Pentagon Board Report: "US 'alienating' world's Muslims"

C'mon, WH, you can't expect these guys to actually use facts when making their bigoted arguments!?!?!?!

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya

You think, your links overturn the court's decission I quoted?

As far as I know, the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zaheer-ud-din v. The State (1993 SCMR 1718) is regarded as the the most important judgement of a Pakistani court on the fundamental right to freedom of religion since Pakistan came into being in 1947.

I. Introduction

The decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zaheer-ud-din v. The State 1993 SCMR 1718 can be regarded as the the most important judgement of a Pakistani court on the fundamental right to freedom of religion since Pakistan came into being in 1947. The case contains ground-breaking judicial pronouncements on the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion in an Islamic state and discusses in extenso the legal definition of religion: it is for this reason that this decision is of interest to anybody concerned with the development of modern Islamic law.

III. CONCLUSION

Zaheer-ud-din v. The State is a problematic decision. Not only does it confirm the legality of the continued persecution of members of the Ahmadiyya community, which is in itself a worrying prospect, but it also attempts to establish a new interpretation of the scope and the limits of fundamental rights in Pakistan. This restrictive interpretation of fundamental rights stands in stark contrast with the recent development of Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan, which is based on the argument that Islamic law can be used to add new rights to the list of fundamental rights contained in the Constitution rather than to limit them.

The assertion that religious term stand on the same footing as proprietary rights to the use of terms in commercial transactions constitutes a radical departure from established Pakistani law and creates a number of difficulties. Who is to determine which terms are the exclusive property of which religious community? The Supreme Court leaves this question open but indicates that in an Islamic state like Pakistan the state and the courts as the guardians of Islam are under an obligation to take measurers to prevent Islam from being 'usurped' by imposters. The actual mechanism of the registration of copyrights to religious terminology are, however, not discussed. In such a scenario the state and the courts are reduced to the guardians of just one religion, i.e. the state religion, namely Islam. The Supreme Court's re-definition of the role of Islamic law in Pakistan's legal system is also unprecedented: Islamic law is regarded as the positive law of the land, capable of restricting all fundamental rights, and binding on both the courts and the legislator. Consistently applied, such a principle would make the continued existence of statute law superfluous since judges could apply Islamic directly without any reference to other sources of law. Finally, the tenor of the decision deserves comment. The Supreme Court's choice of words, like for instance its comparison of Ahmadis with Salman Rushdi, constitutes an new element in the legal development of Pakistan and begs a troubling question: could it be that religious sentiments rather than sound legal logic constitute the underlying ratio decidendi of the decsion?

Pakistani Blasphemy Law

An old blasphemy law, which was written in 1927 during during colonial days, banned insults directed against any religion. In 1986, dictator General Zia-Ul Haw modified the law to protect only Islam. The law require a life imprisonment or a life sentence for anyone who defiled the name of Muhammad or committed other blasphemy. In 1990, a religious court ruled that the penalty for crimes under the law (Section 295-C of the country's Constitution) is execution.

Iqbal Haider, then the Law Minister, urged reform of the blasphemy law because several individuals had been falsely accused. There was a suspicion that the motivations of their accusers was to settle old scores or to intimidate others. In response, some extreme Fundamentalist Muslim leaders put a price of $40,000 on Haider's head. On 1994-JUL-28, Amnesty International urged prime minister, Benazir Bhutto to change the law because it was being used to terrorize religious minorities.

The AI press release stated: "Pakistan's blasphemy laws are so vaguely formulated that they encourage, and in fact invite, the persecution of religious minorities or non-conforming members of [the] Muslim majority."

Benazir Bhutto attempted to change the law, but was unsuccessful. She did direct all district magistrates to release any accused persons under this law until their case had first been investigated. A subsequent prime minister, Nawaz Sharif won two thirds of the seats in parliament in 1997-JAN with strong support from Muslim religious fundamentalists. His government has reversed the ruling of the former prime minister. Individuals are now being arrested for blasphemy, and held without bail, while their cases are being investigated. No Christian charged with this crime has ever been granted bail.

The government is considering appending to the blasphemy law an amendment that will provide heavy penalties in the event of false accusations. As of mid-2002, only the testimony of a single Muslim is sufficient to prosecute a non-Muslim on blasphemy charges.

Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of "The Satanic Verses." Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Mashi's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released.

http://www.alislam.org/sitemap/

Also, this seems like a good start to a discussion on why it's so important to separate religion and government.

Last I heard, it's already separate here.

FreeDuck wrote:

Also, this seems like a good start to a discussion on why it's so important to separate religion and government.

In other countries? Last I heard, it's already separate here.

... would have stricken Washington, Jefferson, or any of those people as abhorrent.

Several of the founding fathers in fact noted that the new constitution would be adequate for governing and maintaining the peace amongst a religious and righteous people, but that was about the limit of it. I'm guessing that they figured it unnecessary to add that to govern a bunch of a$$#oles, you'd need some sort of brutal tyranny...

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

JustWonders wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Also, this seems like a good start to a discussion on why it's so important to separate religion and government.

In other countries? Last I heard, it's already separate here.

There is nothing in any of our founding documents about a "separation of church and state" or any such. All there actually is is a prohibition against any branch of government attempting to establish an OFFICIAL religion such as had existed in the nations from whence our forefathers came. The present idea of banishing every possible mention of religion or God from anything and everything connected in any way to government funding would have stricken Washington, Jefferson, or any of those people as abhorrent.

There is nothing in any of our founding documents about a "separation of church and state" or any such. All there actually is is a prohibition against any branch of government attempting to establish an OFFICIAL religion such as had existed in the nations from whence our forefathers came. The present idea of banishing every possible mention of religion or God from anything and everything connected in any way to government funding would have stricken Washington, Jefferson, or any of those people as abhorrent.