aadil

Generally, if you keep a low profile, you're fine. It's not like the average person will try to fight you if they find out you're an atheist. It is extremely taboo, though. In my case, most of my friends are left-wing activists and/or artists, so it is not a problem for me socially, but I think I am an outlier in that respect. I do hide it at the office though (or at least I did when I was going to one), and from my extended family, and of course from strangers.

It is absolutely not something you can be public about. If somehow, you become publicly visible and recognized as an atheist, it is best that you flee the country lest you end up in the same situation as the girl in the OP.

I wouldn't say majority of the country is batshit crazy, it is just held hostage by an archaic religion that is extremely violent towards blasphemers.

You might say, that is not much of a difference, but imo it is a meaningful difference because most muslims disagree or refuse to act on this belief (as evidenced by the police and shopkeepers who protected the girl), they just can't do anything to change that it is part of orthodox Islam. So the hardliners win on this one, every time.

Only way to fix it is to secularize the state, which will either take a revolution or a lot of fucking time. Definitely not happening in my lifetime.

It is a complicated question.

Capital punishment for blasphemy is a mainstream theological position in Islam, accepted by the 4 major Sunni schools of thought. I do not know of any Shia tradition that goes against this position either. The only exception in my knowledge is one Sunni tradition, the Hanafi school, that prohibits the killing of non-muslims specifically for the crime of blasphemy, that too only if they are not habitual offenders. So, e.g. satirists like Charlie Hebdo would still face capital punishment, and of course any Muslim that commits blasphemy (e.g. ex-muslim atheists like me).

According to this Pew Poll, 84% of Pakistanis favor Islamic Sharia becoming the law of the land. This matches my personal experience. I know very few Muslims who think of Sharia as an unjust legal system.

I know many people who privately disagree with the idea of a death penalty for blasphemy. However, when you live in a country that is an "Islamic republic", Islamic jurisprudence as a big influence on the legal system, and with Islam in general having a hegemony over public morality, your private disagreement does not matter and has no political power. Basically, the whole country is held hostage by Islam. And every Pakistani knows that capital punishment for blasphemy is the mainstream position. Every single Pakistani knows that being perceived as committing blasphemy, or even publicly disagreeing with the blasphemy law puts you in danger.

In 2011, one of our sitting governors was assassinated by his own security guard for allegedly committing blasphemy. His killer, Mumtaz Qadri, became a hero for the religious right overnight and the killer's funeral (he was executed by the state for vigilante assassinating the governor; despite the blasphemy law, only the State has the right to execute convicted blasphemers) was attended by thousands of devotees. His grave has turned into a shrine.

The Tehreek-e-Labbaik party, a far-right Islamist party whose primary raison d'être is defending Islam from blasphemers has held protests large enough to paralyse the whole country and enjoyed significant electoral success in 2018.

So, no, it is not a law that is imposed by a tyrannical minority. It is a law imposed by the majoritarian hegemony of one religion.

And in my opinion, and subjective experience, this holds true for not just Pakistan but most muslim-majority countries. I would feel just as unsafe as an atheist in any muslim-majority country as I currently do in Pakistan.

True but it also suggested that democracy cannot work in these countries at all.

how democracy could work in countries like that? You will always descend to things like Modi

To which I replied that it is not trying to institute democracy that causes this, but rather supporting dictatorships and anti-democratic actors, which is what western powers have been doing.

But good to know there is little we disagree about on this topic besides phrasing and perhaps our degree of optimism about the democratic process, or lack thereof.

Unfortunately, we also have a law that requires capital punishment for anyone found guilty of blasphemy. The mob and the state are on the same page in this respect.

I guess my disagreement is that Western countries are in no position to give these tools because they have not undergone that process themselves. The master's tools will not dismantle the master's house, etc

Yeah, but this is equally a problem in European and North American countries, too. So they are in no position to "educate" our populations on how to do democracy. They just need to stop supporting anti-democratic forces and engage with our countries based on their professed democratic principles rather than geopolitical interests.

lol. lmao. Well there you go. That is the kind of role Western powers play in our democracies. In Pakistan also, the Reagan administration gave a lot of support to General Zia ul Haq so that he could arm the Taliban to defeat communists in the Afghan civil war. And, surprise surprise, Zia also started a heavy crackdown on all left-wing movements in Pakistan, especially student unions.

Also re: "educating the population" about how to participate in a democracy - as someone who spent the last 3 years doing housing rights activism in the inner city, I can attest that people who are less economically privileged and ostensibly less "educated" tend to vote at higher rates than the middle and upper class, and participate actively in local politics because even incremental progress in e.g. public welfare programs or improving local infrastructure has a big impact on them. This also holds true for the rural working class.

So I don't think it is a matter of education. I know several highly educated boomers who e.g. were very supportive of the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf from 2000 - 2008. Incidentally the US was also highly supportive of his regime because of his role in the war on terror.

I can't speak to how things are playing out in Libya, but in Pakistan western powers have almost done the opposite. They have no qualms in working directly with the military to further their geopolitical interests, and historically the periods of dictatorship have been when Pakistan has gotten the most economic & material assistance from the US.

Right now, Pakistan is undergoing yet another democratic crisis as the recent elections were clearly rigged by the military. The US has decided to treat it as an "internal matter" and not put any pressure. If they had done something like make getting the next IMF loan contingent on an external audit of the election results, or on stopping digital censorship (Twitter/X has been blocked here for the past 2 weeks to suppress discussion of the rigged election results), it might even the odds a bit and help citizens and political parties challenge the hegemony of the military over the political process.

But yes regime change and just toppling dictators and installing your favorite candidate is not the answer.

I disagree with that assessment. At least with respect to Pakistan, ideological capture by the right-wing was facilitated by anti-democratic forces. There is a very strong "Mullah-military connection". It was during the dictatorship of General Zia in the 1980s that Pakistan officially became an "Islamic Republic". He banned public dance/music performances, established Shariah courts, introduced anti-women rape laws and instituted the blasphemy law which is mentioned in the linked article. More recently, the army has been facilitating the rise of Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan through patronage, a right-wing reactionary party that primarily centers the defence of Islam and going after blasphemers. They also funded and armed several Islamist militant groups as proxies against India (not to mention the Afghan Taliban in the 80s with the help of the US).

Had Pakistan's democracy not been meddled with by the military, had we not gone through Zia's Islamization in the 80s, things would not be as fucked as they are today.

And from my vantage point as a Pakistani, the only reason things in India didn't get similarly bad until the recent rise of BJP is because India was founded as a secular democracy and had a functioning democratic system (at least relative to us). BJP is also a populist anti-democratic force, similar to MAGA in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines, and Georgia Meloni and her alt-right peers in Europe. Religious populism is not unique to us developing nations, it is a rising threat around the world. However, I will agree that we are suffering the worst of it because lack of civil rights and weak civil institutions.

It's alright, I didn't perceive you to be minimising the situation. It's just this issue touches a raw nerve for me and I felt compelled to point out how much worse it is here. Appreciate your empathy.