Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online Politics

Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images 949

Posted by timothy
from the certainly-should-block-wikipedia-too-then dept.
jitendraharlalka writes with this excerpt from Al Jazeera English: "A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encouraged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called 'Draw Mohammed Day' is blasphemous. ... 'We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers,' Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images

Comments Filter:
  • Seems reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:03PM (#32270674)

    A theocracy would probably want to ban intentional mass blasphemy, especially when it was done for commercial purposes.

    • by jcr (53032) <jcrNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:06PM (#32270706) Journal

      There is no such thing as a reasonable theocracy.

      -jcr

      • by phantomfive (622387) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:37PM (#32271932) Journal
        Which is really just an extension of the principle that, any time power is concentrated in a small group of people, it will go bad eventually.
    • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:46PM (#32271220) Journal

      Please explain how "Draw Mohammed Day" was done for commercial purposes.

  • Mohammed? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:04PM (#32270686)

    You mean the pedophile?

    • Re:Mohammed? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:59PM (#32271406)

      Funny thing is, you really have to either admit that the Quran is open to some interpretation, or admit that marrying kids is okay. Some people say that, because sometimes at the time the first digit was left off when it was known (ex a 23 year old marking their age as 3 when it was known that they were in their twenties), so some say Aisha may have been 19. I don't know if that's true or not though, so take that with a grain of salt. Also, some might say that, because such things were products of their time, it should be viewed in the context day. For the hardline theotards though, that's reinterpreting the Quran, which is a big no-no, but you never hear then really caring that their profit is a pedophile. The finer points of logic are often lost on people like that. Muslims can believe whatever they want, but they should think about it. Do you modernize and moderate your faith, or is you god's number one dude a pedophile? Those are your only two options, pick one.

    • Re:Mohammed? (Score:5, Insightful)

      Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children [wordpress.com], so I guess the great karma circle is now complete. Or else it's a death spiral of censorship. Either way, the outrage brigade gets what they want and the rest of us will just have to accept a more restricted web whether we live in Karachi or California.

  • LOL.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Em Emalb (452530) <ememalb@gmai3.14l.com minus pi> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:04PM (#32270690) Homepage Journal

    LOLMohammad?

    Someone has had to have done that somewhere, right?

    I don't get it. I mean, sure, I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.

    But fuck man, relax. It's just those heathen bastards (who are gonna go to hell according to you anyway) so let them have their fun. Please, tell me, exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad? Dude's been dead for a long time. Trust me, he don't give a damn.

    *Has this been deemed an official religion?

    • Re:LOL.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:09PM (#32270732)

      exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad?

      The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah. Of course, that's not the way it's treated any more.

      • Re:LOL.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:29PM (#32270994)

        The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah. Of course, that's not the way it's treated any more.

        That's partly true. There are plenty of images of Mohamed in arabic history books. There are even rulings by various religious authorities that such images are fine. Of course there are also rulings by the more crazy authorities that those images in the books are not OK.

        But there is also a whole bunch of attitude about insulting Mohamed that is in addition to the idolatry prohibition. Its comparable to all the ultra-conservative catholics freaking out about Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Serrano's "Piss Christ" - those guys both got plenty of death threats in response to their work.

      • Re:LOL.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by melikamp (631205) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:34PM (#32271056) Homepage Journal
        What I cannot wrap my head around are the instances where radicals want people in other countries, with different laws, to obey a radical Islamic law. WTF? How would they feel if the United States used violence to make them obey laws they don't care about? Oh, nevermind...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      To answer your *, yes, Buddhism pretty much is a religion. Though you'd be hard pressed to find any idol or deities associated with it. It aims to answer the same basic questions and tries to guide you in the same aspects of life.

      And also yes, Mohammed has been depicted quite a few times before, but not usually without reprimand or on such large scales. There was a cartoonist who depicted him, with a bomb for a turban, and that caused quite an uproar, as you can imagine. Not too long ago either.

      It is just r

    • Re:LOL.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:22PM (#32270916)

      I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.

      I don't. Adults having imaginary friends sounds more like a serious mental condition that needs professional treatment, not respect.

      • As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm? Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do. Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"
        • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:54PM (#32271346) Journal

          If you know he's imaginary, why would you need him anymore? Why does our hypothetical Christian need an imaginary friend to tell him not to be an asshat?

  • Blasphemy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash@omnif ... s.org minus city> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:08PM (#32270724) Homepage Journal

    How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bragador (1036480)

      They believe they have the truth. So, even if you don't believe, you would be sinning against their prophet and Allah. For them, you are simply blind. You don't have the right to a different opinion since yours would be false.

      It's the same thing with Christians that follow the rules by the book.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Omnifarious (11933) *

        So, basically, everybody is Muslim already whether they like it or not?

        • by PotatoFarmer (1250696) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:27PM (#32271814)
          Pretty much. One of my friends in the LDS once told me that it's fairly common practice for his church to secretly "baptize" non-Mormons whom they deem worthy of saving from the evils of whatever religion (or lack of religion) they currently practice. The targets of this event are apparently never told.

          I don't think I've ever been secretly inducted into another church, but I'm always careful to be an asshole to everyone just in case. To whit, I asked said friend if the baptism involves sneaking into the target's house and replacing all their underwear. He didn't seem to find that very funny.
          • by Phrogman (80473) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:09PM (#32272284) Homepage

            I read somewhere that the LDS has branches devoted to this, and that they are so heavily into genealogy because they believe they can baptize dead people by proxy. Thats what some elements of the Church of LDS are actively engaged in, baptizing our dead ancestors into their church so that come Judgement day, they all get to go to heaven (or whatever they actually believe happens, I am not sure).
            Mind you its no odder than those BA Christians who are actively hoping that Israel will go to war with the Palestinians because if they do it might herald the Second Coming.

            Personally, I can't help think the world would be a far better, more peaceful and saner place if all those people who follow religions "of the book" were gone from the Earth.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by masmullin (1479239)

        Christians that follow the rules by the book

        Define this please. I find that Christians who claim to follow "the book" are in fact, not following "the book." I find that the MORE they claim to follow the book, the less they actually are.

      • Re:Blasphemy? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:03PM (#32271452)

        Idiot.

        I'm not an apologist for either, but before you equalize the two religions, try this- (Note- To be able to complete this experiment, you'll have to perform these steps in the correct order.)

                  * Go to the Vatican. Start yelling that God doesn't exist. Bring a drawing of Jesus and spit on it.

                  * Now go to Mecca. Start yelling that Allah doesn't exist. Bring a drawing of the prophet and spit on it.

        Don't forget that the acts taken against you in Mecca will be state-sanctioned as well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GreatBunzinni (642500)

      How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.

      Let's take a look at the definition of blasphemy [reference.com]:


      blasphemy /blæsfmi/ Show Spelled[blas-fuh-mee] Show IPA
      –noun,plural-mies.
      1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
      2.Judaism.
      a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
      b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
      3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
      4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred,

  • Bomb me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:11PM (#32270760)
    -
    ( ) - Hi! I'm the Prophet Mohammed! I KILL YOU!
    -
    |
    /|\
    |
    / \

    Now kill everyone on Slashdot for Allah because of my "art".
  • by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:14PM (#32270802)

    I don't agree with how Thunderf00t is conveying his message but he has made an important point. Islamic Censorship has gone way way too far. I support free speech, and secular, rational thinking. I do think that religion is sort of the Human biological equivalent of a computer virus, or malware. (Most Windows users on the face of the Earth are infected with malware of some sort. Equivalently, most Human brains are infected with a Malware called Religion. The virus is different in different parts of the world, but its still a virus.

    Computer malware makes computers function in ways it shouldn't to propagate the virus. Religion makes Humans behave in ways or experience things in ways they shouldn't. Computer viruses are created by malicious Humans to steal money, and cover commit other crimes. Religions exist to steal money, and rationalize the committing of other crimes that would not normally be acceptable in secular culture.

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:14PM (#32270806)

    I can definitely understand iconoclasm - the desire to prevent mere symbols from being more important than the core idea. Applied to Islam, it would be a prophet's desire that his message not be cheapened by allowing it to be tied too deeply with its imperfect messenger.

    What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.

    Is that really the first priority for those who want to spread the ultimate revealed truth of the universe - playing image police against every person who is not a believer? Seems a rather silly priority to have in the context.

    Ryan Fenton

    • by Vellmont (569020) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:01PM (#32271428) Homepage


      What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.

      There's something about the human brain that makes it prone to crazy fanaticism. It doesn't matter if it's Islam, Christianity, or PETA. I really think it's more about the group dynamics and such that bring it about rather than the actual thing people are being fanatical about. Rational thought doesn't really enter into it. It's about defending and maintaining your group, not the actual offense.

    • "Simple" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:22PM (#32271756) Homepage Journal

      My God is real.
      Your God is not real
      My God doesn't want people to do X
      This applies to everyone because they're believing in the wrong God.
      Doing Gods work gets me into heaven.
      These people insult God, therefore killing them means I'm protecting God.
      Therefore God owes me a seat.

  • Duh! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:17PM (#32270832)
    Hello, it's called FACEbook! How long did you think it would be before Mohammed's face ended up on there?!
  • What does it take? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LoudMusic (199347) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @05:27PM (#32270982)

    What does it take to get Facebook banned in the US? I'm totally behind that project. /me checks his Facebook account.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd[ ]org ['ot.' in gap]> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:04PM (#32271476)

    No Facebook? ...
    This is the first time I wish I were Pakistani, and all my friends too. ^^

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...