Share the post “Blasphemy Cases in Pakistan Plummet—but Reuters Has Not Proved Who Deserves the Credit”
Refuting the Anti-Pakistan Pile-On
The reaction beneath the Reuters report rapidly abandoned evidence and descended into abuse. Critics were entitled to challenge anonymous sourcing, question the attribution of credit, demand coverage of political repression and compare the story with documented restrictions on journalism. They were not entitled to turn that criticism into racist slurs against Pakistanis, sectarian conspiracy theories, insults against religious communities or claims that every Pakistani journalist is a militant merely because of their nationality.
Calling Pakistan a “factory” of terrorism, ridiculing its people through ethnic slurs or assigning collective guilt to hundreds of millions is not human-rights advocacy. It is dehumanisation wearing the costume of liberal concern.
Likewise, labelling named reporters “jihadis” because they are Pakistani is not media criticism. Asif Shahzad, Ariba Shahid, Mubasher Bukhari and Rick Noack should be scrutinised on their reporting, sourcing, omissions and evidentiary choices. Their ethnicities, presumed beliefs and names are irrelevant. Evidence-based criticism challenges the article. Bigotry attacks the authors’ identity.
Pakistan does face terrorism, sectarian violence, institutional overreach and political polarisation. Acknowledging those threats does not validate outsiders who treat Pakistani suffering as entertainment or use Kashmir, Balochistan and religious minorities as disposable weapons in an online information war. The Global Terrorism Index 2026 material circulated online depicts Pakistan as exceptionally affected by terrorism; even if one disputes particular rankings or methodologies, Pakistanis are the victims of this violence—not its collective authors.
Refuting anti-Pakistan propaganda does not require pretending that every state institution is faultless. Patriotism is loyalty to Pakistan’s people, Constitution and future. It is not a lifetime immunity certificate for whichever civilian or military officeholder temporarily exercises power.
Freedom of Speech Is Not Freedom to Manufacture a Mob
Pakistan’s constitutional settlement already provides the correct framework. Article 19 protects freedom of speech and expression while permitting reasonable restrictions prescribed by law, including restrictions connected with the glory of Islam, public order, morality, national security and the integrity of Pakistan. Article 19A protects access to information. Article 10A guarantees fair trial and due process.
These protections must be read together. Religious sanctity matters. Public order matters. So do evidence, lawful investigation, the presumption of innocence and a defendant’s right to reach a courtroom alive.
Freedom of speech does not create a right to fabricate blasphemy evidence, weaponise edited screenshots, incite murder, reveal an accused person’s location or direct a mob toward a family. At the same time, religious protection cannot become a pretext for silencing political criticism, investigative reporting, legal debate or scrutiny of state institutions.
Pakistan’s own National Commission for Human Rights assessment of the PECA 2025 amendments reaches a similarly important conclusion: digital laws can address harassment, fraud and abuse, particularly against women and children, but broad and vague definitions enable overreach. The answer is transparent, rights-based regulation—not an unaccountable digital blackout and not an unregulated online jungle.
This is also why the attack on YouTuber Rajab Butt inside court premises represented a dangerous collapse of institutional boundaries. As explored in Why Rajab Butt Was Assaulted Inside a Karachi Courtroom, a courtroom must remain the place where allegations are tested, not where punishment is delivered by a crowd.
The Law, Its History and Its Misuse Are Three Different Questions
Pakistan’s original religious-offence provisions emerged from colonial legislation intended to contain communal incitement. Later amendments introduced Islam-specific provisions and much harsher penalties, including Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. These laws remain part of Pakistan’s legal order, but their existence does not legalise vigilantism.
Human Rights Watch reported that blasphemy accusations increasingly relied on alleged social-media material and recorded at least 475 cases in 2024, while another frequently cited civil-society count documented 344 cases. The difference itself demonstrates why case definitions and methodologies must be published instead of figures being exchanged as political ammunition.
The historical record also contradicts the claim that blasphemy accusations exclusively target one minority. Muslims have constituted a substantial proportion—and in some datasets a majority—of accused persons, while Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and other vulnerable communities face disproportionate exposure relative to their population sizes. Both facts can be true.
What must be confronted is the business model around false allegations: land grabbing, personal revenge, family disputes, digital entrapment, blackmail and the intimidation of judges and lawyers. Human Rights Watch’s investigation into blackmail and property disputes provides disturbing evidence of how religious accusations can be converted into financial and coercive power.
Defending the honour of Islam and defending an extortionist who manufactures evidence are not the same act. Confusing them dishonours faith and abandons justice.
