Pakistini student arrested for 'blasphemous' answer
Police have arrested a 17-year old Pakistani boy for writing an allegedly blasphemous remark in an examination paper, an officer said Tuesday.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have come under intense scrutiny since the murder last month of a prominent politician who had campaigned to change them. They allow for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam. Critics say they are often used to settle scores and unfairly target the country's non-Muslim minorities.
School authorities lodged a police complaint against the boy, identified as Sami Ullah, in January after reading an examination paper he took in the city of Karachi, said police officer Qudrat Shah Lodhi.
Lodhi said he could not repeat what the boy, who is a Muslim, had written because he would be committing blasphemy if he did. He said the boy told police he wrote the blasphemous material out of frustration when he was not able to answer the exam question.
"He submitted an apology to the examination authorities and feels ashamed and depressed," Lodhi said.
He said Ullah was arrested Jan. 29 and placed in police custody while officers investigated the case.
No one has been put to death for blasphemy, and most times guilty verdicts are overturned on appeal. But there have been several documented cases of mobs killing people accused of blasphemy.
Critics have said the laws either need to be repealed or amended to stop them from being abused or applied frivolously. But Pakistan's powerful clerical class have campaigned against any changes, and portrayed critics as being anti-Islam — a potent charge in this Muslim-majority nation.
Comments
The lawmakers in Hawaii were right to go ahead with prayer. What they would never do is to want someone in trouble with the law because of a remark against Christ. These remarks happen all the time, including many at this newspaper. Encouraging Christian prayer discourages events like the above from happening everywhere.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 1, 2011 7:31 PM
So, Clay, how exactly does "encouraging (Christian) prayer" in a governmental setting encourage pluralism and tolerance for other religions and cultures? Perhaps you would be "encouraged" if you found yourself in a country in which non-Christian prayers were a part of civil process? You always seem to forget that, in this country, you are protected by the First Amendment and allowed to practice your faith. You also seem to forget that others share that protection, as well as protection from your faith.
Posted by: BankStreet | February 2, 2011 6:07 AM
Hello Mr Bankstreet. The answer is simple. The more prayer and witnessing for Christ, the more people there are who are discouraged from jailing someone for any reason, especially if they become Christians. By the way, my name isnt clay. I wouldnt assume that he is the only one leaving comments here that support Christianity.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2011 10:27 AM
That's funny Clay: "I wouldnt assume that he is the only one leaving comments here that support Christianity."
We know it's you. We can tell by the way you fail to form the possessive.
Posted by: Dana | February 2, 2011 12:43 PM
Clay's keyboard doesn't have an apostrophe key.
Posted by: BankStreet | February 2, 2011 2:54 PM
So, Clay, your "simple" answer to my question presumes a huge groundswell of Christians, apparently overwhelming the oppressive majority of non-Christians, allowing the now-triumphant Christians to rule with benevolence over the defeated infidel. How nice.
Now a dose of reality: as a Christian minority in a non-Christian culture, how comfortable would you be with "your" government encouraging/sponsoring non-Christian prayers to start the legislative day? (Which was sort of my original question....)
Posted by: BankStreet | February 2, 2011 3:02 PM
Anonymous if you aren't Clay you sure have his writing style down. Your response didn't really answer the question Bankstreet asked you.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2011 4:33 PM
And I don't think he's going to.
Clay's response to a direct question is usually either an indirect ramble (usually touching upon homosexuality or the President's credentials) ... or silence.
Posted by: BankStreet | February 6, 2011 10:47 AM
Looks like it's silence.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 9, 2011 11:24 AM