Pakistan's minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti assassinated
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
aakash_2410
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,249
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
According to an official estimate, 1044 people were killed in the violence - 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus including those killed in the Godhra train fire.
Hindus dies too even though they're in majority?! Do you think even 1 single muslim would die if the same thing happened in Pakistan??!!
And what about 'killing of 17-18 innocent civillians on daily basis in one suspected drone attack'??!! Why don't you save them?!
May his soul be blessed in Heaven, for standing up for the oppressed as God commands us to do. Now moving on to Pakistan, and where it can go from here:
It is clear that the Pakistani society is sharply divided, and the moderates/liberals feel threatened talking to the conservatives/ultraconservatives, while the conservatives/ultraconservatives feel their "values and dignity" are under threat from the moderates/liberals. Some terrorist kills someone, the moderates rally and come out on the streets in a few thousands, condemning the attack. As a result of this rally, the conservatives/ultraconservatives come out on the streets and attack the moderates and 'the threat posed by the moderates on their values & dignity'.
It is clear that the moderates are losing hope of being 'part of the process' & the 'dialog process' where every 'party' should have the right to voice their opinion. There is a clear 'trust deficit'. Everyone has a stake in Pakistan's future, whether that's the ultraconservatives, conservatives, moderates and liberals. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion in a peaceful manner, no matter how much we despise the other person. Everyone is part of the solution, and the solution of this problem of violence can only end when the 'process' is inclusive of all, when the moderates/liberals are not feeling threatened by the conservative/ultraconservatives.
The rallies of a few thousands by the moderates/liberals only sharpen the divide between the conservatives/ultraconservatives and them, which results in conflict and violence in society. Same is the case for the rallies of the conservatives/ultraconservatives against the moderates/liberals. Pakistan has been famous for its rallies in the past, but for the most part, they don't bring about any kind of change. The problems with most rallies are that they are not all 'inclusive'. In most cases, they only represent a certain section of society. They represent the failure of the 'all inclusive process', where each of the 'parties' sees no hope in the other, or the 'process' itself.
A few thousand people will rally for the death of Bhatti the way they did for Taseer in the big cities, as a result of that, the conservatives/ultraconservatives will start a 'counter-rally' protecting their 'values and dignity', & glorify the terrorists. Things will remain at a standstill, and the matter will be buried under the dust. People will forget everything. This is not what the martyrs Taseer and Bhatti would have wanted. This is not what their deaths are worth.
If Pakistanis want to scrap out the Blasphemy Law or reform it, they will need to be part of the 'all inclusive process', & will have to struggle like Bhatti & Taseer did. They will have to make themselves counted. If they shy away from responsibility & the 'process', the deaths of brave people like Taseer & Bhatti will be rendered useless. If they feel that risking their lives isn't worth it, they can live in their little 'hole' and remain unaffected by the problems of the society. This isn't meant to belittle or target anyone, we are all guilty of this one way or the other.
It is clear that the Pakistani society is sharply divided, and the moderates/liberals feel threatened talking to the conservatives/ultraconservatives, while the conservatives/ultraconservatives feel their "values and dignity" are under threat from the moderates/liberals. Some terrorist kills someone, the moderates rally and come out on the streets in a few thousands, condemning the attack. As a result of this rally, the conservatives/ultraconservatives come out on the streets and attack the moderates and 'the threat posed by the moderates on their values & dignity'.
It is clear that the moderates are losing hope of being 'part of the process' & the 'dialog process' where every 'party' should have the right to voice their opinion. There is a clear 'trust deficit'. Everyone has a stake in Pakistan's future, whether that's the ultraconservatives, conservatives, moderates and liberals. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion in a peaceful manner, no matter how much we despise the other person. Everyone is part of the solution, and the solution of this problem of violence can only end when the 'process' is inclusive of all, when the moderates/liberals are not feeling threatened by the conservative/ultraconservatives.
The rallies of a few thousands by the moderates/liberals only sharpen the divide between the conservatives/ultraconservatives and them, which results in conflict and violence in society. Same is the case for the rallies of the conservatives/ultraconservatives against the moderates/liberals. Pakistan has been famous for its rallies in the past, but for the most part, they don't bring about any kind of change. The problems with most rallies are that they are not all 'inclusive'. In most cases, they only represent a certain section of society. They represent the failure of the 'all inclusive process', where each of the 'parties' sees no hope in the other, or the 'process' itself.
A few thousand people will rally for the death of Bhatti the way they did for Taseer in the big cities, as a result of that, the conservatives/ultraconservatives will start a 'counter-rally' protecting their 'values and dignity', & glorify the terrorists. Things will remain at a standstill, and the matter will be buried under the dust. People will forget everything. This is not what the martyrs Taseer and Bhatti would have wanted. This is not what their deaths are worth.
If Pakistanis want to scrap out the Blasphemy Law or reform it, they will need to be part of the 'all inclusive process', & will have to struggle like Bhatti & Taseer did. They will have to make themselves counted. If they shy away from responsibility & the 'process', the deaths of brave people like Taseer & Bhatti will be rendered useless. If they feel that risking their lives isn't worth it, they can live in their little 'hole' and remain unaffected by the problems of the society. This isn't meant to belittle or target anyone, we are all guilty of this one way or the other.
CaptainJackSparrow
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,404
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
Stop derailing the thread, man!
hembo
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
2 March 2011 Last updated at 17:30 GMT
Q&A: Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws
There are few politicians prepared to speak out against the blasphemy laws
The shooting to death of Pakistani Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti has once again raised questions about the country's controversial blasphemy laws. Mr Bhatti - a Christian - was one of the country's diminishing number of influential liberals prepared to speak out against the laws. They carry the death sentence for anyone who insults Islam, and critics say they have been used to persecute minority faiths.
Why are Pakistan's blasphemy laws in the news?
The laws have been contentious since the formation of Pakistan in 1947, but have been especially in the spotlight since a Christian mother-of-five, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death in November 2010 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. The following January Punjab Governor Salman Taseer - a prominent critic of the law - was assassinated by his bodyguard. The assassination divided Pakistan, with many hailing his killer as a hero. In March 2011 Religious Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was shot dead in Islamabad.
When do the laws date from?
The offences relating to religion were first codified by India's British rulers in 1860, and were expanded in 1927. Pakistan inherited these laws after the partition of India in 1947. Between 1980-86, a number of clauses were added to the laws by the military government of General Zia-ul Haq. He wanted to "Islamise" them and also legally to separate the Ahmadi community, declared non-Muslim in 1973, from the main body of Muslim population.
Christians have often fallen foul of the blasphemy laws
What do the laws say?
The law enacted by the British was general in nature, prescribing punishments for intentionally destroying or defiling a place or an object of worship or disturbing a religious assembly. They also make it unlawful to trespass on burial grounds or insult religious beliefs through the spoken or written word or by innuendo or visible representation. The maximum punishment under these laws ranges from one year to 10 years in jail, with or without fine. Beginning in 1980, a slew of clauses was added to the chapter of religious offences in the Pakistan Penal Code. These clauses can be grouped into two categories - the anti-Ahmadi laws and the blasphemy laws. The anti-Ahmadi laws were included in 1984. They bar the Ahmadis from calling themselves or behaving as Muslims, preaching their faith and using Islamic terms for their places of worship and religious rituals. The blasphemy laws were created and expanded in several instalments. In 1980, a clause was added to the law, making derogatory remarks against Islamic personages an offence, carrying a maximum punishment of three years in jail. In 1982, another clause prescribed life imprisonment for "wilful" desecration of the Koran, the Muslim holy book. In 1986, a separate clause was inserted to punish blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and the penalty recommended was "death, or imprisonment for life", in that order.
Who is affected by the laws?
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HCRP) - which is a voluntary organisation, has been documenting blasphemy cases. It says that Muslims constitute a majority of those booked under these laws, followed by the Ahmadi community. According to HRCP, around 1,000 cases have been lodged for desecration of the Koran, while nearly 50 cases have been lodged for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. Lower courts have handed down hundreds of convictions in these cases, but nearly all of them have been reversed by the higher courts due to lack of evidence, faults in due process or obvious wrongful motives on the part of the complainants. Hundreds of Christians are among the accused - at least 12 of them were given the death sentence for blaspheming against the Prophet.
Are they fairly applied?
At the level of the lower judiciary, there is often considerable pressure on the judges to order convictions, especially in offences related to Ahmadis and blasphemy. But most decisions fail the test of the law at the higher judicial level, where offenders are often acquitted. One reason is that organised religious groups are able to influence lower judges more easily than judges of the higher courts, though their influence is growing. Second, rights groups say most cases are motivated by local rivalries which are more easily exposed by the higher judiciary than the lower courts. Legal experts say convictions under the law regulating blasphemy against the Prophet are easier because it does not establish a link between an offence and the intention, so that even an unintentional act can also be treated as a wilful offence.
Do most Pakistanis support the laws?
A large majority of Pakistani people support the idea that blasphemers should be punished, but there is little understanding of what the religious scripture says as opposed to how the modern-day law is codified. The response to recent events suggests that they largely believe the law, as codified by the military regime of General Zia-ul Haq back in the 1980s, is in fact straight out of the Koran and therefore is not man-made. The organised religious groups are promoting this view and have been able to mobilise mass support in their favour. Their highest point came when the assassin of Governor Salman Taseer was hailed as a hero by a large section of people across the country.
Militants have made it clear that anyone challenging the blasphemy law is a target
Why do the authorities appear reluctant to amend them?
Amending the blasphemy laws has been on the agenda of nearly all the popular parties of the country. The previous regime of General Pervez Musharraf even introduced some legislation to protect women's rights. Last year, a woman member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Sherry Rehman, introduced a private bill to amend the blasphemy law. The bill sought to change procedures of religious offences in such a way that these offences would be reported to a higher police official rather than the usual police station chief. In addition the cases would be heard directly by the higher courts instead of going through the local courts first. The bill was passed on to a parliamentary committee for vetting. It has now been withdrawn under pressure from religious forces as well as some opposition political groups. Given the growing religious conservatism of the people, the government fears that if it approaches the issue pragmatically, it may lose public support.
Q&A: Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws
There are few politicians prepared to speak out against the blasphemy laws
The shooting to death of Pakistani Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti has once again raised questions about the country's controversial blasphemy laws. Mr Bhatti - a Christian - was one of the country's diminishing number of influential liberals prepared to speak out against the laws. They carry the death sentence for anyone who insults Islam, and critics say they have been used to persecute minority faiths.
Why are Pakistan's blasphemy laws in the news?
The laws have been contentious since the formation of Pakistan in 1947, but have been especially in the spotlight since a Christian mother-of-five, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death in November 2010 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. The following January Punjab Governor Salman Taseer - a prominent critic of the law - was assassinated by his bodyguard. The assassination divided Pakistan, with many hailing his killer as a hero. In March 2011 Religious Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was shot dead in Islamabad.
When do the laws date from?
The offences relating to religion were first codified by India's British rulers in 1860, and were expanded in 1927. Pakistan inherited these laws after the partition of India in 1947. Between 1980-86, a number of clauses were added to the laws by the military government of General Zia-ul Haq. He wanted to "Islamise" them and also legally to separate the Ahmadi community, declared non-Muslim in 1973, from the main body of Muslim population.
Christians have often fallen foul of the blasphemy laws
What do the laws say?
The law enacted by the British was general in nature, prescribing punishments for intentionally destroying or defiling a place or an object of worship or disturbing a religious assembly. They also make it unlawful to trespass on burial grounds or insult religious beliefs through the spoken or written word or by innuendo or visible representation. The maximum punishment under these laws ranges from one year to 10 years in jail, with or without fine. Beginning in 1980, a slew of clauses was added to the chapter of religious offences in the Pakistan Penal Code. These clauses can be grouped into two categories - the anti-Ahmadi laws and the blasphemy laws. The anti-Ahmadi laws were included in 1984. They bar the Ahmadis from calling themselves or behaving as Muslims, preaching their faith and using Islamic terms for their places of worship and religious rituals. The blasphemy laws were created and expanded in several instalments. In 1980, a clause was added to the law, making derogatory remarks against Islamic personages an offence, carrying a maximum punishment of three years in jail. In 1982, another clause prescribed life imprisonment for "wilful" desecration of the Koran, the Muslim holy book. In 1986, a separate clause was inserted to punish blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and the penalty recommended was "death, or imprisonment for life", in that order.
Who is affected by the laws?
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HCRP) - which is a voluntary organisation, has been documenting blasphemy cases. It says that Muslims constitute a majority of those booked under these laws, followed by the Ahmadi community. According to HRCP, around 1,000 cases have been lodged for desecration of the Koran, while nearly 50 cases have been lodged for blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad. Lower courts have handed down hundreds of convictions in these cases, but nearly all of them have been reversed by the higher courts due to lack of evidence, faults in due process or obvious wrongful motives on the part of the complainants. Hundreds of Christians are among the accused - at least 12 of them were given the death sentence for blaspheming against the Prophet.
Are they fairly applied?
At the level of the lower judiciary, there is often considerable pressure on the judges to order convictions, especially in offences related to Ahmadis and blasphemy. But most decisions fail the test of the law at the higher judicial level, where offenders are often acquitted. One reason is that organised religious groups are able to influence lower judges more easily than judges of the higher courts, though their influence is growing. Second, rights groups say most cases are motivated by local rivalries which are more easily exposed by the higher judiciary than the lower courts. Legal experts say convictions under the law regulating blasphemy against the Prophet are easier because it does not establish a link between an offence and the intention, so that even an unintentional act can also be treated as a wilful offence.
Do most Pakistanis support the laws?
A large majority of Pakistani people support the idea that blasphemers should be punished, but there is little understanding of what the religious scripture says as opposed to how the modern-day law is codified. The response to recent events suggests that they largely believe the law, as codified by the military regime of General Zia-ul Haq back in the 1980s, is in fact straight out of the Koran and therefore is not man-made. The organised religious groups are promoting this view and have been able to mobilise mass support in their favour. Their highest point came when the assassin of Governor Salman Taseer was hailed as a hero by a large section of people across the country.
Militants have made it clear that anyone challenging the blasphemy law is a target
Why do the authorities appear reluctant to amend them?
Amending the blasphemy laws has been on the agenda of nearly all the popular parties of the country. The previous regime of General Pervez Musharraf even introduced some legislation to protect women's rights. Last year, a woman member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Sherry Rehman, introduced a private bill to amend the blasphemy law. The bill sought to change procedures of religious offences in such a way that these offences would be reported to a higher police official rather than the usual police station chief. In addition the cases would be heard directly by the higher courts instead of going through the local courts first. The bill was passed on to a parliamentary committee for vetting. It has now been withdrawn under pressure from religious forces as well as some opposition political groups. Given the growing religious conservatism of the people, the government fears that if it approaches the issue pragmatically, it may lose public support.
have we had any moderates/liberals rally to the same scale as the conservatives have gathered? as per my understanding, the moderates/liberals might have been able to gather more than a few hundreds at its best.
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
i'm surprised to see indians muttering on about Christians in Pakistan. You'd have to have the memory span of a stoned Californian to forget about the genocide in Orissa --which claimed more lives than any loss of Christian life in Pakistan's history.
murder is murder.
Murder is wrong.
Murderers should be punished.
murder is murder.
Murder is wrong.
Murderers should be punished.
Please note the additions i have made to my post (# 379). Thanks. There is no easy answer to this problem.
Similar threads
