Pakistan has always been a failed state that refuses either to succeed or die. No country worries me more. If I could take away their nukes only on condition of giving them to Iran, I would.

Excellent and essential reporting, please keep it up. My heart goes out to the people in Pakistan who are unwillingly subjected to this insanity.

For those of us still living in free societies, tales like this are instructive of why we should give violent, political radicalism no quarter - whether motivated by religious or other beliefs.

Musharraf mollycoddled Pakistani religious politicos for nearly a decade to selfishly prop up his rule. Elections were rigged by the secret agencies, money was dished out and their egos were massaged. After the 2008 elections many, if not most, of these mullahs were swept away to political oblivion (with the exception of Balochistan where the generals ensured the mullahs got 'elected' at the expense of the anti-army nationalists).

These disgruntled mullahs have seized upon the anti-blasphemy law as a means of attaining political salvation. These wretches are able to whip up public emotion to a hazardous pitch simply because Pakistan's masses are largely illiterate and unquestioningly swallow large parcels of mistruths. And, thanks to General Zia's legacy, even some of those who have been educated in conservative local institutions fall under their sway.

And why are the masses still largely illiterate sixty-three years after the country's creation? It is because Pakistan annually spends Rs 512 billion on defence and Rs 7 billion on education(yes, 1.5 % of the Defence budget, which, thanks to the might of our generals, has become sacrosanct).

I asked my Pakistani friend for his opinion about this article. He gave me a beautiful answer:

'There is a well known story about the Prophet P.B.U.H that there was a lady in Medina (might have been Mekkah) who used to throw stones at him everyday as he used to pass through the street in front of her house. He never retaliated and just prayed to God to show her the right path. This went on for a while until one day she stopped. Instead of being happy that he can finally walk in peace, the prophet went to inquire about what had happened and found out that the lady had died. He blessed her and walked away.

How can we sentence someone to death when the prophet himself was extremely tolerant and taught his followers to follow suit. His life is supposed to be a model for us to follow, but this debate and clamor around the blasphemy law tells me that we have forgotten these simple but deep meaning stories that highlight what the definition of an ideal Muslim is.

People who are in favor of the blasphemy law need to understand their religion better. Islam is the religion of peace that instructs Muslims to be humble and tolerant.'

I recall a news report of a few years ago in which a boy in Saudi Arabia had questioned, in the schoolroom, the existence of god. He was arrested and sentenced to 1000 lashes. In their mercy, the authorities decreed that the boy should be given 40 lashes every Friday for a year. Such mind-boggling cruelty is what feeds anti-islamic sentiment.

The contents of this article pretty much sums up why there is so much Islamophobia in the world. If Muslims want respect for their religion, they have to give respect to religions. It is as simple as that!!!

"This is insane."

Enough said.

In Pakistan criticism of Blasphemy is Blasphemy. The Economist is guilty of Blasphemy. LoL

as islam is imposed more and more on pakistan it slides further and further into the toilet.

@Boefje

you raised a very important point, albeit unintentionally.

first the facts --

1. most of the Muslim majority nations are violent and have barbaric laws/customs. but certainly not all.

2. most nations which have barbaric laws/customs are Muslim majority. but certainly not all.

3. much of the terror in the world is fueled by Muslim organizations/youth taking part in it. but certainly not all.

4. most of the Muslim majority nations are autocracies of the worst kind, but certainly not all. (let us agree that China is not an autocracy of the worst kind - how could we not agree ?)

5. most of the worst autocracies are Muslim majority nations, again certainly not all.

keep in mind the above five facts. now as Boefje argues that Islam teaches Muslims to be peaceful, moderate, friendly and respectful to others then surely the population of these nations (the nations which fit the above five facts) must be fundamentally flawed. it must be that despite the 'best' religion of the world guiding their actions, they turn out to be so barbaric, vengeful and violent. God (or Allah) forbid, if they were guided by some really violent creed, they would have annihilated the whole world by now ....

surely the most ridiculous conclusions !

no population is inherently more or less barbaric than any other population. it is their prevalent culture which makes them so ... and now the sixth fact --

6. Islam dominates the popular as well as elite culture in most Muslim majority nations. And all the Muslim majority problem states of this kind. No Muslim majority state which is not a problem state allows Islam to dominate its culture/laws.

So the inescapable conclusion is that it is Islam which is at fault. Otherwise - I repeat - the fault must be of the (Muslim) population.

Please stop this canard of a peace loving Islam ... it is bogus. The sooner we accept this, the better for the world.

Unfortunately, there are not enough drones to solve the problem. Sanctions, anybody?

All of the unrest is directly caused by the religious law of the land. How can "divine Islamic" law, which is supposed to be superior to any man made law, going to account for all the ethnicities and religious groups that co-exist within the country - mo matter how much of a minority? Speaking on a personal level, I am a Korean-American Christian living in the United States but I would not agree with having the ten commandments as a fundamental basis for any of the laws I am governed by. I say this because the exact blasphemy that this boy from the article was arrested for arises from different interpretations and beliefs on what religious law constitutes for. Any man that sounds logical and intelligent has the potential to twist religion and use it to his own understanding. Religion, whatever it may be, does not hold uniform meaning for all people who live by it, and therefore cannot uniformly govern all people. Religion and politics do not go hand in hand and I think there is an overwhelming evidence from history to buttress that point without my having to explain it.

I don't understand why it's so hard for supposedly intelligent people to look at what happened and say aloud: 'Democracy is bad for Pakistan, it kills people'.

For expected retort that 'Democracies do not kill people, radicals kill people', I'll answer: 'Yeah, guns do not kill, either'.

Its a pity, Pakistani Elites, Religious scholars and Politicans have sofar failed to come up with an "ISLAMIC" definition of the offence. All they found convenient was to borrow the the wordings from Roman Catholic Church. Could anyone help me with the information, if Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had ever tried anyone of Blasphemy? I am sure in his days there were no shortage of allegation of this offence.

sad sad country, with a sad sad religion.

Reminds me of the book called 'The god of all small things'
A god that gets offended by mere words.

No Mist:

While probably being fundamentally right, you need to give these Islamic societies the leeway to reform themselves and their religious practices, just as Christian societies once did. Surely we should encourage those who would like to redefine their religion as one of peace, shouldn't we?

Expecting muslims to simply drop their religion is incredibly unrealistic. Helping them to make their religion more peaceful and tolerant is more likely to work.

Thanks to you pakistanis..all us muslims is fucked!!

Speaking of taking offence to mere words:

Liveinhope: you're an idiot...

Did the above have an impact on you? I hope it did and you felt offended. But I'll apologise because it was not my intention to offend, just to prove a point. Words do have an effect. They have the power to inspire, encourage, offend and otherwise stir emotions. That is as far as humans go. Equating God to humans is a completely separate topic altogether and I hope you realise the difference.

Separately to all readers who are hell bent to critising Islam as a religion, specially No Mist whose comments I found quite offensive, please try and realise two things:

a) Most of the countries that are predominantly Muslim have very high illiteracy rates. When you have a blend of religion that has been passed down from generation to generation (rather than the preferred manner of researching the nature and origins of religious doctrine), traditions, culture and illiteracy, it will typically result in a potent mixture of social disharmony.

b) Islamic history is full of examples where peace, tolerance and inter-religious understanding paved the way for human kind's overall progress. Almost 500 years back it was the melting pot of Muslims, Christians and Jews in Andalusia (Muslim ruled Spain) that led to a revival of art, culture and science. So please don't let yourselves be blinded by the constant barrage of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim media... and it HAS been relentless since the fall of Communism (something to think about perhaps). It would be very disappointing to have presumably educated and cognisant readers of the Economist forming such staunch views about any subject without undertaking sufficient, appropriate and objective research.

@Allofme

it is certainly not my intention to offend anybody. and definitely not any human being. religion however is no human being. and i see no reason for it to grant 'diplomatic immunity'.

please accept my apology in advance if i rub you the wrong way.

the gist of my point is this - it is either Islam at fault or the Muslims.

- by Islam being at fault, I mean the institution of Islamic religious practice/custom/education/worship/etc.

- by Muslims being at fault, I mean the human beings who (unfortunately?) happen to be Muslims are biologically deficient .. different from the rest of human species - fundamentally flawed - probably an "inhuman" species. Please do not get offended by this -- it is just a hypothesis.

If you reject the 'Islam at fault' hypothesis then you have to accept the "inhuman" alternative. And i find it quite demeaning and insulting not to say, racist too.

The people who so enthusiastically praise Islam as a religion of peace are actually being criminally patronizing to the Muslims .. in effect insulting them with the worst racial abuse. I am sure none of the "islam praisers" actually mean it. Most really do it cause they haven't thought about the real implication of exonerating Islam. Further they believe it to somehow enhance inter-religion harmony. I am just pointing out the logical deductions of their praise.

My question is - do you still want to do it ?