Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images 949

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Re:What A Mess (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:20PM (#32270882)

    Or, maybe, those progressive Muslims who get their facebook banned will have one more reason to not like the old guard.

  • Re:LOL.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:29PM (#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:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:31PM (#32271026)

    Let me get this straight.
    -Representation of allah is forbidden.
    -to avoid muslims worshipping mohammad instead of allah, the rule that applied to allah now (since 16th century) also applies to mohammad.

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @06:46PM (#32271220) Journal

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

  • Re:LOL.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hurricane78 ( 562437 ) <deleted AT slashdot DOT org> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:06PM (#32271512)

    A Turkish friend of mine had a picture of all the “prophets” (including Mohammad) in his room when he was a child. I don’t thing anyone but the most mentally insane have a problem with it.

    But I’ll just way until Alabama forbids making jokes about Jesus and other “blasphemous” things. ^^

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DeadDecoy ( 877617 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:09PM (#32271556)

    One word... tolerance.

    Tolerance is a two way street. If they can't tolerate might rights, why should I tolerate their theological eccentricities? Especially when they're willing to be violent against a non-violent offender.

    So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

    I shouldn't have to "earn" the right to draw a caricature of Mohammed. It is my inalienable human right to do so in the first place.

    Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.

    Grow a pair of balls. Tyranny shouldn't be tolerated regardless of your age. I'm sure most Muslims are normal people. I don't have a grudge against them. I do however reserve the right to be a bigot against one who restricts my freedom of speech.

    Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?

    Plenty, but I have yet to see any of them get violent over a cartoon Jesus. Plus, most of the people I've actually met, who own guns, are dead serious in regards to their use of such a hunting tool. So, your implication that people who own guns and are Christian are prone to violence shows just how bigoted you are.

  • quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems

    No, actually, it was done to demonstrate our ideals and our courage. We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.

    I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone,

    How is it being forced down anyone's throat? Unless something very strange is going on, you chose to click on this story. You could've ignored it. Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing, and in fact, it would be much more in line with the reason behind that particular religious restriction if they did. (You're not supposed to draw Mohammed so that people don't start worshiping Mohammed -- that was never likely in this case, and getting so worked up about it is focusing on the man instead of the deity, which is exactly what that restriction was supposed to prevent in the first place.)

    If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world, they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus. If they instead censor, riot, and kill, they'll prove they're stuck in the dark ages.

    Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.

    Figuratively up-in-arms, not literally. That's the difference.

    Oh, and they wouldn't be banned at the ISP level in the US.

    I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion

    So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone? That shows a profound lack of intelligence on your part.

    inciting hatred is pathetic!

    No, inciting hatred is impossible. No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to. What's pathetic is that mere words and pictures are enough for these people to willingly begin to hate.

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by T Murphy ( 1054674 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:32PM (#32271882) Journal
    A little harshly worded, but I agree with the parent (mod him up). The "Don't poke a bear with a stick" post is just saying it doesn't make sense to go out of your way to harm people- he is not saying you should avoid offending people at your own expense. You have more choices than just submitting to everyone's will or having zero concern for anyone.
  • Re:What A Mess (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:38PM (#32271948)
    I don't know about that. At my (state funded) university, a single person managed to get a website banned from campus because he was offended by it. So far it seems to be the one person and the one website, but who knows what would happen if others complained. Me, I just use a proxy and see whatever I want anyway.
  • by DJRumpy ( 1345787 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @07:39PM (#32271970)

    Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:

    Unlike the Hebrew Bible, and perhaps surprisingly, there is no commandment against making images of living beings in the Qur'an. But it does make clear that nothing should be honored alongside God:

    "God does not forgive the joining of partners [Arabic: shirk] with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48).
    All the Islamic injunctions against making religious images come from the hadith, traditions recorded by various followers about what the Prophet said and did. Although not divine revelation like the Qur'an, hadith is considered binding when multiple trustworthy sources agree

    "The outrage and violence occasioned by the infamous "Danish cartoon controversy" perhaps had more to do with disrespect for Islam than depictions of the Prophet"

    Ref: []

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @08:06PM (#32272242)

    All that says is that either Jesus isn't as revered an icon in your neighbourhood than Mohammed is in a Muslim one.

    So what you are saying is that the appropriate course of action to take when someone offends you is to kill the person.

    No, actually what it says is that people here understand that there is a big step between emotion and action.

    And let's pretend while you're walking down the street, a Muslim person runs up to you, pointing at you and accusing you of being a pedophile, say. By your argument, you'd not be allowed to take offence at that...

    I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.

    The fact that you can't perceive the difference makes you one or more of the following:

    1. stupid
    2. sociopath

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by neoform ( 551705 ) <> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @08:11PM (#32272302) Homepage

    Your passive neutrality offends my religion. I declare fatwa on you.

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ImprovOmega ( 744717 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @08:14PM (#32272348)

    So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?

    Yes. It absolutely is that important that we have the right to do this. Because if some group of fundamentalist douchebags is allowed to tell us what we can and cannot draw then it's only a matter of time before the avalanche starts. No, you can't have my first amendment rights, not yours to take.

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @08:29PM (#32272562)
    So? Oddly enough I consider myself civilized enough to realize that other people have their own opinions and are entitled to them as much as I am.

    I agree with Voltaire

    Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write

    You know, I'd like it for everyone to have the same political views as me, yet I accept the fact that democrats and republicans have both the right to speech, even speech I disagree with very much.

    Perhaps some of the uncivilized barbarian might rise up within me, but when you look at it rationally you will find that censorship is the destruction of basic human rights. That censorship leads to tyranny and oppression.

  • Re:Mohammed? (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @09:07PM (#32272982)

    Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children [], 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.

    But.... think of the children!

    Personally, they can block anything they want, if it wakes people up to the wrongs of censorship. Imagine if Facebook allowed me to post cartoon child porn (a.k.a. caricatures) and didn't remove it. How long do you think before Facebook would start getting banned in places in the US?

    Not long at all. We're not so different from them.

    Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.

    Maybe you should try that here in the South.... especially in redneck areas and the boonies. If you want to really be in danger, try being Jewish or Black.

  • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @09:13PM (#32273054) Journal

    The right to free expression is worth fighting for. These Muslims who are getting all upset do not accept that principle. If you had any sort of moral compas, you'd realize that matters of principle remain even when the matter being contested is as trivial as the right to draw a cartoon. It's the principle that matters, not the cartoon. But then, it's clear from your posts that you lack any sort of moral courage, and your only real princinple is "please don't hit me".

    Stop living in fear.

  • Re:What A Mess (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @09:20PM (#32273120) Journal

    This is a religion that, when a woman is raped, gives the rapists a stern talking to, then beats the woman to death for being such a slut. It's ful of moral values straight from the middle ages; things other religions are emarassed they did 500 years ago are still done under Sharia law in many places in the world today. Saying "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" is completely appropriate. Tolerance of this culture is immoral.

  • by Iron Condor ( 964856 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @09:39PM (#32273326)

    Although something similar may be posted below, I'm feeling to lazy to read the entire thread. There are no commandments in the Qur'an that ban images of this sort:

    It doesn't matter what is or isn't written in any one pretty book in the world.

    Fact of the matter is that Islam has been effectively censoring all western press for five years now.

    Here's where the line gets drawn [].

  • Re:Mohammed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @09:51PM (#32273466)
    We have no record of how old Mary the Mother of Jesus was when she married Joseph.
  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by asifyoucare ( 302582 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @10:28PM (#32273868)

    morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.

    Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.

    What is the basis for morality without a Higher Power? Why should I follow your morals if the physical is all there is?

    What basis is there for following God's will?

    Was the monster obliged to obey Frankenstein?

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrops ( 927562 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @10:35PM (#32273932)

    Actually I have been waiting for this article to come up, I am a Muslim.

    First the marriage issue, even among muslim's this age is disputed, however it serves most (pedophile muslim's) and more to the current topic anyone wanting to show Muslim faith in negative light (by todays standards of a western society). This group is quite large and probably growing because of actions of people who share my faith.

    The age comes from a reported incident where folks ask Aisha (years later) what her age was at marriage. Then the reply is recorded verbatim, "9". Problem is, at that time and even now, in arabic, if the base is known, it is not mentioned. So even if the age was 19, known base of 10 would not have been part of the reply, reply would have been 9. Anyhow, this is now just an academic discussion and fodder for those who want to debate on this.

    Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech. According to Muslim faith images of his and other revered muslim figures are forbidden, lest they spiral into idol worship. God and god alone is to be worshiped.

    Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.

    I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both. From what I see, the gap between west and Islam is only going to grow with stuff like cartoons of Mohammed, these guys are akin to suscide bombers of afghanistan, working towards inciting violence (which BTW is a crime in Canada).

    I hope things fix themselves in my life time, I really do. Reality check, they are gonna get worst before getting better. Muslim's need to understand western values and respect them, and west need to understand the Islamic faith and respect it. This is not happening in my lifetime.

    Just as Taliban and Alqaeda cannot be made to understand western values, so is the issue with the west. I don't even know who is blind, the west or Islam.

    Can't you see its offending 1.6 billion people, yet you go ahead and do it.

    I can go on, but those who want to understand my point probably did by reading what I have already said, those who did not never will.

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Omestes ( 471991 ) <omestes@gmail . c om> on Wednesday May 19, 2010 @11:36PM (#32274450) Homepage Journal

    First off, I'm not jumping on the "Muslim = Terrorist" bandwagon, or throwing more intolerance at Muslim's than I am willing to throw at any other religion.

    Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.

    Two problems; if I, in the US, deny the Holocaust the German authorities will not try to arrest me. Second, if someone in Germany (or elsewhere) publicly denies the Holocaust, no one will attempt to murder them, or their families. This is a pretty large difference between approaches.

    I personally am a big fan of self-censorship, if you don't like what I'm saying or drawing, ignore me, change the channel, cancel your subscription. No one is forcing you to look at these cartoons and drawings. This is a far more tasteful solution than banning everything (under threat of death in some cases) that someone, somewhere, in the world might find offensive. I personally find all religion somewhat distasteful, so can we ban it too? (I don't mean that in complete seriousness, religion is fine, until it starts hurting others).

    These cartoons serve a VERY valuable service, outside of pure "incitement", they, like all political cartoons, serve to highlight the absurdities in something. Sadly some sects of radical (and I would call them evil) Muslims lack the humor and introspection to realize that they are acting out the very thing that the cartoons are highlighting. They, with their reaction, are proving the cartoonists point.

    Muslims have a very bad image right now, and I think they deserve it. They need to reign in the creepy, totalitarian, rights abusing, and violent bits of their religion. They need to forcibly overthrow the corrupt bits of their culture. To expect others to live by their rules is silly, and plain wrong. I really don't care one bit what religion or culture you belong to, but who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?

    This isn't a Muslim verus the mythical "West" issue. If most Muslims followed their faith without enforcing their beliefs on others, or hurting people for not giving a crap about their pet religion, then no one would care. Well... I still would, since parts of the Muslim faith go completely against the ideas of freedom, and the ability of people to choose their own lives (the role of women, ect...) I have no expectation of you following my beliefs and world view, why would you expect me to do otherwise for you?

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr.mac@com> on Thursday May 20, 2010 @12:10AM (#32274696) Journal

    Was the monster obliged to obey Frankenstein?

    You raise a good point. Stanislaw Lem pointed out that if you postulate that there's a god, nothing at all follows from that assumption. If an omnipotent will exists, then by definition everything is already as it wants.


  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 20, 2010 @12:27AM (#32274808)
  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gtall ( 79522 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @06:08AM (#32276496)

    I do not believe Islam is capable of reform. In the West, political power comes from the people, if we forget the usurpers like lobbyists, corrupt politicians and the like. At least most constitutions of Western countries enshrine this notion. In Islamic countries, political power comes from Allah or at least that is what most Muslims believe and the usurpers like Mubarak and the Saudi royal family are aberrations. With the political will of the people denied by the people, the only true wielders of power in Islamic lands will be the mullahs and imams. These are the worst sort of people for wielding such power since they are answerable to no one. They will argue they are answerable to Allah but their own minds get to interpret how their actions are judged while here on Earth. So we get stupidities like the Saudi morality police, the fatwas against infidels they don't like, and the capricious nature of Islamic law; basing law on an out of date apocryphal book written by a probable late stage schizophrenic is not a basis for a successful society.

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @08:00AM (#32277120)
    I've always found it fascinating that God's most important employee is Satan. If Beez really did want to get back at the old man, he'd set up his own paradise instead of endlessly torturing those who sin against God. Hence; he's still on the payroll.
  • Re:Blasphemy? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by huckamania ( 533052 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @09:45AM (#32278250) Journal

    I'm not a christian, jew or muslim, but somehow the uncomfortable truth on slashdot gets labelled troll. I have karma to burn and I also had mod points, but every time this happens (a story about Islam turned into a Christian hate fest), I wonder what Freud would have thought.

    I don't hate any religions, I hate some of the followers and some of the practices, but then the same could be true of atheists, like most of the people turning this discussion of "Draw Mohammed Day" into "I have Mommy issues and she was a Christian" or what ever your problem is. Some of the atheists here are more dangerously deranged then the majority of people who think there might be a god somewhere, somehow.

  • Re:Seems reasonable (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mldi ( 1598123 ) on Thursday May 20, 2010 @09:56AM (#32278452)

    Now more to what the article is about Mohammed and his images. Problem here from a muslim perspective is not freedom of speech. According to Muslim faith images of his and other revered muslim figures are forbidden, lest they spiral into idol worship. God and god alone is to be worshiped.

    Now that's where it doesn't make sense. What you're saying here is that these cartoons will cause people to worship them. Do you really think anyone in your religion would worship these cartoon images? Or a South Park portrayal?

    Even if they did (which they don't), it wouldn't matter anyway, I'm just making a reasonable point.

Trap full -- please empty.