Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

capableweb

> on account of not blocking / removing sacrilegious contents

> Wikipedia was approached for blocking / removal of the said contents

> platform neither complied by removing the blasphemous content nor appeared before the Authority.

Anyone know what sacrilegious/blasphemous content they are referring to?

View on HN

This article https://www.geo.tv/latest/468510-pakistan-warns-blocking-wik... says depictions of Muhammad and saying this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad is a Muslim. I'm not sure if that press conference was over the 2020 issue or the current one.

They disowned their one Nobel laureate and maybe one of the greatest minds of his generation because of his Islam being different from their Islam. That place is a failed nation. Thank fuck for the internet so the people aren’t insulated from the outside world.

Same thing happened to James Watson.

If I'm reading about the correct James Watson, this is not a fair or accurate comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race

Edit: the psychology of creating an account to make that particular comment is fascinating to me.

>Latin lover.

Ah, yes, the "Latin" skin pigment. From black in the Caribbean, to nordic White/Ginger found in Spain and Chile/Argentina. Very accurate.

No, it didn't — neither Crick or Watson had any consequences for their speech anywhere near the level of being exiled or facing prosecution. An institution cutting ties after you spend years making racist claims is a disappointing tarnish to your career, but it's nothing like going to jail or potentially facing the execution (Pakistan has the death penalty for blasphemy).

Abdul Salam was neither exiled nor did he face prosecution. Let's not get sensationalist. He left Pakistan long before the official moves against Ahmadis, and the reasons for his leaving were mundane: Petty politics at the university in Pakistan.

The first paragraph of that Wikipedia page says this:

> At the very commencement of his accession, he found himself forced into exile from Pakistan in response to pressure from the Government of Pakistan.

Is that inaccurate?

Link? His Wikipedia page does not have this text, and it was last edited days ago.

Never mind: You are talking about Mirza. I'm talking about the Nobel Laureate. Two different people.

Right, that explains it - too much going on in this thread.

The Pakistani government even removed the word "Muslim" from his headstone. Sick backward country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam#Death

Are there artistic depictions of Muhammed on Wikipedia?

Yes, and that's been the cause for several previous blocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#Pakist...

Yes, there is in fact an entire category dedicated to "Cultural depictions of Muhammad": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cultural_depictions_o...

Includes a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends (South Park episode) which contains an image of Muhammad.

There's an entire article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

while it may be tempting to condense the concern to the most virulent objections of an extreme, it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. the Holy Quran and Sunnah are effectively the books by which this nation is governed, and as such any charge of blasphemy is taken with a seriousness bordering on the academic.

this blasphemy charge could stem from any of the big 8, but the specific charges would be laid out in an almost arduous detail to the The Federal Shariat Court to make the case. only the supreme court of Pakistan can overrule the FSC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_in_Pakistan

daily Pakistan reports this is due to 'sacrilege,' a far less dire charge:

https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/01-Feb-2023/pakistan-degrade...

the PTA (telecom authority) is committed to ensuring a safe online experience for all Pakistani citizens according to local laws, similar to content laws in the US and UK.

> it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam.

No? Saudi Arabia exists

Well, no. Saudi Arabia is the portion of the Ottoman Empire that Ibn Saud grabbed in the early 20th century from other rival warlords. Islam and Sharia were definately guiding principles in administration, but it was no more Islamic than its neighbors.

Pakistan is different since its defining trait was to be carved out as a homeland for the Muslims of South Asia, rather than anything inherent in the land itself - its citizenry was outlined long before its actual land borders.

> it bears remembrance that Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. the Holy Quran and Sunnah are effectively the books by which this nation is governed

Oh so that makes censorship ok? Bigotry is fine too, it’s all in the name of Islam, right?

Why didn’t you say so, that obviously activates the “free from all consequences” card. /s

This is not the catch-all excuse you think it is.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is confused by this comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_carto...

The Wikipedia article about Charlie Hebdo has one. I assume it is not the only one:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_issue_No._1178

Reply on news.ycombinator.com