
Why doesn’t Pakistan reform its blasphemy laws? - JumpCrisscross
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/04/economist-explains-14?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20170425n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/na/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatchz
======
vowelless
There is little incentive for Pakistan to change the laws. People see it as
morally correct. And it silences any criticism, particularly theological,
about the religion or Muhammad PBUH. They infact have a larger incentive to
remained hardline and aligned with the gulf states like Saudi. I have seen the
transformation among Pakistanis over the last 20 years ("Allah hafiz", "Al
bakistan"). Hopefully a Pakistani person can expand more.

Having grown up in a similarly oppressive environment, I absolutely cherish
the freedom of speech in the US and I hope it is protected as the most sacred
thing in this nation because a lot of places in the world don't have it. And
when you don't have it, it is like being suffocated. Any criticism of the
religion will quickly get you labeled as a kafir because you are trying to
cover the "truth" (defined as Islam). You can never have a real conversation
because first you will be called names and then, you will likely face
violence. You cannot get together with others of similar mindsets openly
because mobs will shut you down, start riots, etc.

For people who don't know, please read up on Salmaan Taseer. Interestingly,
his son's article about getting a greencard was on the front page of HN 10
months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12025996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12025996)

~~~
Cyph0n
> They infact have a larger incentive to remained hardline and aligned with
> the gulf states like Saudi.

You mean "aligned with Saudi". None of the other Gulf states are anywhere near
as culturally backwards as KSA.

~~~
int_19h
Oman? Qatar? UAE?

~~~
Cyph0n
I lived in the UAE for quite some time and it's definitely much better than
KSA; still, it has ways to go. I hear Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman are the same.

~~~
dogma1138
For expats and wealthy powerful locals, you just don't see the real dirt from
those towers and tidy beaches.

~~~
Cyph0n
We're talking about culture and religion as compared to KSA. Try to stick to
the topic.

------
privacyfornow
As a general rule and as someone who grew up extremely religious in Pakistan,
I started making fun of mohammad at every opportunity I got but the sad
reality is that he was not a very funny man and that was that.

The reason Pakistan won't reform its blasphemy laws is that a large portion of
the population will strangle the politician that tries to. This country (more
than just about anywhere else in the islamic world) needs education for next
two to three generations. The lack of action on this front has resulted in the
tumor of religious bigotry and extremism to become a full fledged cancer that
is now airborne. I don't support killing this patient, but forced quarantine
and non-stop medication for next generation or two is the only way to save it
and everyone else.

------
zodiakzz
On the optimist side of things, the April 14th lynching of Mishal Khan at
Abdul Wali Khan University has started a debate in the country about reforming
these laws. There's been wide-spread support for Mishal among political
leaders and common people. Supporting a blasphemy-accused person was a death
sentence previously (see Salman Taseer).

It's also getting ridiculous lately with everyone being accused of blasphemy
left and right, like even the Prime Minister lol - and the accusers are too
stupid to realize that "blasphemy" is starting to lose all meaning. It's also
got people thinking about requiring evidence for the purported "blasphemy".
Currently you only need a clerk accusing you, without any evidence or witness
and get ready to be lynched by a mob.

Source: Atheist/ex-Muslim living in Pakistan. Pretty open about it to all my
Muslim relatives, although they probably keep it cool only because I'm more
successful than them and they look up to me :P.

~~~
anilgulecha
Can you elaborate a bit more on being an atheist in Pakistan? i had conducted
a little bit of research a few years ago, but was unable to find any
organizations that were openly atheistic (the best I could find were curated
but anonymous blogs).

Technically which would be possible and to what degree: 1) being an atheist,
2) Informing immediate family and friends, 3) Informing the local/town
community, 4) Widely publishing atheism via media.

Thanks

------
kevin_thibedeau
For the same reason why the US doesn't relent on its socially destructive
minimum sentencing requirements. There is no political capital in being soft
on <insert despised minority group here>.

~~~
azernik
To put that in even more simple terms - because they _like_ their awful laws,
thank you very much.

------
littletimmy
Here's some perspective from a Pakistani agnostic who supports blasphemy laws.

This article is an example of how people in the West really don't get how
religious countries in the third world work. Because rule of law is absolute
in Western countries, articles like this make it sound like the problem is the
unjust law. That is absolutely false.

There are two major problems with blasphemy reform. The first problem is that
the PEOPLE want blasphemy punished. There is a significant minority in
Pakistan who is OK with a blasphemer being killed. It is not an unjust law
imposed on people - the people WANT it. The second problem is that the rule of
law in most third world countries is very weak. Which means that if people
want something punished, and the law isn't there to punish it, they will take
the law into their own hands. We saw this very recently when a huge mob
lynched a university student who was accused of blasphemy. So... the people
want blasphemy punished, and you cannot stop them from taking the law into
their own hands. What do you do in this case?

Consider the options in front of a Pakistani politician who is personally
against punishment for blasphemy. He can either revoke the law (at risk to his
own life) and then watch as people form huge mobs who lynch people accused of
blasphemy at random. He will be unable to control this because the police
might empathize with the killers. OR he can impose blasphemy law, and then
weaken implementation. When the blasphemy law is imposed, then people are
discouraged from taking the law into their own hands. At the same time, he can
weaken implementation to the point that no one Really gets punished for
blasphemy (as in the case in Pakistan - the state does not execute people for
blasphemy). With a blasphemy law, the religious nuts are appeased, and at the
same time, with weak implementation, a semblance of freedom is maintained.

That means, the blasphemy law keeps the lid on the monster that is public
opinion until it can be reformed. And that comes through education, where the
Pakistani government is trying to make strides. (Unsuccessfully, I might add,
since it is a poor country.) In any case, THAT is the logic behind blasphemy
law - it prevents the country from descending into anarchy. It is easy to sit
in a country with great rule of law to say that why are these people in third
world countries making stupid laws, but the lawmakers in these countries
aren't stupid. The obviously see that their people are backward, and there
needs to be imperfect stopgap solutions until the country can implement better
rule of law.

~~~
incompatible
In the case of the university student who was lynched, did the crowd even try
to report him to the police and provide their evidence, or did they just go
ahead with the lynching?

~~~
littletimmy
Apparently they reported to the university administration which failed to take
action and may even have tacitly accepted the decision of the mob (presumably
because of fear of reprisal themselves). But the good thing is now the police
can take action against the killers because they took the law into their
hands.

------
Fej
I mean, these are some of the most hard-line extremists alive. Of course they
aren't going to reform their blasphemy laws.

Pakistan is a backwards theocracy, which created the Taliban and has been
attempting to spread their awful model of governance ever since. I imagine
they wish to set an example.

~~~
littletimmy
This is absolutely false. Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the
British system - it is very obviously not a theocracy.

Pakistan created the Taliban out of political necessity, and the United States
is to blame for it. When the USA and Russia fought a proxy war in Afghanistan,
it left the country in tatters. Pakistan got millions of refugees (1/5 of the
population of Afghanistan was living in Pakistan at one time). Think of how
Americans start to hyperventilate even at the thought of accepting a few
thousand refugees. Pakistan took in millions - and it had to stabilize
Afghanistan to restore order and stop the flow. At that time, Pakistan
supported the Taliban so that the mess that the United States and Russia made
could be controlled. Blame the Cold War, not Pakistan.

~~~
int_19h
> Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system

It also has a different set of laws, added later, that is based on Sharia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances)

~~~
littletimmy
An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a
theocracy.

~~~
int_19h
I didn't say that it does. But it seems to be an important addition to the
claim that "Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British
system". Hudood Ordinances are certainly not based on the British system. And
they're a big part of the problem being discussed here.

~~~
selimthegrim
Nevertheless, the question of whether any given act of blasphemy is
automatically deserving of a hadd punishment is by no means an open and shut
case.

~~~
int_19h
I think for most westerners, the real WTF is the notion that any act of
blasphemy can potentially deserve punishment at all.

~~~
selimthegrim
As the child of an Pak expatriate, believe me I'd love to get there too.
Unfortunately, you don't eat a cow like this all at once.

~~~
int_19h
I didn't get an answer to my question in another thread; perhaps you could
help with that? It is as follows:

Did Pakistan have its blasphemy law in its current state since founding, or
was it significantly broadened under Zia-ul-Haq?

I'm genuinely curious about this, because if it's a later addition, then
wouldn't several decades of Pakistan's existence without laws as stringent as
they are today indicate that the society can actually handle this being dialed
down quite a bit just fine?

~~~
selimthegrim
295AB were put in the penal code by the British. 295C is due to Zia, and the
current prime minister, during his first term in 1990-1, oversaw the removal
of life imprisonment as an option leaving only the death penalty.

The hardliners' response to your last argument gets tied up in something like
"the British took us away from true Sharia" or something along those lines. On
talk shows you hear "This is a law from Quran and Sunnah, not a man-made law"

------
duncan_bayne
Because they're devout Muslims who favour the mainstream interpretation of
Islamic theology, which includes punishment for blasphemy and capital
punishment for apostasy.

If these were American Scientologists torturing people for blasphemy and
murdering people for leaving their cult, no-one would hesitate to point the
finger at their religion as the problem.

~~~
Cyph0n
> Because they're devout Muslims who favour the mainstream interpretation of
> Islamic theology

I'm a Muslim and this is the first time I hear that this is the "mainstream"
position. Do you have any reasonable sources for that claim?

~~~
MichaelGG
The most mentioned study on this topic that I've seen is:
[http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-
religi...](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-
politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)

Multiply the percentages out and it does not paint a favourable picture of the
actual interpretation of Islam, as believed by most users.

It's odd that you're downvoted. It'd appear that most of the people in those
countries would agree with your statement exactly. They are devout, and that
is literally what they believe.

~~~
Cyph0n
That's quite surprising actually. Given my own experience, I would have likely
doubted these results had they not been published by Pew (or Gallup).

~~~
azernik
In what country do you live, and in which Muslim community do you practice? I
would imagine that these views vary widely by culture, school, and region.

~~~
Cyph0n
The Muslim countries I've lived in are Tunisia (origin country) and the UAE.

------
mythrwy
I don't care for blasphemy laws one bit, but "reform" is a bit of a loaded
word in this context.

------
lappet
I am guessing it is because of vote banks. There might be a chance that a good
percentage of the people don't want really want the law - but they are
moderate/silent. At least, I hope so.

------
tn135
It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam.

Contrary to what people might think India too has blasphemy laws and people
are regularly jailed even for academic work on religion (mostly Islam) or even
private comments that insult the prophet. [[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/07/29/which-countr...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/)]

I looked up the history of India's blasphemy laws it is indeed a creation of
British to outlaw criticism of Islam in India to maintain peace in their
colony though now mostly used by Hindus. (Islamists simply hack people to
death or put a bounty on people's head. They do not bother with courts).

[http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/02/banning-wendy-
donig...](http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/02/banning-wendy-donigers-
hindus.html)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in
> Islam._

By _some Muslims._ Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to
get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most
Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing
mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.

~~~
notliketherest
The biblical rules you site are from the pre-Christ laws. They were laws that
needed to be followed to save man from the wrath of God. Christians believe
that Jesus died and therefore took the punishment of their sins away, and all
they need to do now is believe in him. So it's not the same at all. As far as
I understand the laws of the Koran are very much the laws Muslims must follow.

~~~
incompatible
I had the impression that belief wasn't sufficient for a Christian and they
still have to avoid sin. E.g., a gay Christian is supposed to abstain from
sex.

~~~
MichaelGG
There is a ton of leeway in the New Testament writings to let people decide
what it means. I particularly love the line "everything is permissible, but
not every is beneficial". Paul's letters are more like "oh come on, do you
really have to be _so_ degenerate?" with no real teeth. Unless you curse the
Spirit.

Jesus says he fulfills the law, and despite saying not a stroke of the old law
should differ, that's a loophole to drive a truck through (on the Sabbath
nonetheless).

Islam doesn't have the​ benefit of a second prophet coming along and saying
"eh, it's all good".

~~~
incompatible
Islam has any number of prophets actually, including Jesus. But the view in
Islam appears to be that Muhammad trumps all the others because he's the only
one whose message hasn't been corrupted.

------
notgood
The same reason any of the biggest countries with sharia law are always
surrounded by human rights violations (Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Algeria, Saudi
Arabia, etc); because the justice system became a tool to protect ideas from
citizens instead of aiming for the well-being of all its citizens (as in,
prioritizing coexistence).

~~~
MichaelGG
Do you have evidence those citizens desire a happy coexistence and repeal of
these laws? The survey linked elsewhere in this thread claims the opposite.

Of course that doesn't mean the top people aren't "abusing" the laws to get
more control.

~~~
notgood
In not a single part of my statement I'm saying they desire coexistence, I'm
just saying the reasons they don't have it; anyway, if governments only
followed everyone's desires no-one would pay taxes.

~~~
sdflkd
> anyway, if governments only followed everyone's desires no-one would pay
> taxes

Maybe in America? Not so in other countries.

