists like darwin. Today human rights are on record and universaly accepted. The govts can set aside the religion in a closet and get on with reforms of their institutions, based on historical experiences and the needs of our times. If saudis choose to ride on their camels and the Indians are happy with the splendour of the colonial times and not of the period of enlightening when ancient culture came into contact with the modern one at the time and developed a muticultured society, this is their business.
There are some hitches though which I beg to submit, the laws of a country must not allow the blesphamy against any religion.
Rex Minor
PS Descartes says that all of us are bestowed equally with commonsence by God, since no one person complaints about its inadequecy. I do not agree with his thesis but this a different matter.
> the laws of a country must not allow the blesphamy against any religion.
That’s a slippery slope. I guess I’m what the Americans would call a “First Amendment Absolutist”, i.e., someone who believes that the freedom of speech must *never* be interfered with even if people find it absolutely distasteful. You may say the most hurtful things about me, and I may absolutely hate it, but you have the right to do so and I cannot shut you up.
Steven Pinker does a great job of analysing morality into five components. Have a read: http://nyti.ms/dWJ22
The most dramatic is this example:
“Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?”
The answer to that question and the reasoning behind it will give each of us an insight into what constitutes “morality” for us. Do read the full article.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Rex
you asked me to explain my last post and I did. You still have problems. I don’t know why. Drink some cool aid man!
Much of what we say is lost in words. From all you write, I do not think we differ a lot on the issue. your conclusions after writing few paragraphs are not what I would differ with.
An example where I agree with you is:
“Today human rights are on record and universaly accepted. The govts can set aside the religion in a closet and get on with reforms of their institutions, based on historical experiences and the needs of our times.”
Relax!
++++++++++++++++++++
@777
“I understand that your comment is directed to Rex but I would like to say that it is not necessary to be a minority to realise that State and Religion should be seperate.”
***I fully understand these scenarios in India. That would be confusing to Rex.
Hypothetically, would Muslims in India prefer state and religion as separate or prefer Hindu Republic of India. My pick is S & R to be separate.
“Turkey was a good example. Don’t know about Pakistan but India can and should learn from Turkey.”
***With 20% religious minorities in India vs 3% in a smaller Turkey, India’s case is more complex. I would be the first one to admit India has a long way to go.
@Rehmat, 777
My advice to India and Pakistan would be to ask the USA constitution expert Mr Obama to develope the contstitutions for their countries. He could take up the assignment for the days after his retirement fromthe office.
Rex Minor
Pressure grows for pardon of Aasia bibi
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/22/pressure- grows-for-pardon-of-aasia-bibi.html
““According to my own investigation, it was a personal dispute and she did not commit blasphemy,” said Pakistan’s minister for minority affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, who is himself a Christian.”
@Rex
“My advice to India and Pakistan would be to ask the USA constitution expert Mr Obama to develope the contstitutions for their countries.”
***INDIAN constitution is unparalleled and PERFECT in the world!!!
For Pakistan, you can ask Taliban input, they know culture too.
hey rex,
From your writings you appear to have very recently read german constitution – well done. perhaps you need to read Indian constitution too before you shoot your mouth here ? the more you post the more ignorant you seem to appear.
@Rex
“777 has a point not to ignore. Perhaps Pakistan Govt. also needs discrimination in favour of the minorities”
I think you got confused. My point was that any state should NOT create discriminations in favour of minorities because that leads to further disintegration of the country and society. So Pakistan govt needs not have discrimination in favour of minorities instead it should start treating them as mortals equal to majority muslims. All this Kaffir concept is troublesome and creates more and more problems. Its high time that Muslim scholars drop this word from Islamic text.
“My advice to India and Pakistan would be to ask the USA constitution expert Mr Obama to develope the contstitutions for their countries”
You know too little and speak too much. Its not constitution in India, it the the implementation of that constitution that is the problem. Problem is implementing law and order and not the law itself. And if we need advice then we don’t feel ashamed (very unlike you) taking help from Obama. Your hatred for Obama has been quite obvious from your earlier posts. Those who hate cannot have knowledge of truth and morality.
@777
I was serious and not telling fibs;
. Yes, positive discrimination in favour of minorities by law. I believe that India practices it in some cases,so I understand, and this in my view is a good policy. Full participation of women in employment was achieved in Europe with a fixed quata system.
. Rehmat states one should not call non believers as non believers. Perhaps you tell the scholars how they should address the Kaffirs in modern times, the one who deny the existance of God. I personaly address people with the name that he has given himself.
it would be difficult for the so called muslim scholar to address his audience and use the name non believer. I would call such a scholar a ‘Peasant’. Believe me there are many. And I equaly call Pope, the head of church a ‘peasant’ when, inspite of his vast knowledge of history, theology, philosophy and lnguages, he sometimes puts his foot in the mouth and makes statements which are foreign and leaves a wrong impression. May I propose you do the same.
. I do not hate Obama or any one else for that matter. I have no feelings for imposters and the likes. Again I was serious about my proposal. we have already seen that pakistan constitution is faulty and needs reforms.
I personaly am very keen to learn and of the opinion that when a person looses the ability to learn only then he needs to go into retirement.
Have a nice day.
Rex Minor
PS
Incidently I do not claim to be a moralist.
I have a very limited knowledge and guide may way with common sence, intuition, meditation and mostly from the feelings which comes from the so called stomach. I also do not read a lot of media crap which are full of spins and the propaganda of news papers(NY times, Washington Post and like), Saudi Scholars, BBC,Fox News, CNN and the like. I can name many others. The reason is very simple, theyo are financed and controlled by special interest groups or the Govt.
Now you know my complete background, why I think differently and say things which other simply pick up statements of some very innocent reporter or statements put into the world by Think tank and chattahm house.
Rex Minor
Pakistan:
“I have a very limited knowledge”
There is no need for any proof of this. Your words are sufficient to expose this limitation.
“and guide may way with common sence, intuition, meditation”
Basically what you are saying is that you close your eyes and say whatever comes in your imagination.
“and mostly from the feelings which comes from the so called stomach.”
It is called vomit. You may not realize it, but others can see this clearly.
“I also do not read a lot of media crap which are full of spins and the propaganda of news papers”
So why are you here? Reuters is yet another medium run by Western media and has an element of their propaganda as well.
No one is interested in your intuition, meditation and excretion here. Kindly keep it to yourself. If you want to discuss anything with others here, you will have rely on authentic references and logical discourse of one’s analysis. The analysis can be imaginative, but it still has to be logical for others to get some sense out of it. Otherwise you are wasting a lot of space and everyone’s time.
@Rex
“Rehmat states one should not call non believers as non believers. Perhaps you tell the scholars how they should address the Kaffirs in modern times, the one who deny the existance of God. I personaly address people with the name that he has given himself.”
***No, I don;t say that. Atheists would be happy to be called non-believers, so why would I have problem.
What I said was that the word “believer” is not just for Muslims, Jews and Christians, non-Abrahamic religions have their own beliefs so they are believer too.
Do you believe that a person who practices Hinduism can be a believer? I got this idea from one of your posts.
@rex
correction:
From one of your post, it appeared as if a person who practices Hinduism can NOT be a believer.
I have two problems with the term “non-believer”.
One, it is a meaningless term by itself and needs to be related to a system of belief. Most people today do not believe in Ra, Zeus, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. Even people who believed in one of them did not believe in the others. So anyone can be called a non-believer if we choose an appropriate deity.
So my first objection to the term “non-believer” is that it is arrogant in its implication that it only applies to those who do not believe in the deity the speaker believes in. There nothing special about anyone’s system of belief.
Two, it is being used in a derogatory sense. Most atheists and agnostics are proud of their conscious choice of non-belief, because they have arrived at it after a lot of introspection and philosophy, not because they have lost their moral roots. As one who makes a conscious effort to lead a moral life without necessarily invoking the concept of a higher being, I find it offensive that someone would label me in a derogatory manner with the implication that I cannot be a moral person. Again, the label shows arrogance.
Of course, I am also a believer in many things, free speech being one of them, so people are free to call others non-believers if they wish. However, if they want to avoid causing offence to their fellow human beings, they should avoid the term.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@KPSingh
Here we go again with a language of four years old, stomach equals vomit. You are most probably not exposed to medicine nor have learnt about the several layers of human brain or about the the stomach having an independent brain? Reuters media is not spinning and I have the opportunity to give my opinion to add something for many who follow it or ignore it.
Do you have something to add?
@Rehmat
When a person pronounces that he has no faith in God and is a non-believer. Why should he gets upset if then the people ignore him in religious discuusions and call him a non-believer. People must know themselves who they are and how they want to be addressed in a discussion about the creator of mankind, called God, in aramaesh Allah, the language Jesus(pbuh) spoke, and Jehova and so on.
When a man of jewish descent makes a carricature of Prophet mohammad(pbuh),an act of blasphemy and takes cover of law for freedom of speach and furthermor declares that he is a non-believer and an atheist and that he has always made carricatures of prophets of God, how should we name him?
The one thing I am sure of, I am not going to call him a moralist or even a gentleman! For me he is a zomby!
how should people call him;A jew, an atheist, a non-believer, a Danish cartunist or try to remember his danish name with whch he was born?
I have no problem with atheists and agnostics either, not even with communists and anarchists, as long as they stay within the laws of the land and do not encourage anarchy in the society and prevent others from their faith or incite people to start a war?
The civility has no place for arrogance or degradation. I hate labelling others as I do not want to be labelled or classified with a false and derogatory manner.
Rex Minor
PS
Sorry, I do not know much about hinduism or how they want to be regarded in religion discussions, believers or non believers. Mr prasad reckons that the non-believer shows arrogance and should be related to a system of belief. This is a good question for you to interpret?
Rex Minor
PS
non-believer ‘label’ shows arrogance!
Rex Minor
@Rex
“Sorry, I do not know much about hinduism or how they want to be regarded in religion discussions, believers or non believers. Mr prasad reckons that the non-believer shows arrogance and should be related to a system of belief. This is a good question for you to interpret?”
By your words I get the impression that you believe that ‘believer’ is ONLY that who believes in Abrahamic God. If someone does not believe in Abrahamic religions and their God then he/she is considered non-believer. I agree with Prasad that for calling someone a non-beleiver one needs a base first, as belief is a relative concept. One may not believe in Christanity (and its God) but may at same time believe in Hinduism (and its zillion Gods)…what would you call such a person?? Hindus believe, but not in Abrahamic God, so does that make them atheist??
As for blasphemy, why is there concept/word of blasphemy in first place. One hand people say Allah is all powerful and can punish sinful humans. On other hand people take into their own hands to punish the supposed sinful person (although it can never be established whether one is sinful or not). Is Islam so weak that one cartoonist can threaten its existence or are muslims so less trustworthy of Allah’s powers to punish the sinful that they take things in their own hands? When Allah has all the power to punish sinful then why humans become animals and take divine things, of punishing sinful, into their own hands? Why so many fatwas and hatred against the cartoonist? Why is he not a gentleman? Why not freedom of expression (including so called blasphemy)? I support cartoonist painting Prophet as much as MF Hussein painting nude pictures of Hindu goddess. Hindus believe that if a painter paints vulgarity then its his trouble but religion was/is/will NEVER be under threat. Religions are high above such threats. Painter’s karma will follow him and get him punished IF he has done any wrong. Why human interference with divine matters. You speak so much of metaphysics and never apply it to yourself. Easy to preach than to practice.
“Live and let live” — The great message of Jainism and Bhuddhism.
PS
Jainism and Bhudhism are both absolutely GodLESS religions..so what does followers of Jainism and Bhudhism are in eyes of Abrhamaic worlds — ‘non-believer’??
Saw this piece in Dawn:
http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/24/protester s-oppose-pardon-for-asia-bibi.html
So long as there is a public support for conservative laws, not much is going to change. Pakistan is not a secular nation by its definition. It is an Islamic state. Therefore minorities should either get out and move to secular nations or stay put. There is no use sitting in a declared Islamic nation and demanding that freedom of expression be respected. No one will dare say anything against Muhammad or Islam in Saudi Arabia. The same goes for Pakistan. On the other hand, if someone is punished for voicing their opinion in India or any other declared secular nation, then that is worth condemning. Even in secular nations, minorities feel intimidated. When that is the case imagine the state of a country that has declared itself only for people of a certain religious belief.
Rex
I will address the bigger question, I hate to give more importance to that cartoonist than he already got.
“Sorry, I do not know much about hinduism or how they want to be regarded in religion discussions, believers or non believers”
***You do not have to know much about Hinduism or any other religion to make a comment that they could be believer in their own WHATEVER GOD.
Your problem will be solved if you say Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists are “non-Believer in Allah” rather than saying just “non-Believer”
I would not distract you by saying anything else. Let us learn from each other if we want peace around us.
Peace!
Singh
I think most nations are not secular as per their constitution but there still can be “religious freedom” meaning freedom to practice a religion or NOT practice any.
India got the word “secular” introduced in the constitution in 70s I think.
I understand what you are saying on religious minorities in Pakistan.
rehmat: “I think most nations are not secular as per their constitution but there still can be “religious freedom” meaning freedom to practice a religion or NOT practice any.”
It is not so much about religious practice that I am concerned here. I have read the translation of the Quran. It says clearly that in Dar Ul Islam, people of other faiths are to be respected and protected. Of course this applies to the other two Semitic religions.
In Pakistan the issue on this topic is not about religious freedom. It is about a Christian lady who is alleged to have said blasphemous words about prophet Muhammad. I am against making fun out of others’ religious beliefs. I am against those cartoons made on prophet Muhammad by a Dutch cartoonist as well. That is totally disrespectful and an abuse of the freedom of expression. In Pakistan it is clearly declared by their law that if anyone utters or does anything that is blasphemous towards their prophet, it is punishable by death. Therefore those who agree to live in Pakistan and abide by its laws (whatever they might be) have to be careful about what they are doing. Sensitivities are very high in people on certain issues and those sensitivities, however primitive they might appear, must be respected and not trampled upon.
“India got the word “secular” introduced in the constitution in 70s I think.”
Hopefully it becomes real one day.
@”In Pakistan it is clearly declared by their law that if anyone utters or does anything that is blasphemous towards their prophet, it is punishable by death. Therefore those who agree to live in Pakistan and abide by its laws (whatever they might be) have to be careful about what they are doing.” Posted by KPSingh01
The real problem here, is that Pakistan’s blasphemy law is as vague as can be and anybody from the minority community can be easily framed to have violated the law & sent to the gallows. Apparently, there have been many incidents in Pakistan, where people from the minority groups have been set up by someone who wants to settle a score, grab their property or just to eliminate them. In a country like Pakistan, where radicalsim is on the rise & the law & order situation is pretty atrocious, the minorities are nothing but dead meat as they can be easily be targeted by anyone who wants to take advantage of the system.
@Rehmat
Sorry, I have no problem! You have a problem with the word NON-BELIEVER for those who do not believe in God. I would address them the way they desire but not enter into discusions about one faith or the other.
Your list of non-believers in Allah is also wrong. Do not mix up the languages of people. The Arab christians address their God also with the name ‘Allah’ which is God in aramaesh language, which Jesus or Isa (pbuh)spoke. I am not an expert on religions, nor do I want to be, nor do I want to discuss any further.
Belief is a personal experience and I do not believe this has to be shared with others.
I have a total respect for mankind because according to my belief that they were all created by the God almighty. If I would be an atheist, I would’n care at all for those people who are unfriendly and violent. This is the difference between my belief or those who do not believe in God or Allah or Jehova or whatever people address in their respective languages.
I have my faith and let others have their faiths, these were the words of the Prophet(pbuh).
@KPSingh
People of other religions does not mean the religion of Ibrahim only, it means all faiths and they were many. They all came to Mecca, with their hand made gods in their pockets, one two and many, and then they prayed and worshiped them.
The Ibrahimi religion as it is called was brought to the earth through several God massengers Prophets for the mankind. The semites are jews and arabs. History is our knowledge that the jews refused to accept Jesus(pbuh) as the Prophet of God. And the followers of jesus later called themselves christians and regarded Jesus as the son of God and did not accept Mohammad(pbuh) as the last Prophet of God. Karen Armstrong, a christian theologist and author of the book God, explains her views about God.
With regard to the article, Pakistan needs stability, what we are witnessing is almost anarchy. its constitution is in tatters, there i´s no need to find the culprits or who satrted it. The fact that the Pashtoos are now controlling the security throughout Pakistaan, not in positive sense, is the evidence that the leaders of the country compass is not functioning. One can not hang peoople for blesphamy nor attack worship places and discriminate against miorites, muslims or non muslims. We do not have a minister for minorities but pakistan has one, he needs to be replaced and so should be the suspension of the judge. Let them go back to the school if need be to learn what the law is all about, to protect innocents and not to misinterpret the spirit of the law.
It is about time that the foreigners leave asian continent, otherwise the imperialists and those with the colonial past would start the third ww involving most of the developing states.
Rex Minor
Perhaps Indian and Pakistan löeaders should have a dialogue about minorities in their next meeting. No dicussions about the teitories or resources or so called terrorists or radicals, but simply the people of the country with major emphasis on improving the conditions of minorities. People have the first right to life, all other benefits come thereafter. You guys reckon that this could be organised with the help of NGO’s and the UNO if necessary?
Rex Minor
Three questions, at three different levels:
1. Was this woman guilty of blasphemy or is this a disguised attempt to settle scores?
2. Should blasphemy be punished by death?
3. Should blasphemy even be considered a crime?
I know where I stand on each of these questions.
1. I don’t have an opinion because I don’t know the facts of the case.
2. I don’t believe in the death penalty in any case since I think it is uncivilised and barbarous. There is therefore no question of death for blasphemy or indeed any other crime.
3. The notion of blasphemy runs counter to the principle of free speech. Therefore it should not be considered a crime.
These views are widely prevalent in Western countries and indeed in all secular democracies. But from the reports of grassroots opposition to a pardon for the accused woman, it appears that many ordinary Pakistanis have dramatically different answers to all three of these questions.
It appears to me that Pakistan keeps finding new ways to discredit itself in the eyes of the world.
Regards,
Ganesh
I must add that I fully support the efforts of Umair in petitioning the President, etc. I only wish Pakistanis like him had more influence on the country’s laws. An entire nation is being held hostage by the more uncivilised kind.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Rex
Let me remind you that the main point here was who is a “believer”.
Also let me remind you that when “777″ (a Hindu) told you (some time ago) that he has read Koran too, you tell him that then he is also a “believer”. Therefore, at that time you have interpreted that “Hindu” is a “non-believer”. In last few posts you are shifting your stand to “Sorry, I do not know much about hinduism or how they want to be regarded in religion discussions, believers or non believer”. Have the courage to discuss, understand and make changes to your position.
“Your list of non-believers in Allah is also wrong. Do not mix up the languages of people.”
***My list of non-believers included “Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists”. What does language got to do with any of this? Nada
“The Arab christians address their God also with the name ‘Allah’ which is God in aramaesh language, which Jesus or Isa (pbuh)spoke.”
***Duh I know the origin of the word “Allah”. How about
the remaining (2.1 billion total Christians on planet minus those living in the middle east) Christians?
You are a person who reads GOD’s words in Koran and does not use your GOD-given brain in discussions. You tell Indians are slaves with their unreformed ways from colonial era. You, yourself are so pre-conditioned and blind that you have lost the ability to have independent thinking on a topic. You are a classic example of a “peasant” (using your language). I am being charitable when I say it. Looking for peace? Keep looking. YOU NEED TO REFORM YOUR THINKING.
“”I am not an expert on religions, nor do I want to be, nor do I want to discuss any further.”
***Really? Nor Am I an expert and I do not have to know this much.
If you know nothing about other religions nor do you want to listen to others, stop commenting on religion-based issues.
I am tired of you.