[Ter]

'Facebook blasphemer' given death penalty

A man accused of posting blasphemous content to Facebook has been sentenced to death by a court in Pakistan.

Taimoor Raza was convicted after allegedly posting remarks about the Prophet Muhammad, his wives and companions within the site's comments.

The public prosecutor involved said he believed it was the first time the death penalty had been awarded in a case related to social media.

Human rights campaigners have expressed concern.

Facebook itself has yet to comment on the case.

The US firm previously announced in March that it was deploying a team to Pakistan to address the government's concerns about blasphemous content on its service, but added that it still wished to protect "the privacy and rights" of its members.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has described blasphemy as being an "unpardonable offence".
Religious debate

Raza's case was heard by an anti-terrorism court in Bahawalpur - about 309 miles (498km) from the capital Islamabad.

His defence lawyer said the 30-year-old had become involved in an argument about Islam on the social network with someone who had turned out to be a counter-terrorism official.

The public prosecutor said the accused had been arrested after playing hate speech and blasphemous material from his phone at a bus stop, following which his handset had been confiscated and analysed.

Raza will be able to appeal against the death penalty at Lahore High Court and then, if required, in Pakistan's Supreme Court.

The Express Tribune, a local newspaper, reported that the verdict came days after a college professor was refused bail in another case involving accusations of blasphemy on social media in Pakistan.

Amnesty International recently published a report critical of the country's blasphemy laws.

Its Pakistan campaigner, Nadia Rahman, has called for Raza's immediate release.

"Convicting and sentencing someone to death for allegedly posting blasphemous material online is a violation of international human rights law and sets a dangerous precedent," she told the BBC.

"No one should be hauled before an anti-terrorism court or any other court solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief online."



The developments come seven years after a Pakistan court temporarily blocked local access to Facebook after the social network was used to promote a contest to draw images of Prophet Muhammad - an act considered to be offensive by many Muslims.
Analysis - Tahir Imran, BBC Urdu social media editor

This is a dramatic time for Pakistani social media. Once considered a platform where people could express themselves freely, it is now a place where people worry about the consequences of commenting.

Instead of acting to restore confidence and safeguarding the masses' right to freedom of expression, the government has been busy making threats through TV and newspaper adverts.

This is happening with a clear understanding about the gravity that accusations of blasphemy can have. There have been several incidents of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands after such claims.

Human rights activists accuse the government of pushing through a controversial cyber-crimes law without addressing their concerns.

In a country where fewer people have been convicted of blasphemy than have been killed after being accused of the offence, this ruling will not calm nerves. And increasingly people prefer to use chat apps and closed groups to post content so that their thoughts cannot be seen by the wider public.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40246754

Pakistan!
What a ridiculous backward stupid country that is.
No decent country should allow such assholes to immigrate from there.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

You're forgetting the fact that this is the government and that people, the citizens, the people who will be immigrating to America and not the government officials, protested for his release. The government then had the "Facebook blasphemer" was released.

I think Americans should be letting the citizens of Pakistan, who protested for free speech, into their country. With the human rights of America declining, these Pakistani who fought for freedom in their country will be good influences to America.

[Saeko]

Wait a minute though. The article failed to explain how this is the West's fault.

[Ter]

You're forgetting the fact that this is the government and that people, the citizens, the people who will be immigrating to America and not the government officials, protested for his release.

I wish that were true for a large part of Pakistanis.
I am sure more than 90% of the population of Pakistan would approve the death penalty for blasphemers.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

And your sources for this are?

My sources are in the article you posted.

@Saeko

Yeah that is strange. I thought BBC was liberal? However the guy who wrote the article is also Pakistani so that may be the reason why.

[Ter]

According to the Pew Research Center, 76% of Pakistanis think that anyone leaving the religion of Islam should be put to death.
There is no specific graph about blasphemy but I am comfortable to think that both these questions would result in similar answers.



http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... ut-sharia/

It looks as if committing adultery is not a safe practice either...

[Decky]

Right wing people being right wing, how shocking. The world needs socialism now more than ever. You could end this in a couple of generations with brutal Stalinist repression and by the end of it the world be a utopia as close to heaven as anything that will actually exist can be.

[skinster]

I support socialism upon the people of Pakistan.

[Buzz62]

According to the Pew Research Center, 76% of Pakistanis think that anyone leaving the religion of Islam should be put to death.
There is no specific graph about blasphemy but I am comfortable to think that both these questions would result in similar answers.

OK so someone tell me again why The West should have any interest at all, in allowing migration of people who believe such abrasive things, into our much more progressively secular society?
We're doing a good job of keeping notions of Gawds and the like in proper perspective.
Why allow people in to our society who would actively rail against this?

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

Please tag me next time. The only way I can answer you is through notifications.

Anyways, this is exactly what I expected and I have a link and sources that prove that PEW could have potentially have gotten bad responses. Anyways here is the link, and here is the quote. Now I don't know how to officially quote, however I will just quote i.e. "" the paragraph that is from the article:

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/bill_ma ... rthy_poll/

"Am I saying that Maher and Harris are right in asserting that Muslims in general—or in other words, in their majority—hold savagely violent, intolerant and misogynistic views? That would be the case if I trusted the Pew poll. But I don’t. What I am questioning here is not the methodology of the respected research Institute, but rather the genuineness of the answers provided by many of the 38,000 individuals it surveyed. Just picture the typical polling interview. Imagine you live in a country where Islam is the religion of the State, where criticizing the religion (let alone leaving it) is a criminal offense, where the educational system and the pervasive state media gang up every day to hammer that Islam is the highest moral norm ever—where, hell, even the opposition (mostly made of Islamist groups) does nothing but double down on religious intransigence… And here comes the Pew pollster, a total stranger with a list of disturbing questions pertaining to religion—questions to which the wrong answers can get you in trouble in many ways… Not the best conditions to conduct a credible opinion poll."

"Polls, of course, are anonymous, and trained pollsters have their ways to fabricate empathy, including asking the interviewees if they had a good day before engaging them on more serious matters. But as nice as a warming-up chitchat might be, it simply cannot fend off the self-preservation instinct built over a lifetime’s experience of psychological pressure. Of course, the extent of the pressure (which itself depends on the extent to which religion is used as a political tool for social control) varies from one Muslim country to another. But then, so do the answers. While the Pew numbers indicate a high prevalence of the opinion that Sharia should be the law of the land in countries where Islam is the religion of the State (91 percent in Iraq, 83 percent in Morocco, 74 percent in Egypt…), the rate drops to 12 percent in Turkey, where secularism is a forefront constitutional principle. In other words, the more the questioned citizens are coerced into religiosity, the more likely they are to pick the safest answers—those consistent with what they were force-fed about religion since they were kids—when a pollster comes around."

"The tricky part is that Western liberals such as Maher and Harris are the first ones to denounce the lack of freedom of thought and opinion in Muslim countries. However, they see no contradiction in trusting opinion polls as solid evidence of what Muslims think. Actually, let’s get to the bottom of this. If the religious opinions of Muslims are questionable, then so is their adherence to religion in the first place. I’m not saying that no citizen from Morocco to Indonesia genuinely adheres to Islam. I’m just stating the obvious: no one knows how many really do—and no one will ever know until people are free to form and state their religious opinions freely. This has an important implication: all of the mainstream Western debate about what 1.6 billion Muslims think is built on the false premise that… there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the first place"

So not only could've the answerers not answer honestly (due to fears of speaking their mind since speaking your mind would get you killed in many Islamic countries but many of them probably honestly think that their governments suck but just are afraid that the poll is government run and made to weed out the "infidels" because you could do anything and be called an infidel in an Islamic country (source: I live in one)

So basically, it's comparable to saying that North Koreans shouldn't be allowed into the US because of a poll that says many of them love Kim Jong Un and worship him not understanding that many North Koreans live in an environment where freedom of speech is prohibited and often you would be killed for it. So if a bunch of North Koreans are too afraid to speak their minds, they'll just say positive things about Kim Jong UN so they don't die.

In fact, if I was given a poll by some strangers I didn't know, I would just put in as much Iranian government propaganda as possible so I don't get taken to jail. And many other Iranians agree.

In fact your article proves my point. If you could be sent to jail for speaking your mind in Pakistan, why would any of the pollers do anything else but speak the agenda of the government?

@Buzz62

See my post.

[GandalfTheGrey]

OK so someone tell me again why The West should have any interest at all, in allowing migration of people who believe such abrasive things, into our much more progressively secular society?
We're doing a good job of keeping notions of Gawds and the like in proper perspective.
Why allow people in to our society who would actively rail against this?

Because maybe the sort of people who want to migrate are most likely not of that ilk?

Didn't it ever occur to you that there's a reason why people want to move away from that backward culture and into a progressive one? I have never understood this argument that muslims coming to the west must necessarily be sinister and of the same mind as the backward culture they are abandoning. It frankly doesn't pass the common sense test.

[Ter]

@Oxymandias
I appreciate your reply but the Pew Research Centre is a trustworthy organisation, recognised as such by about everyone.
Salon.com on the other hand is a publication known for its liberal views. I suppose it is difficult to admit that large parts of the human population hold such backward views even today but stating an opinion (and it is nothing more than an opinion based on suppositions) does not nullify the results of the opinion poll.

To me it looks as if the author of the article does not like the results of the opinion poll and looks for reasons why this is so.

And finally, I looked at the article you referenced to and found the author's name to be Ahmed Benchemsi. I am not necessarily jumping to conclusions here but the motivations of the author might be coloured by his background.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

I never said it wasn't, I said that the participants could potentially have not spoken their minds given the environment they grew up in. In science this is an experimental variable which are things to be avoided. I don't see how that is relevant. I think their idea still holds the same weight. It is a good insight and one you have yet to refute. That is not an opinion, it is presenting the hypothesis that the people who did the polls were afraid to speak their minds and it does nullify it. If the hypothesis is correct, it delegitimatizes the entire poll since if the participants do not speak their minds, then we could call into question whether or not they true believe such beliefs. We can even call into question whether or not the participants were actually Muslim and not simply pretending to be.

That in fact may be the case. However a hypothesis stands on it's own, regardless on who it came from. Context has no place here. The hypothesis is well thought out and can potentially be true. I live in Iran and many people I know would also regurgitate the government's agenda if they were asked by strangers to do a poll. They would not risk going to jail and thus be afraid of speaking their minds.

Again, that is irrelevant. The hypothesis stands on it's own and you have yet to attack the hypothesis by itself which goes to show how strong it is. All you do is discredit it based on the context, not based on the hypothesis on it's own terms. It doesn't matter where a good argument came from. If it did then I could discredit your argument right now by saying you are biased based on your political beliefs and that, because of this, your argument doesn't matter. I think we can agree that is ridiculous since if so then no one would have political debates since everyone would be biased and no one would get anything done.

[Ter]

@Oxymandias
Even if there is some truth in the hypothesis, the supposition that the polled gave false answers might be true for some of them but certainly not for a significant part of the polled. That would not make statistical sense.

Also it should be noted that the results of the polls in other societies in the same regions are quite similar and therefore believable. The results are in fact quite similar according to the region but dissimilar in different regions.

The opinion of one author in a liberal publication, based on suppositions cannot in any believable way undo the research of a reputable organisation.

I stand by my post and by the results of the Pew research.

[Verv]

Opinion polls do not actually reflect that, nor does the level of integration that is occurring in Europe, Gandalf. I think that the opinion polls tend to reflect that the Muslims who come are still quite more religious than the natives, and the fact that British pubs vanish and are replaced with mosques and tea houses further proves that....

Not to mention the way that they become incredibly insular.

But if you have some stunning facts that counter this... Please post them. I could use some blue pilling.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

The poll did not give false answers, the people who were polled did. This is due to cultural differences. Free speech does not exist both in law and as a concept in Middle Eastern countries. Also you have no proof that it was not a significant part of the polled (this goes the same for me) nor do you have any idea what "statistical sense", wait a second, what the fuck even is "statistical sense"? Is there a branch of logic on statistics I never heard of?

But it also gives further credit to the hypothesis and the article does point it out. Turkey, for example, had a lower amount of people believing that Sharia law should be applied everywhere. This is due to the fact that Turkey had been secularized before and thus people are more likely to speak their mind. Meanwhile in Iraq and Iran, the government is very authoritarian and thus people are less likely to speak their minds. And especially in Iran people are highly liberal and hate their government however if you looked at PEW you would think the opposite. This is because of the cultural context of Iran that lead to a lack of free speech. So since Iranians don't want to be jailed, the speak the government's agenda.

It is a hypothesis. An opinion is an assumption based on no evidence. A hypothesis is an observation with testable evidence. The author presented a hypothesis since anyone can test his claim to see if it is false and there is observable evidence that the author provided which you seem to ignore. Also you're missing the point. First, the hypothesis stands on it's own. It isn't the "opinion of one author in a liberal publication" it is "a strong argument that can't be disproved" stop thinking in terms of context. Like I said, if context were to really matter in terms of arguments, I could say that you are completely wrong and that your arguments are wrong because you are conservative and therefore, biased. However that's not how it works does it? We attack each others arguments not on the basis of our political alignment but on the basis of the arguments themselves. So tell me exactly, why the fuck would this be different? What does his background have to do with the legitimacy of his argument? Ok he's biased but the argument still stands. You can't seem to attack so you dismiss it by talking about the person's background when, in reality it makes no difference.

If the authors background annoys you so much then how about this, pretend a white christian conservative said what the author said. Hell you can make pretend anyone said what the author said it doesn't matter who. Now tell me, does this change the argument in anyway? No, it changes absolutely nothing about the argument. Why? Because the argument still stands. It stands regardless of who says it because it's a goddamn good argument.

Ter, you would stand by your political beliefs regardless of anything anyone says to you. If there was 100% proof that you were 100% wrong you would ignore it completely.

[MistyTiger]

@Verv Heya Verv, LTNS in PoFo! What's up?

I knew one girl from Pakistan. And if not for her headscarf, she seemed very westernized to me. Not all immigrants are crazy extremists who want to kill and bring devastation everywhere they go with their anti-West views.

[Ter]

The poll did not give false answers, the people who were polled did.

that is the hypothesis of the author, Ahmed Benchemsi.
It is based on nothing else but his suppositions.
To claim that a majority of 38,000 respondents would give wrong answers is more than a stretch, it is totally unbelievable in my opinion.

It is a hypothesis. An opinion is an assumption based on no evidence. A hypothesis is an observation with testable evidence

Please show us that evidence. It does not exist.

First, the hypothesis stands on it's own. It isn't the "opinion of one author in a liberal publication" it is "a strong argument that can't be disproved" stop thinking in terms of context.

But it is exactly that, the opinion of one author in a liberal publication.
Show me proof that it isn't.

What does his background have to do with the legitimacy of his argument? Ok he's biased but the argument still stands. You can't seem to attack so you dismiss it by talking about the person's background when, in reality it makes no difference.

Nobody is totally unbiased and you just agreed with me.

Ter, you would stand by your political beliefs regardless of anything anyone says to you. If there was 100% proof that you were 100% wrong you would ignore it completely.

With all due respect, that is a laughable conclusion.
It is you who dismisses the result of a very large and credible opinion poll because you do not like the outcome.
And please tell me what my political beliefs are because I do not have any specific ones.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

Yes.
There is in fact objective evidence to be seen and the author gives it. If you think they are suppositions then you have to give proof for it.
It isn't about false or wrong answers. It's about honest and unhonest answers
But it is equally unbelievable to think that a majority did make honest answers given what we know about Middle Eastern governments and politics.
Note that I am not saying that a majority gave honest answers nor unhonest answers. I am simply stating that the hypothesis presented delegitimatizes the poll in terms of providing honest answers.
If correct the poll needs to be redone.

It's literally in the post:

"What I am questioning here is not the methodology of the respected research Institute, but rather the genuineness of the answers provided by many of the 38,000 individuals it surveyed. Just picture the typical polling interview. Imagine you live in a country where Islam is the religion of the State, where criticizing the religion (let alone leaving it) is a criminal offense, where the educational system and the pervasive state media gang up every day to hammer that Islam is the highest moral norm ever—where, hell, even the opposition (mostly made of Islamist groups) does nothing but double down on religious intransigence… And here comes the Pew pollster, a total stranger with a list of disturbing questions pertaining to religion—questions to which the wrong answers can get you in trouble in many ways… Not the best conditions to conduct a credible opinion poll."

The author stated that many people who live in Islamic countries feel afraid to speak their true opinions and that they are feed propaganda about Islam. Due to this their answers could potentially be unhonest opinions due to fear. This is literally in the first paragraph but because you didn't read it, you missed this part. I also confirmed this. I am an Iranian who lived in Iran for his entire life. Iranians are by far one of the most liberal people I know and hate the government and are very anti-authoritarian and if given a poll like this, would quickly repeat the government agenda in fear of death.

No, it is not an opinion, a hypothesis since it is testable and based on evidence.

Ok then I'll show you proof. Your one conservative PoFo user therefore your argument is invalid. It doesn't matter how good your argument is, because you are a conservative PoFo user, your argument will never be right. This is what you are doing now. You are not separating the argument from the person. You are saying that because a person is a liberal author, that their argument is invalid. That is stupid.

?
What? Did you miss the point again? Yes, he is bias but his argument stands on it's own. It doesn't matter what mouth the argument comes from, as long as it is a good argument it is legitmate. If this was not the case then EVERYONES opinions would be wrong because EVERYONE is biased just like you said. And since EVERYONE is biased, this means that we have to tackle arguments and not disregard them because they are biased.

I didn't dismiss it at all and neither did the author. All I said was that if the hypothesis was true (and it seems to be true since you can't refute it seriously the easiest part of arguing with you is when you try to refute the hypothesis. Everything else is just me trying to help you separate the argument from the person) then this delegitimizes the poll making it untrustworthy. I never said that the poll has everything completely wrong and if I did, prove it.

You believe that Islam, a book and a pile of scrolls, is responsible for most of the problems in the world and you enjoy news of Muslims dying and want the Middle East to be nuked. Those are the only political beliefs relevant here anyway and they are extreme enough to bump you to far-right.

[neopagan]

Most of the Islamic blasphemy cases publicized recently are pretty weak, even if you believe that rubbish. So as a favour to them, I'll try to do better. The angel Gabriel did not come to Mohamed with the contents of the Koran. They appeared in his fevered mind while standing on a milking stool shafting his donkey. The donkey was one he used in show with his sister whose disguise was the origin of covering up Muslim women.