Pakistan is battling against it, which begs the obvious question of why, and the response is blasphemy, which is broadly defined as disrespecting God or the Almighty. Let's now focus on Pakistan, which has started a new war—against who, I hear you ask. You're familiar with Wikipedia, the popular website that almost all students use as a resource for assignments.
What is blasphemy, exactly?
How should we define disrespect?
Are these concepts arbitrary? If this is the case, Pakistan's Tom Dick and Harry can use the term "blasphemy" as a rallying cry, and Wikipedia is under fire from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for purportedly hosting sacrilegious material. Pakistan alleges that after requesting that Wikipedia remove specific content, the website purportedly refused, and as a result Pakistan is now abusing the platform's functionality by using the coton code. In essence, it has slowed down the page and Pakistan has given Wikipedia 48 hours to remove any burgeoning content or face being blacklisted. Can Pakistan, though, really forbid Wikipedia? The Pakistani people will surely not be pleased, even if it does. Tick-Tock was briefly banned in Pakistan in 2021 because of its offensive and immoral content. In contrast to what one might anticipate considering Pakistan's reliance on oddity, this was not done out of concern for public safety or because of incorrect information. The Pakistani definition of objectionable and immoral stuff.
A metal cup that was laying next to the well was being used to hydrate Asia Bibi, a Christian lady who had been charged with blasphemy. I understand that some of you are wondering how drinking water from a cup constitutes blasphemy, but in Pakistan, questions of this nature are often frowned upon. Pakistan essentially imprisons those who commit blasphemy and condemns them to death. The study claims that by 2021, 89 people had been executed by the government for alleged blasphemy, and about 1500 more had been charged with the offence. The nation routinely employs the ambiguity of blasphemy to resolve disputes and oppresses minorities, especially Christians, Hindus, and Amethysts.The actual number is significantly greater, according to analysts at the Center for Research and Security Studies, and do you understand why? due to the fact that many blasphemy instances go unreported. For instance, a Pakistani guy murdered and dismembered his thigh lover in 2011 because he thought she had committed blasphemy. If Wikipedia is added to the list of blasphemy victims in Pakistan, it's unclear what the point of this farce is. The Telecom Authority can go and change the content directly, therefore technically Pakistan does not need to rely on Wikipedia to delete allegedly offending material.
It's a very simple process. Simply register, create an account, and manage breaking news that anybody can edit. If Wikipedia and PTA had done their research, they would have known this; unfortunately, now that they know it, PTA cannot save any energy, which brings me to my second point: energy We could remain in this room all night discussing the problems Pakistan is facing, but you get the idea: It is High Time. You know, Pakistan needs to pay attention to much more urgent matters. The financial crisis, the Peshawar suicide bombing, the TTP or Tariki Taliban's expanding influence, Pakistan's corruption, flood compensation, and rehabilitation. Tell me one thing: how will Wikipedia be affected if Pakistan bans it? be considered a success? How difficult is it today to access a website that is blocked? This entire operation is a waste of time and energy, but perhaps Pakistan wants it that way. It seeks to deflect attention from the mounting hardship by playing the blasphemy card and stirring up religious passions. But here's a thought. Take or leave Islamabad must stop borrowing concepts from Wikipedia-educated Spin Masters and develop a more effective plan. A great number of Pakistanis have unavoidably suffered at the hands of other countries, despite the Quran's instruction to Muslims to respect all other faiths.
0 Comments