This article on the BBC reports on the blocking of Wikipedia in Pakistan because of "blasphemous content".

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) had demanded that the "blasphemous content" be removed; Wikipedia had removed some, but not all, and so have been blocked.

I have written before in this thread about how ridiculous it has to have legislation against blasphemy, because:

• One religion's doctrine is another religion's blasphemy,
• Holy books often contain so-called history which contradicts established historical facts (and Wikipedia contains a lot of history).

Wikipedia embodies a plurality of views and religions, and some of its content will inevitably be seen as blasphemous by some.

Whilst Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state, its constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The table to the right shows the mix of religious beliefs in Pakistan, and shows that, despite Islam being by far the majority religion, it is not the only one in Pakistan. Monotheistic religions such as Islam and Christianity consider the beliefs of multi-theistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and and Paganism to be inherently blasphemous, and vice versa. Does this mean that Hindus can petition to have much Islamic online material similarly blocked on the basis that it is, to them, blasphemous; I suspect not, which would mean that the laws against blasphemy are biased and flawed.

When will we see an end to the hypocrisy and stupidity of legislation against blasphemy?

I think it is time that the freedom from laws about blasphemy was declared an inalienable human right, and international sanctions brought against states that have them.

According to this story on the BBC, the Pakistani government has asked FaceBook to help them to fight against blasphemy in content posted by Pakistanis on the social media website. Well, good luck with that!

I have written before (here) about how ridiculous it is to try to legislate against blasphemy. It is equally ridiculous to try to censor social media on what is deemed by some to be blasphemous.

True, Pakistan has an official religion: Islam. There are, however, many different flavours of Islam. Most people have heard of Shiites and the Sunnis, but Pakistan also has quite a few Sufis (technically not a sect; Sufism exists in both Shia and Sunni Islam), whose beliefs and practices are considered by some Muslims to be blasphemous, which has resulted in persecution from time to time, including recently. There are a number of other Muslim sects or denominations, some of whom are present in Pakistan. Each of these sects have differences in their beliefs, doctrines and practices; how then can the Pakistani government even define what blasphemy is?

Then there is the question of democracy. Expressing and sharing opinions is part of the democratic process. Deciding whether blasphemy should be a crime, and what the definition of blasphemy is, is rather hard if you get arrested because your view on the matter is considered blasphemous.

It seems that too many people are unable to think rationally on this subject, so maybe we should let them see what a world would be like if blasphemy were more generally illegal and the laws were enforceable. What about a World Blasphemy Week, during which blasphemy would be illegal in all jurisdictions (so that state prosecutors could file blasphemy charges against all and sundry), and people could also file civil suit on the matter. The Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Pagans/Wiccan, and other multi-theistic religions could fight in court with the mono-theistic religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism about how many gods there are. The Roman Catholics could beat-out the issue of transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ during communion against the protestants. Then there is the issue of whether it is possible to have a personal relationship with your god (whichever god) or whether you need a priest or other anointed official to be an intermediary. We could all have such a grand fight about diet: Kosher, Halal, is it not OK to eat beef (as the Hindus believe) or are the Jains right about what we should eat (no meat or dairy, and nothing from below the ground). I think that after a week of such a free-for-all, we would all be firmly against laws and censorship about blasphemy (and anyone not able or willing to learn the lesson should perhaps be quietly locked in a padded cell in a mental hospital).

I feel very sorry for Mr. Masud Ahmad, whose unfortunate story is described here.

His situation (accused of blasphemy) got me thinking about the inherent hypocrisy of legislating against blasphemy.

The Koran (Quran) teaches that Muslims must be tolerant and respectful to other religions. Given the enormous differences between various religions (the number and nature of their gods, and their basic principles and doctrines), it is inevitable that something that is a basic tenet of belief to people of one faith can be in contradiction to the beliefs of people of other faiths. How, then, can you be tolerant of the existence and beliefs of a faith, and punish statements that contradict your own beliefs as blasphemy.

To put this more simply: laws against blasphemy are against the teachings of the Koran. This is strange, since most of the countries with laws against blasphemy are Muslim.

Christianity and Judaism have no such rules about religious tolerance, although Christianity does have examples and parables showing such tolerance. Luckily the days of laws against blasphemy in Christian (and the one Judaic) countries are over. If that changes, then we will all have cause to be very worried.