Sri Lankan Lynched in Pakistan

[mangalavara]

In a grisly incident on Friday, Priyantha Kumara Diyawadana, who was in his 40s, was lynched and his body burnt by angry supporters of a hardline Islamist party which attacked a garment factory in Pakistan's Punjab province over blasphemy allegations.

President Arif Alvi tweeted: “The Sialkot incident is definitely very sad & shameful, and not religious in any way whatsoever. Islam is a religion that established cannons of deliberative justice rather than mob lynchings.”

"Mr Kumara allegedly tore a poster of the hardline TLP in which Quranic verses were inscribed and threw it in the dustbin. The poster of the Islamist party was pasted on the wall adjoining the office of Kumara. A couple of factory workers saw him removing the poster and spread the word in the factory," according to a police official in Pakistan's Punjab province.

"The mob dragged the suspect (the Sri Lankan national) from the factory and severely tortured him. After he succumbed to his wounds, the mob burnt his body before police reached there," the official said.

Late on Friday evening, Punjab Police said they have arrested 100 suspects, after identifying them through video footage.

You can read the full story here.

Mr. Alvi, if it's 'not religious in any way whatsoever,' what exactly was the nature of the lynching of Priyantha for supposed blasphemy?

 

[danieldemol]

Mr Alvi's remarks reek of no true Scotsman to me.

In my opinion.

 

[mangalavara]

Mr Alvi's remarks reek of no true Scotsman to me.

In my opinion.

I agree. 'A Muslim would not do such a thing because Islam does not allow it.' Not that that's exactly what he said, but it's kind of close.

Assuming Islamic law, according to whatever madhhab, does not allow a mob to be judge, jury, and executioner, I have to wonder why those men tortured and murdered that poor man and burned his body. Do they merely assume it is the Islamic thing to do? Do they have imams or perhaps self-appointed jurists who tell them to do those sorts of things?

 

[Glaurung]

Assuming Islamic law, according to whatever madhhab, does not allow a mob to be judge, jury, and executioner, I have to wonder why those men tortured and murdered that poor man and burned his body. Do they merely assume it is the Islamic thing to do? Do they have imams or perhaps self-appointed jurists who tell them to do those sorts of things?

I wouldn't expect irrational mobs prone to hair-trigger lynchings to have any time for the nuances of historical Islamic jurisprudence.

I recall reading that the Hanafi school Pakistan claims to follow does not mandate automatic death sentences for non-Muslim blasphemers. Pakistan's obsession with blasphemy is IMO a neurosis of its own making. I don't know that much about Pakistan except that the lunatic (or very cynical) mullahs have overrun the asylum.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You can read the full story here.

Mr. Alvi, if it's 'not religious in any way whatsoever,' what exactly was the nature of the lynching of Priyantha for supposed blasphemy?

I read the title and thought a guru named Lankan was lynched.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang...I'm gonna warn some friends who
live in Sri Lanka to avoid Pakistan.

 

[mangalavara]

Pakistan's obsession with blasphemy is IMO a neurosis of its own making.

Well said.

I don't know that much about Pakistan except that the lunatic (or very cynical) mullahs have overrun the asylum.

Sounds right. Something I know is that Pakistan used to be India. I think I ought to get a saffron cap that says MPIA on it. I'm not a Dolandh Trump supporter, by the way.

I read the title and thought a guru named Lankan was lynched.

Sri Guru Lankan Maharaj.

Dang...I'm gonna warn some friends who
live in Sri Lanka to avoid Pakistan.

Most of us in the world would avoid that country as long as it is what it is.

 

[danieldemol]

...Assuming Islamic law, according to whatever madhhab, does not allow a mob to be judge, jury, and executioner, I have to wonder why those men tortured and murdered that poor man and burned his body. Do they merely assume it is the Islamic thing to do? Do they have imams or perhaps self-appointed jurists who tell them to do those sorts of things?

The article doesn't say whether there were religious leaders amongst the "activists" of the TLP but having read many articles on blasphemy in Pakistan over the years the impression i'm left with is that the TLP leaders are religious leaders.

This is from Al-Jazeera;
'"Police experts are investigating this case from various angles, including that some factory workers played a religious card to take revenge on the manager,” said Tahir Ashrafi, a religious scholar and special representative of the prime minister on religious harmony' 1

For me I'm doubtful that a religious card could be played if this act didn't occur against a backdrop of religious leaders inciting people against blasphemy.

In my opinion.

1 Dozens arrested in Pakistan after Sri Lankan lynched, set ablaze

 

[mangalavara]

The article doesn't say whether there were religious leaders amongst the "activists" of the TLP but having read many articles on blasphemy in Pakistan over the years the impression i'm left with is that the TLP leaders are religious leaders.

What I had in mind was if they have religious leaders in their life in general who justify those sorts of things rather than religious leaders on the spot who tell them to torture and murder their factory manager.

 

[danieldemol]

What I had in mind was if they have religious leaders in their life in general who justify those sorts of things rather than religious leaders on the spot who tell them to torture and murder their factory manager.

Yes I would say it is religious leaders in their life in general.

I tried finding a BBC documentary on blasphemy in Pakistan which was released closer to the time of Asia Bibi in which the journalist interviewed some of these far right conservative clerics, but couldn't locate it sadly, however this article from January in the guardian sheds some light on the role the ulama play in blasphemy uproars;

Islamic scholar attacks Pakistan's blasphemy laws

In it a more moderate Pakistani scholar of Islam says;

'..."These ulema [council of clerics] are just telling lies to the people," said Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a reformist scholar and popular television preacher.'

Then there is the case of a Pakistani parliamentarian who has spoken in favour of amending the Blasphemy law;

'Sherry Rehman, a PPP parliamentarian who proposed changes to the legislation, was herself charged with blasphemy this week. Since Taseer's death she has been confined to her Karachi home after numerous death threats, some issued publicly by clerics.'

So it seems to me that radical power hungry Islamic religious clerics are ultimately providing justification for killing people perceived as blasphemers.

In my opinion.

 

[Jainarayan]

I agree. 'A Muslim would not do such a thing because Islam does not allow it.' Not that that's exactly what he said, but it's kind of close.

Assuming Islamic law, according to whatever madhhab, does not allow a mob to be judge, jury, and executioner, I have to wonder why those men tortured and murdered that poor man and burned his body. Do they merely assume it is the Islamic thing to do? Do they have imams or perhaps self-appointed jurists who tell them to do those sorts of things?

Consider the atrocities the Catholic Church and Christians of other denominations have committed due to either deliberate or ignorant misuse and abuse of the Bible ... the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Goa Inquisition, the Salem witch hysteria, the decimation of indigenous American civilizations. None of those things are in any way taught by Christianity.

 

[mangalavara]

Consider the atrocities the Catholic Church and Christians of other denominations have committed due to either deliberate or ignorant misuse and abuse of the Bible ... the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Goa Inquisition, the Salem witch hysteria, the decimation of indigenous American civilizations. None of those things are in any way taught by Christianity.

As someone who had read the New Testament five times in the past, I never found anything promoting or justifying atrocities by the Church. I used to read the Church Fathers quite a bit in the past as well, and I don't recall any of that in their writings either. It is quite apparent to me that Christianity, especially as it was understood by the ancients, does not teach aggression against nonbelievers. The 17th century Pilgrims, of course, committed their atrocities against indigenous civilizations in America with some sort of biblical justification, namely, the idea that the Pilgrims were the new Israel and that God supposedly gave them America as the new Land of Israel. (I learned that part from reading primary sources when I took a course called Colonial New England for my minor.) Interestingly, the Bible, the Fathers, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils never mentioned such a thing. Give some people an innocent religion and they will use it to justify their wicked deeds! Products of the Kali Yuga they are!

 

[Jainarayan]

As someone who had read the New Testament five times in the past, I never found anything promoting or justifying atrocities by the Church. I used to read the Church Fathers quite a bit in the past as well, and I don't recall any of that in their writings either.

Of course not. I don’t know exactly when or where things turned ugly but I know that medieval popes were very martial. It may have been that church leaders turned a blind eye or tacitly approved what rulers did.