We have previously discussed the outrageous case of Asia Bibi who is the latest victim of a death sentence under the medieval Sharia law system imposed in Muslim countries — sentenced to death for insulting Mohammad. Now, a court in Lahore upheld the verdict and affirmed the death sentence for the 50-year-old motion of five. She said that her nightmare began when she took a drink of water from a bucket being used by Muslim women. As a Christian, she was viewed as unclean and the women assailed her and later accused her of saying something insulting to Mohammad. Not only did leading Muslim clerics in Pakistan support her execution but one offered a reward for any faithful Muslim to murder her.
The incident leading to the charge began when Bibi fetched water as a farmhand and offered it to other women. The Muslim women refused because it had been touched by a Christian (Bibi) and thus “polluted.” Later a mob tried to beat her to death and she was rescued by police, who then charged her with blasphemy after the same women accused her of saying bad things about the Prophet Mohammed.
Even assuming that she insulted Mohammad, such an offense should not justify a criminal charge, let alone death, as a matter of basic human rights and civil liberties. It is the latest example of the inherent conflict between free speech and free exercise on one hand and Sharia law and Islamic orthodoxy on the other. However, We have seen a comprehensive crackdown on the West on free speech under some laws combating hate speech, discriminatory speech, and even disruptive speech. While the first amendment only deals with government action, we have become increasingly concerned over the chilling effect of private action over speech. For example, we have discussed the controversy involving Yale University Press. 
In a shocking decision, Yale University Press published Jytte Klausen’s “The Cartoons That Shook the World” (on the cartoons that led to riots and over 200 killed in protests worldwide). However, Yale removed the the 12 cartoons from the book so not to insult Muslims. Thus, you could read the book but not actually see the cartoons themselves. It was a decision by Yale University Press that is still discussed as anti-intellectual and cowardly in academic circles.
Bibi now has 30 days to appeal to the nation’s highest court.
In a chilling statement, Qanta Ahmed, a British-born Pakistani human rights activist, said that usually cases do not get this far because “The vast majority of those being accused of blasphemy don’t even make it to execution. They are usually lynched or murdered in custody.” We recently discussed such a case of a jailer killing a Christian accused of blasphemy in prison.
For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt and Pakistan to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
These cases reflect the true purpose of blasphemy laws: to silence minority sects and religious critics in the name of a “true faith.” Fortunately the effort of Hillary Clinton and others in the Administration to reach a compromise on blasphemy failed, though there continue to be efforts to create an international standard.
Muslim nations will remain in fundamental conflict with human rights until they renounce the crimes of apostasy and blasphemy. There are no greater offense to basic civil liberties than to punish people for expressing their religious beliefs and following the religion (including no religion) of their choice. It is difficult to see the moral distinction between extremists like Islamic State beheading Westerners and nonbelievers and our allies like Pakistan executing the unfaithful. One certainly has a longer “judicial process” but both are enforcing medieval religious canons with lethal effect. Indeed, the judicial process is based on religious dictates and rejects claims of free speech and free exercise by definition. While such cases can later lead to commutations (after international outcry), the basic claim remains the same: those who do not believe as we do are worthy of death.
Source: CNN
Fundamentalism produces fanatics who have a strange attraction to one another.
I have decided that liberalism is a form of fundamentalism. It has all the hallmarks.
trooperyork, you may find some troubling enlightenment if you do some reading on the Thirty-year’s War. Things today still pale in comparison. And, you may even find more troubling, if you are not Catholic, you may want to thank an Islamic neighbor.
Islam a religion of peace? This woman offers the other women some water, and she gets beat up and now faces death?
Karen, I totally agree. My point has always been, “how do we know who the good guys are?” And, as of lately, how are we qualified to determine who the good guys are? I think we should trade with them, which is a win for everybody, and not skew the logical succession of power and authority. They have to figure that out for themselves.
That being said, Pakistan is a troubling situation. They have quite a few nuclear weapons, and can have worldwide impact. On top of that, how can we trust our government to give us a straight story as to when there may be a real threat? I have no solution to offer for that scenario.
He let our ambassador be a human sacrifice to the faithful who were outraged by a Youtube video.
Or at least that is what they claimed.
(It was not a terrorist action….as they have repeated said over and over again)
You know who feels the same way as these murderous barbarians who want to kill this woman?
The guy who said;
“The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam..”
Slohrs – I think we should start voting with our dollars, and turn off the faucet of aid to countries that abuse human rights like this.
We cannot change their laws, but we don’t have to support them financially if they’re going to act this way, either.
“Muslim nations will remain in fundamental conflict with human rights until they renounce the crimes of apostasy and blasphemy.”
I agree.
I pray for this poor woman, yet another victim of the war on women going on under Sharia Law. Poor lady, and her family. I hope the State Department tries to negotiate her release and immigration here as a refugee.
Paul,
the accusation that any weekend bloggers “cannot allow people who are religious to be tolerated at any level” is false. Please provide some evidence of that ridiculous attack.
Religion has the capacity to allow people to improve themselves by following a series of centering routines. When people start acting on others in the name of their religion, they are usually outside of their religious doctrine. People generally seem to forget that though. Probably because of the early war-like Christians that created a standard. Constantine put his stamp on that. I won’t condemn all practicing religious people because a good percentage do, indeed, not practice well, or are outright hypocrites. We have plenty of those in this country. Look at all the maniacs in polyester slacks on the TV who still tell us what to do and who to kill while considering themselves part of the Christian tradition.
Once again, I declare that religion is just another tool for the dark side of human nature. The same claim could be made of the military. Look at all the men, women, and children we “librate in ‘raq” in ’03. It wasn’t just one person, either, and it was done for a multitude of reasons, none very good. Also, when I state that, I won’t hide under the “get out of hell free” shield of “ongoing policy started by whoever absolves us of anything we could have done wrong” in the process of destroying another country.”
When people want to do bad things, they use what is handy. For those people who don’t have a lot else, Islam is the handiest thing.
I suppose that I will get killed if I go inside any pirate territory which has muslims with swords, guns or even roses. But for reasons that I need not express here, I must state that Prophet Mohammed was a no good low down rotten pedophile and a son of a itchBay. Any human who reveres him needs to have their own daughter of under age 16 raped by an adult. There is only one religion worth considering in this world and it is Eighth Day Dog Adventists. Christianity hangs on a thread (look how they hung the guy), Islam is pedophile, and the rest with the exception of Bhuddism are apCray. Nuff said.
Anti-religious speech often brings out an extremely strong reaction, even here on this blog. We see what happens anytime a weekend blogger or commenter speaks out about religion. The thread grows into the hundreds of comments. There are people who cannot live their religious lives and keep it to themselves. Their inability to tolerate the non religious or those of a different religion results in continuous strife. In misogynistic, male dominated societies that have a state relgion, like Pakistan, religion is deadly.
Annie – what I find most interesting is that a few of the weekend bloggers cannot allow people who are religious to be tolerated at any level. It is the ranting in the blogs that sets of the comments and then both sides pile in.
An intellectually persuasive theology has no need to kill and maim people to maintain itself.
Cut off all food aide to Pakistan…… Starvation is better than living under Islam!
We should be hearing soon about the horrors of the glass ceiling, and pay inequities, soon.
Blasphemy and apostasy are “crimes” that have no place in a civil society or secular governments. Theocracies are dangerous to human beings and the US should not provide any support to such governments, NONE.
Their countries, their law but we don’t have to give them money or arms to enforce their awful policies.
As to an international blasphemy standard, such a standard is offensive and wrong. The only “standard” that would be acceptable is that there is NO SUCH thing and that under international law prosecutions for such “crimes” are violation of human rights. Obama is wrong to support any type of criminalization of “anti religious” speach. What more do churchs and other religious entities want; they already receive billions of our tax dollars and enjoy many other religious privileges and more seem to be on the way.
It is their country. Nice to think these people have nuclear weapons. We keep propping up these places Why we don’t just let them have their infighting and trade with whomever is left standing? If ISIS would attack those people, are we really supposed to be able to pick the good guy??? Come on…
Their country, their law. I do not agree with it, but then I have seen the mess the EU has made in the UK. Do you really want some international standard? And who would be on the committee to judge it? Probably the same people who are ignoring it.
There seems little credible proof that she is even guilty. It seems on its face a specious claim by the Muslim women against the Christian woman.
Barbaric.
While there are Muslims practicing religion peacefully, Islam is not a peaceful religion regardless of how it may wish to portray itself in the West to non believers.
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war