4 ms·
An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a theocracy.
by littletimmy 9y ago
An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a theocracy.
- int_19h 9y agoI 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 agoNevertheless, 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 agoI think for most westerners, the real WTF is the notion that any act of blasphemy can potentially deserve punishment at all.
- selimthegrim 9y agoAs 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 agoI 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 ago295AB 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"