4 ms·

This is absolutely false. Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system - it is very obviously not a theocracy. Pakistan created the Taliba

This is absolutely false. Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system - it is very obviously not a theocracy. Pakistan created the Taliban out of political necessity, and the United States is to blame for it. When the USA and Russia fought a proxy war in Afghanistan, it left the country in tatters. Pakistan got millions of refugees (1/5 of the population of Afghanistan was living in Pakistan at one time). Think of how Americans start to hyperventilate even at the thought of accepting a few thousand refugees. Pakistan took in millions - and it had to stabilize Afghanistan to restore order and stop the flow. At that time, Pakistan supported the Taliban so that the mess that the United States and Russia made could be controlled. Blame the Cold War, not Pakistan.

int_19h 9y ago
> Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system It also has a different set of laws, added later, that is based on Sharia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances
- littletimmy 9y ago
  An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a theocracy.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    I didn't say that it does. But it seems to be an important addition to the claim that "Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system". Hudood Ordinances are certainly not based on the British system. And they're a big part of the problem being discussed here.
    - selimthegrim 9y ago
      Nevertheless, the question of whether any given act of blasphemy is automatically deserving of a hadd punishment is by no means an open and shut case.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        I think for most westerners, the real WTF is the notion that any act of blasphemy can potentially deserve punishment at all.
        selimthegrim 9y ago
        As the child of an Pak expatriate, believe me I'd love to get there too. Unfortunately, you don't eat a cow like this all at once.
        int_19h 9y ago
        I didn't get an answer to my question in another thread; perhaps you could help with that? It is as follows: Did Pakistan have its blasphemy law in its current state since founding, or was it significantly broadened under Zia-ul-Haq? I'm genuinely curious about this, because if it's a later addition, then wouldn't several decades of Pakistan's existence without laws as stringent as they are today indicate that the society can actually handle this being dialed down quite a bit just fine?
        selimthegrim 9y ago
        295AB were put in the penal code by the British. 295C is due to Zia, and the current prime minister, during his first term in 1990-1, oversaw the removal of life imprisonment as an option leaving only the death penalty. The hardliners' response to your last argument gets tied up in something like "the British took us away from true Sharia" or something along those lines. On talk shows you hear "This is a law from Quran and Sunnah, not a man-made law"
flukus 9y ago
I'm not convinced the British system isn't a theocracy, at a very technical level anyway. The head of state is the head of the church after all. On a purely structural level it's almost a mirror of Iran.

int_19h 9y ago

> Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system It also has a different set of laws, added later, that is based on Sharia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinances

littletimmy 9y ago
An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a theocracy.
- int_19h 9y ago
  I didn't say that it does. But it seems to be an important addition to the claim that "Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system". Hudood Ordinances are certainly not based on the British system. And they're a big part of the problem being discussed here.
  - selimthegrim 9y ago
    Nevertheless, the question of whether any given act of blasphemy is automatically deserving of a hadd punishment is by no means an open and shut case.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      I think for most westerners, the real WTF is the notion that any act of blasphemy can potentially deserve punishment at all.
      - selimthegrim 9y ago
        As the child of an Pak expatriate, believe me I'd love to get there too. Unfortunately, you don't eat a cow like this all at once.
        int_19h 9y ago
        I didn't get an answer to my question in another thread; perhaps you could help with that? It is as follows: Did Pakistan have its blasphemy law in its current state since founding, or was it significantly broadened under Zia-ul-Haq? I'm genuinely curious about this, because if it's a later addition, then wouldn't several decades of Pakistan's existence without laws as stringent as they are today indicate that the society can actually handle this being dialed down quite a bit just fine?
        selimthegrim 9y ago
        295AB were put in the penal code by the British. 295C is due to Zia, and the current prime minister, during his first term in 1990-1, oversaw the removal of life imprisonment as an option leaving only the death penalty. The hardliners' response to your last argument gets tied up in something like "the British took us away from true Sharia" or something along those lines. On talk shows you hear "This is a law from Quran and Sunnah, not a man-made law"

flukus 9y ago

I'm not convinced the British system isn't a theocracy, at a very technical level anyway. The head of state is the head of the church after all. On a purely structural level it's almost a mirror of Iran.