Widespread criticism over rationale for new law to ‘protect’ Islam

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

FYI:

The law passed on July 22 makes “desecration” of any prophet, any of the four divine books, family and companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as well as abetting or glorification of terrorists, and promoting sectarianism in any book punishable with a maximum of five-year jail terms and up to Rs500,000 fine.

In other words; Christians and Jews are covered in this bill.

WE are not insulting Pakistani hindus either. They are Pakistani to begin with.

The problems with this law will be the same as those under the Blasphemy laws - false accusations, undeserved imprisonments etc.

Is there a provision in this law to punish those making false accusations?

Is there a provision that no one accused under this law will be arrested or prevented from being published etc until a proper investigation is performed by the relevant authorities and all appeals processes exhausted?

These kinds of laws are meant to be abused, and we have decades of abuse under the guise of the Blasphemy laws to prove that point.

 

[The Accountant]

We're not talking about Iran, we're talking about Pakistan.

All ethnic groups and sects need to learn to live with each other with respect and equality - no one should be required to 'learn to live with the majority' - this is how societies and countries are destroyed.

Agreed i am sunni but i truly believe that pakistan is for all sects.

Infact we should work on bringing harmony among sects

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have a question for muslims
You guys claim your god to be all powerful and everything is under his command. Then why you muslims need such law to protect your religion? Is your god not powerful enough to defend his true follower's religion?

These kinds of laws are driven by the insecurities and intolerance of people.

If their faith was in fact strong, there wouldn't be any need for such laws.

It is when one's faith is weak that one chooses to support intolerance and forceful imposition of ones views and values on others.

 

[LeGenD]

The problems with this law will be the same as those under the Blasphemy laws - false accusations, undeserved imprisonments etc.

Is there a provision in this law to punish those making false accusations?

Is there a provision that no one accused under this law will be arrested or prevented from being published etc until a proper investigation is performed by the relevant authorities and all appeals processes exhausted?

These kinds of laws are meant to be abused, and we have decades of abuse under the guise of the Blasphemy laws to prove that point.

Bro,

I still need to explore this theme in greater depth before I can critic it.

I am all for introducing measures against potential misuse/abuse of these type of LAWS. Those who are found to be guilty of ruining somebody's life with False accusations, should be punished even more harshly.

Unfortunately, IMPLEMENTATION part is sorely lacking... WHY can this part be not fixed?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deeply disappointed to see that hate crime are on the increase against Sahabas by Shia minority,
This is good move to end this stupidity or otherwise a big fight will start.
They want independence of bashing Sahabas and our mothers of Islam for the sake of religious politics and this must stop now.

What's really stupid is saying that 'hate crimes' are occurring against people who died hundreds of years ago.

Do you even know what a 'hate crime' is defined as?

Sh!t gets viral on social media within hours now.

Then learn to ignore it like other normal, civilized, grown adults.

 

[LeGenD]

Agreed i am sunni but i truly believe that pakistan is for all sects.

Infact we should work on bringing harmony among sects

Well said, brother.

 

[313ghazi]

I have a question for muslims
You guys claim your god to be all powerful and everything is under his command. Then why you muslims need such law to protect your religion? Is your god not powerful enough to defend his true follower's religion?

Cows are holy - why do they become kebabs? Abraham (pbuh) smashed the idols and left a hammer by 1. When his people accused him he blamed the other idol. They responded that how can an idol do such and such. He asked them if the idol can't break the others, why do you worship it?

The law is not to protect God, the law is to prevent people getting shot dead because they said something that others found deeply offensive.

What's really stupid is saying that 'hate crimes' are occurring against people who died hundreds of years ago.

Do you even know what a 'hate crime' is defined as?


Then learn to ignore it like other normal, civilized, grown adults.

It might be a clumsy definition but it's in the ball park. Surely hate speech is a form of hate crime right?

 

[Areesh]

These kinds of laws are driven by the insecurities and intolerance of people.

So one is allowed to abuse the people we love religiously and spiritually just to show that we have a strong faith?

Is it what you want me to do?

Then learn to ignore it like other normal, civilized, grown adults.

So hate speeches against people who aren't even alive should be ignored

is that what you are saying?

 

[LeGenD]

Only Shias are objecting to this bill and their main arguments are:

1. We cannot put "رضی اللہ غنہ" after the name of every Sahabi (because they don't consider a lot of Prophet's companions as Sahabi especially Hazrat Muawiyah). The bill asks to respect all Sahaba, no disrespect, insult or abuse against any of Prophet's companion is to be allowed. All books or literature with such material is to be removed.
2. They put "علیہ السلام" (which is mostly used for past Prophets) after Hazrat Ali's name instead of "رضی اللہ غنہ" because they consider Hazrat Ali as equal in islami stature as other Prophets (Again they don't consider Hazrat Ali merely a Sahabi or Khalif, but way more than that - either equal or Prophets, better than all Prophets, or some of them even consider Ali as the God).
3. They don't consider Abu Bakr, Umer and Usman as first 3 Khalifas. The bill asks to recognize all four Khalifs and write the words "خلیفہ راشد" before the name of all four of them.
4. The bill asks to give respect to all four daughters of Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) but Shias only consider Hazrat Fatima as the only daughter of Prophet.
5. All wives of Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h) are to be duly respected (which again is a problem for Shias as they are widely against Hazrat Ayesha).

Now put the sectarianism aside and think about it. Is there any unreasonable demand in this bill?

+

Man have you ever heard the nonsense they spill out in their public gatherings against Sahabas, Khalifs and wives of Prophet Muhammed? Heck they even aren't shy anymore in disrespecting Allah directly. Do check some stuff on youtube or facebook first. That stuff is not even worth sharing here.

They are a minority and they cannot be on an open rebellion with the majority the whole year and still play the innocent card when something goes south. I am against killings and sectarian bullsh!t but most of it is usually because their own f!lth that they spill out in open public gathering. We are living in digital age, gone are the days when someone could say something bad about Sahaba or Prophet's wives and could get away with it. Sh!t gets viral on social media within hours now.

Both of the posts are TRUE unfortunately, but I wouldn't say "only Shias." Criticism is coming forth from different directions.

Nevertheless; before accusing others of spreading sectarianism and demanding measures against this issue, one need to make sure that he/she is not a part of the problem himself/herself.

And when measures are introduced, then do not CRY FOUL under the garb of OPPRESSION of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

No SECT should be above and beyond constructive criticism, sorry. Look inside your own collar and introspect.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So hate speeches against people who aren't even alive should be ignored

is that what you are saying?

Yes - they should be ignored.

It simply isn't possible to control speech across the globe.

The only thing that happened with Muslims throwing a fit over the Mohammed Cartoons was that more groups were encouraged to make fun of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

The law passed on July 22 makes “desecration” of any prophet, any of the four divine books, family and companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as well as abetting or glorification of terrorists, and promoting sectarianism in any book punishable with a maximum of five-year jail terms and up to Rs500,000 fine. It makes the use of the words “Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen” mandatory whenever the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is mentioned.

Jesus AS and Injeel becomes here off-limits to abuse and mockery.

Musa AS, along with other Bani Israel anbiya, and Torat also is protected from abuse.

How is this bad for minorities?

Speech in favor of terrorism, sectarianism are now punishable by law in a concrete way.

Shia has only objection about no writing Alihas salam for the Holy Prophet progeny in this law. For example, Hazrat Ali a.s or Hazrat Fatima a.s ... means god blessed them. Ahlulbait ....rest they can do whatever they like. Otherwise this is totally uncalled situation from assembly, may be more troubles for Imran Khan , a new front open by PMLq .

Alayhis Salam usually only applies to Prophets and Angels.

For companians and Ahlulbayt, we have radhiullahu anhu/anha meaning "may Allah be pleased with them."

 

[hussain0216]

Great stuff

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It might be a clumsy definition but it's in the ball park. Surely hate speech is a form of hate crime right?

No - hate speech is nothing like hate crime, and neither fits in the situation under discussion.

If anything, this law itself can be defined as a form of indirect hate speech, given its potential to be abused to target and destroy the lives of others as has been done with the Blasphemy laws.

With respect to the definitions of both:

Hate Speech: "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

Hate Crime: "a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds."

As you can see, disrespecting or abusing historical and/or religious figures does not in any way fall in the category of hate speech.

No SECT should be above and beyond constructive criticism, sorry. Look inside your own collar and introspect.

Correct, that is why people who can't control their emotions over some language and act like immature imbeciles and throw a fit are being criticized for supporting these laws, much like the Blasphemy laws.

 

[LeGenD]

Yes - they should be ignored.

It simply isn't possible to control speech across the globe.

The only thing that happened with Muslims throwing a fit over the Mohammed Cartoons was that more groups were encouraged to make fun of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

Actually no.

The man who was making such cartoons, found out soon enough that it is not easy for him to hurt sentiments of so many people and get away with it. There will be a price to pay for it.

Freedom of Expression but with Responsibility.

 

[313ghazi]

No - hate speech is nothing like hate crime, and neither fits in the situation under discussion.

If anything, this law itself can be defined as a form of indirect hate speech, given its potential to be abused to target and destroy the lives of others as has been done with the Blasphemy laws.

With respect to the definitions of both:

Hate Speech: "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation"

Hate Crime: "a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds."

As you can see, disrespecting or abusing historical and/or religious figures does not in any way fall in the category of hate speech.

Abusing historical religious figures isn't hate speech? Of course it is. TBH I I assumed we already had laws preventing this.