What's new

The problem with Pakistan's blasphemy laws

Post-'South Park': Cartoonist retreats from 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' [UPDATED]



Stop the campaign, she wants to get off.

The Seattle artist whose anti-censorship cartoon has helped spawn "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" says she wants no part of the May 20 event, which is gaining momentum online

"I made a cartoon that went viral but [this campaign] isn't really my thing," cartoonist Molly Norris tells Comic Riffs, characterizing her cartoon as merely a personal response to Comedy Central's censorship of a "South Park" episode last week. "Other folks have taken it over" -- an appropriation she says she is distancing herself from.

Postings on the Islamic website RevolutionMuslim.com led to Comedy Central's editing last week of a "South Park" speech about fear and intimidation, the show's creators have said. That network censorship has spawned another cartoon event: Everybody Draw Muhammad Day -- a campaign that might not be so easily quieted.

A posterlike cartoon titled "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" has been posted on the blogs of such commentators as Dan Savage to Andrew Sullivan. Savage tells Comic Riffs he published the cartoon on his blog late last week after it was e-mailed to him.

The growing campaign now includes a Facebook page titled Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. On Saturday night, the page had fewer than 1,500 "confirmed guests"; as of Monday morning (ET), the page was nearing 6,000 signed-up guests.

The creator of the page, Jon Wellington, tells Comic Riffs: "I created a Facebook event because that's an easy way to remind myself of upcoming events, and I thought it might serve that purpose for others too."

Adds Wellington: "I am not a cartoonist, and I loved [Norris's] creative approach to the whole thing -- whimsical and nonjudgmental."

The wall on Wellington's page has become an ongoing forum-of-sorts about the controversy. Some posts on the wall are from vocal supporters of Muhammad; other posts are purely anti-religion; and other posts say the campaign, at its heart, is all about the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.

As for the event itself, Wellington calls it "a bit of a phenomenon" -- one, of course, that he himself has helped grow in popularity. (In response, there is also a "Ban Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" Facebook page that has more than 800 members.)

The text of Norris's cartoon says, in part, that an Everybody Draw Muhammad day would "water down the pool of targets" for Islamic terrorists.

In a radio interview Friday with KIRO's Dave Ross, Norris cited that text about "the pool of targets" and also said it's a cartoonist's job to be "non-PC."

In that interview, Norris said of the Facebook campaign: "Dare me, I'll pursue it." A day later, however, she told Comic Riffs she had a change of heart, saying the campaign had grown far larger than she intended and that her cartoon was being appropriated in ways that were beyond her control.

Norris tells Comic Riffs she is accustomed to a quieter life as an artist. Her Seattle-based work includes the regular "Everyone's a Critic" cartoon for City Arts magazine.

Now, says Norris -- who has called laughter a form of prayer -- the online campaign is too large for her comfort. On her page MollyNorris.com, the cartoonist has posted a follow-up cartoon of 10 word balloons: one reads, "I have hit some kind of gigantic nerve!"; another says, "I am so freaked out that I am not even drinking my regular 4 pots of coffee per day!"; and a third reads, "I am a coward. I have backed off of being associated with any group of her cause."

Norris also cites the rise of a nonexistent group. The text of her original cartoon jokes that the day is "sponsored by Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor or CACAH (pronounced ca-ca)." Now, the site CACAH.org is encouraging submissions of protest art.

Indeed, some artists aren't waiting till May 20 to generate their own Muhammad images, which range from the straight-forward to the angry to the overtly scatalogical. Any depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous by some Muslims.

Elsewhere, Gawker quotes Younus Abdullah Mohammed of Revolution Muslim as saying that he felt media coverage of the controversy has been unfair: "It was typical of the mainstream media. It was senseless -- they never cover any of the other crimes against Islam we write about."

The Revolution Muslim representative also tells Gawker that most Americans are "dumbed down, stupid and pathetic. They're worried more about missing their favourite TV show than they are about the world."

Regarding "South Park," specifically, the TV show -- by Matt Stone and Trey Parker -- depicted Muhammad nearly a decade ago, sparking relatively little uproar. In the wake of the Danish "Muhammad cartoon" controversy that has simmered for five years, however, the show's depictions of Muhammad this month (the religious leader appears in a bear suit) have received far more attention -- particularly since Comedy Central last week reportedly edited a 35-second speech about intimidation and fear.

Norris's original cartoon is "dedicated" to Stone and Parker.

As for the larger campaign, Norris says simply: "I just want to go back to my quiet life."
 
Last edited:
Of course they find it harsh as they don’t believe in the same prophet as you do and find no reason to respect a person whose claim they consider false and thus worthy of criticism. What you are trying to do is to force others to practically act as Muslims by revering your prophet as Muslims revere, which they don’t have to as they have freedom to believe in their own beliefs, just as you do..

Look brother its very very easy to criticise anyone..... Like I said if you are not son of my father that does not mean you have every right to abuse my father...... Like I said many people criticise Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W) in their own country but we'll never allow this in our country..... Like you can abuse my father on street or criticise him but I'll nit allow you to do this in my own home....BTW I don't have much knowledge about whether to kill that person or not but surely I'll punch the person who will insult my prophet if he's infront of me.....
As far criticism is concerned I think the amount of criticism going on Islam is far less than any other religion...... We say that we'll kill such person but who's listening to us.... of course no one so be calm man...

Do you respect anyone whose claim of prophet hood you do not agree with? No, you ridicule them, persecute them and declare them worthy of killing. In west they don't kill you for merely being Muslim which is a lot better than what you do.

I don't respect such person obviously...... but if such person is counting his prophet hood not as Islamic then its none of my concern.... And west does not kill us physically but they properly kill us psychologically...

Bottom line on your attitude; if you believe a person is a prophet then disagreeing with it deserves killing, if you believe a person is not a prophet then disagreeing with that is also worthy of killing and persecution.
Its not what I like and what I don't its what Allah has said.... if that was written in quran that a new prophet is acceptable then I might be the first one to accept such person's claim BTW I am not quite sure about killikng of such person

Basically everyone in the world has to respect your demands or they are dead. World has had enough of this one-sided arrogant attitude already. You can get the message the easy way or the hard way. Your choice. Today they have banned veils and minarets, tomorrow they can ban a lot more.
Come on boy I will never say that what they are doing is wrong or right its their country and they have full right to implement what they want there that's the message of democracy boy.... change it if you have power otherwise don't use their misuse of power to inspire us...

You have full right to believe what you want, just respect others' right to believe what they want to believe too. You can not arbitrarily enforce your view of what is holy when others do not share the same view.

Yeah every one has the right to believe what he want then why are you here to tell us what we should believe and how we should react???

Love your prophet but don’t expect others to love him too who do not consider him anywhere close to a prophet and in fact consider him an impostor. You believe in him not others, why force others to respect him?

What a contradiction here you said let every one believe what he believe and now you are dictating me what to believe and what to think.... I think I have a full right to expect any thing from any one do I??



That is exactly the point. If there is consensus on the blasphemy law i.e. to kill people for their beliefs then Pakistanis are indeed a very dangerous bunch of people who believe in forcing their views on others and failing that resort to violence. Many more Fasial Shayzads will result.

Oh really??? what about consensus of west on banning of veil are we gonna get bunch of bushs??? or are we gonna get a bunch of more invasions from Europe as welll??? BTW Faisal shehzad is product of American secular society.... not a product Paksitani society....
 
Guys correct me if I am wrong. All this talk about freedom of speech and all. Isn't it illegal for me or any other guy to verbally harass a woman (not touch them, just say whatever words we want) in the western countries? If it's legal under freedom of speech, someone hitting me for verbally harassing a woman should be in trouble since they're doing something illegal (assault?) while I was not?
 
Last edited:
Like I said many people criticise Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W) in their own country but we'll never allow this in our country.....

but surely I'll punch the person who will insult my prophet if he's infront of me.....
What if the offender is not in front of you? What if the offender is protected by a state? This goes back to the issue of jurisdiction I said earlier.
 
In defense of blasphemers - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

In defense of blasphemers
Font Size: Larger|Smaller

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
ELDAR MAMEDOV
The United Nations Human Rights Council, at the behest of a number of Muslim countries led by Pakistan, adopted a non-binding resolution condemning the “defamation of religion” as a violation of human rights. Turkey´s "moderate Muslims" from the Fethullah Gülen movement have hailed this move as “a step in the right direction to deal with the growing problem of Islamophobia.”

They are wrong, for “protection of religion” is a bad and dangerous idea. Here is why.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, declares that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. The ICCPR provides for the freedom of religion and conscience. However, there are no norms in the international law that defend religions. The international human rights system protects the rights of an individual, not political, philosophical or religious ideas and beliefs of any kind. But what proponents and supporters of measures against the “defamation of religion” seek are laws to “protect” religious beliefs, not individual rights.

To justify their demands, they point to the phenomenon of Islamophobia defined as hatred and hostility toward Islam and Muslims. In their view, attributing negative and derogatory stereotypes and beliefs to Islam legitimizes discrimination, racism and violence against Muslims.

There is no question that in the post-Sept. 11 climate many Muslims do suffer from prejudice, stereotypes and fear in parts of Western societies. Some Westerners do perceive Muslims as a monolithic block fundamentally hostile to the Western way of life. The alarming rise of far-right xenophobic demagogues in some European countries only makes the task of engaging with Muslim communities all the more urgent.

But one thing is to ensure full respect for the individual rights of Muslims, including the right to practice their religion freely within a secular and democratic framework. However, to ban any critique of their religion, or certain aspects and interpretations of it, is something completely different. All citizens, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or atheist should have the right to criticize and even ridicule any religion or belief, prophet, rule, rite, prohibition, etc. Historically, free debate on religion, including a healthy dose of satire, was at the root of the European concepts of tolerance and freedom of speech, which is exactly why so many Muslims are so much freer in Europe than in most countries of the Muslim world. Therefore, attempts to ban “defamation of Islam” amount to an unacceptable attack on the freedom of speech and must be resisted.

In fact, it is not Islam that should be protected, but the individuals whose human rights are severely violated by the application of anti-defamation laws in some Muslim countries. In the prisons of the Islamic Republic of Iran there are hundreds of people facing death penalty for “fighting God,” their sole “crime” being expressing political opinions about the situation in their country. In 2008 a journalism student in Afghanistan was sentenced to 20 years in prison for blasphemy after he was found guilty of spreading information about women’s rights in Islam. In Pakistan, a country that sponsored the anti-defamation resolution in the U.N., blasphemy laws are used regularly and extensively against religious minorities, especially Ahmadis. There are scores of writers, artists, human rights defenders, religious dissidents who had to flee their countries lest they run the risk of being punished under blasphemy laws.

Turkey’s record in this regard is not convincing. The Turkish state still does not officially commemorate the Sivas massacre of 1993, in which thirty-seven intellectuals belonging to the Alevi sect were murdered by Sunni extremists, and the militants’ main target, Aziz Nesin, a well-known leftist writer and a Turkish translator of Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses,” only narrowly escaped death.

Last year another Turkish novelist, Nedim Gürsel, was accused by the directorate of religious affairs, a public entity, of denigrating religious values in his book "Daughters of Allah." He was eventually acquitted, but many Turkish writers and artists point to increased levels of self-censorship as result. In a social climate increasingly affected by the political pietism of the Islam-rooted ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and its allies, including the Gülen movement, to openly deny belief in God is becoming dangerous. Astonishingly, while constitutional reform is discussed to bring the country closer to the EU, no effort is made to enhance the freedom of expression. The possibility of repealing the blasphemy article 216 of the Turkish penal code, which was used to prosecute Gürsel, is not even discussed.

Fighting religiously based discrimination and prejudice is the right thing to do. But re-enforcing anti-blasphemy laws, which is what the ill-conceived U.N. anti-defamation resolution calls for, would constitute a sure step toward religious despotism. Too bad that Turkish "moderate Muslims" from the Fethullah Gülen movement fail to see this.

* Eldar Mamedov is a political adviser to the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, but is writing in a personal capacity.
 
i dont believe in religion and even in god. like the father of indian social reform Peruyar said. 'he who believes in god is a barbarian' . at the same time if someone else believes i would not insult him
 
From diplomat John Burgess' blog:
...efforts to ban the defaming of other religions cuts both ways. Here, a Sri Lankan Muslim is charged with offending Buddhists through the books she wrote telling why she converted to Islam. This isn’t at all the end envisioned by the OIC and other Muslim groups who seek to quash free speech; their view only sees Islam as the protected faith. Not so in Sri Lanka, at least. This is exactly why laws forbidding ‘defamation of religion’ or ‘blasphemy’ are so ill-advised. The only work to one’s own favor when it’s your own court doing the judging. If the legal playing field is balanced, then all critics of any religion are open to legal punishment. It’s easier and wiser to simply avoid the entire issue and let each religion speak for itself in response to speech it dislikes rather than to try and impose the power of the state.
link
 
Jungle justice

608x325.jpg

There have been several instances where police apathy, perhaps in some cases connivance, has led to under-trial prisoners being targeted by vengeful elements on the court premises.

Where the charge involves religion, there is a greater need for the police to be vigilant when escorting the accused to or from court, given the kind of fury that allegations of blasphemy unleash. Sadly, this is far from the case in Pakistan as exemplified by the killing of two Christian brothers by a group of masked men on the premises of a Faisalabad sessions court on Monday. The brothers were accused of distributing blasphemous material — that, unbelievably, also contained phone numbers. The men had been brought to court under police escort to obtain remand. Such cases are a reminder of how allegations of blasphemy can be used to incite jungle justice and mob violence that often mask the real motives behind the targeting of individuals. The motives can range from the settling of personal scores to property disputes.

Monday’s killings led to violent protests by the Christian community in the brothers’ native area of Daoodnagar; a section of the Muslim community reacted by asking the people over mosque loudspeakers to “fight the rampaging” Christians. The situation grew volatile enough to necessitate the imposition of Section 144 for the maintenance of public order. The result is the creation of an atmosphere of fear and violent mistrust that could lead to the targeting of more members of the Christian community. This situation can also be exploited by ill-intentioned groups such as the land mafia. This has, indeed, often proved to be the case in earlier incidents of violence involving allegations of blasphemy, particularly in Punjab.

Arrests under Section 295-C of the PPC for allegations of blasphemy illustrates the dangers inherent in a law that lends itself to misuse. The blasphemy law is rightly criticised for the manner in which it can be abused. We must also note that it helps foster a societal mindset of jungle justice where individuals feel that it is right to take the law into their own hands. The blasphemy law must be repealed.
 
We should get rid of this law asap. The punishment of death is unreasonably harsh. I wouldn't mind this subject falling under hate speech however. Perhaps some jail time or fines might do.
 
I am really disappointed after reading whole thread by seeing support for such laws from few religious fanatics...

Religions was meant to do good for humanity but we are making it worst to kill humanity. All our Propehts and Gods gave their life to make better life for disciples and other human beings and what we are doing is killing others for their respect... Think logically, as normal human being, Do have capability to defame or or save respect of Prophets?? They are much more above to this...Leave those who insults or try to defame.. they may be sick and they will get well soon, why to kill them??

Tolerance is pillar of any religion in the world, Trust my word look any religion, and because of some laws we are being intolerant.. truely its sad for humanity..
 
I believe that freedom of speech is not the same as the ability to say everything you like. I believe “intent”, the source and the context are important. Why need of blasphemy laws ? or whether imposition of such law is beneficial for the society at large or not. There are certain ‘intangible” aspects of human behavior, which must be regulated pre-emptive by law and it might infringe freedom of expression but there is no middle ground to it.

@Asim
Islam does promoted difference of opinion and doesn’t consider anything a taboo. But there is something called “Malicious Intent” and I'm sure you gave heard of MI jurisprudence concept. Some may argue that there is no such thing as “malicious intent” but then one may also argue that the Holocaust never happened.

Soloman/Gambit
With all due respect, the West cannot comment upon what is and isn’t allowed under freedom of speech because they needs to put its own house in order when it comes to Blasphemy law.
 
Last edited:
The Blasphemy Laws, the extreme reaction from Pakistan over the Danish cartoons etc gives further ammunition to people from other non-Muslim nations to hate our Prophet(S). We don't anyone hating our beloved Prophet(S), do we?
 
Its the misuse of such laws that is the issue..
usually by people who would otherwise be taken as pious..
Our nation has serious issues with seeing beyond what is presented.
 
Even if we do remove the Blaspemy law, we are still going to see killings, in the name of "Blasphemy". People will take the law into their own hands. The situation will get worse and worse.

But it doesnt matter because the Blasphemy law isn't going anywhere.
 
Or else that someone - or his community - gets physically attacked. "Islamic harmony", yes?


I thought Jinnah wanted Pakistan for Muslims to thrive in safety and prosperity, not as an "Islamic idealogical state" where only those who pass xyz tests are permitted to live. This, then, is part of the struggle for Pakistan's identity today. So if you are going to get rid of the extremism so many Pakistanis despise, what other way is there than to junk these blasphemy laws?

says who???


typical American, why the american terrorists keep poking their ugly nose in others affairs?
 
Back
Top Bottom